rural-urban dynamics_report.pdf - Khazar University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

70 MACROECONOMIC, TRADE, AND AID DEVELOPMENTS GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 from the economic crisis (OECD 2012b). At Gleneagles, the G-8 donors also envisaged an increase in total ODA to Africa of $25 billion in 2004 prices and exchange rates. In current prices and exchange rates, that translates into an increase of an estimated $29 billion in 2010. Yet estimates show that Africa only received an additional $11.8 billion in 2010. Given the decline in ODA in 2011 and 2012, it is clear that this situation has not improved. Regional aid Although ODA disbursements were lower in 2011 than in 2010, the trend in regional ODA remained stable. Aid is mainly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, which received 43 percent of net ODA disbursements in 2011, South Asia (21 percent), and the Middle East and North Africa (11 percent) (figure 1.23). While Sub-Saharan Africa still received most of the aid, this region suffered a further decrease in 2012, with flows of $26.2 billion, or a decline of 7.9 percent in real terms compared with 2011. Europe and Central Asia also saw a fall in net bilateral ODA flows of 17 percent in real terms from 2010; between 2010 and 2011, the decline was around 6 FIGURE 1.23 Net ODA disbursements to developing regions Percent 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 East Asia and Pacific Source: OECD DAC 2012. Europe and Central Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa South Asia 1990–2000 2001–10 2011 Sub- Saharan Africa FIGURE 1.24 Net ODA disbursements to lowand middle-income countries US$ millions (2010 prices) 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Low-income countries Source: OECD DAC 2012. percent as the region made strong gains toward poverty alleviation. Latin America sustained a decrease of 3 percent in 2011, while South Asia registered a shortfall of 2 percent. The only region with an increase in net ODA disbursements was the Middle East and North Africa, with the revolutions in this region triggering more aid. Special groups Lowermiddleincome countries Uppermiddleincome countries Low-income countries, excluding Afghanistan 1990–2000 2001–11 Middleincome countries, excluding Iraq Low-income countries received 3 percent more aid in 2011 compared with 2010. Middle-income countries, on the other hand, suffered a decline of 17.2 percent from 2010. For lower-middle-income countries, net ODA disbursements decreased 8.9 percent from 2010, to $5.7 billion (figure 1.24). When all developing countries are considered, ODA disbursements per capita have increased for countries with no more than two of the MDGs achieved (figure 1.25). Even though aid fell in 2011, the flows are still being directed to those countries lagging the most (that is, the countries furthest from achieving the MDGs). For example, the group of countries in a fragile situation that have met or are currently on
GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 MACROECONOMIC, TRADE, AND AID DEVELOPMENTS 71 FIGURE 1.25 Net ODA received per capita by groups of countries ranked by MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (2009–11) FIGURE 1.26 Net ODA received per capita by groups of countries ranked by MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 US$ (constant 2010) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 64 7 16 Fragile states 98 70 413 Small states 56 39 26 Heavily indebted poor countries 0–2 MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (23 countries FSC, 33 SST, 24 HIPC ) 3–5 MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (1 country FSC, 1 SST, 4 HIPC) 6–10 MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (1 country FSC, 1 SST, 3 HIPC) US$ (constant 2010) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 17 7 9 1990–92 14 5 0–2 MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (114 countries) 3–5 MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (12 countries) 6–10 MDG targets met or on track to be met by 2015 (8 countries) 4 19 4 4 2000–02 2009–11 Source: OECD DAC 2012. Note: FSC = fragile states; SST = small states; HIPC = Heavily indebted poor countries. Source: OECD DAC 2012. Note: FSC = fragile; SST = small states; HIPC = Heavily indebted poor countries. track to achieve no more than two MDGs received an annual average of $64 per capita in 2009–11 (figure 1.26). Fragile, small, and heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) also suffered the consequences of a smaller amount of ODA disbursements from 2010 to 2011 (figure 1.27). Fragile states and small states received 6 percent less in ODA disbursements than they did in 2010; and the flow to HIPCs decreased by 4.1 percent. Fragile states—those countries often in internal conflict or with severe political instability—are the developing countries most challenged in meeting the Millennium Development Goals. These countries are typically characterized by weak institutions and macroeconomic instability. For obvious reasons, peace- or state-building activities take priority over economic policy making. Macroeconomic policy advice and implementation are hampered by lack of timely and reliable statistics. Effective engagement by international organizations and development partners requires a recognition of the limited capacity FIGURE 1.27 Net ODA disbursements to fragile, small, and HIPC states US$ millions per capita (2010 prices) 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 Fragile states Small states Source: OECD DAC 2012. Note: HIPC = Heavily indebted poor countries. HIPC and large financing needs of these fragile countries. Fragile states are vulnerable countries with few if any resources available with which to address vulnerabilities. In a possible
Page 3:
Global Monitoring Report 2013 Rural
Page 6 and 7:
© 2013 International Bank for Reco
Page 8 and 9:
vi CONTENTS GLOBAL MONITORING REPOR
Page 10 and 11:
viii CONTENTS GLOBAL MONITORING REP
Page 13 and 14:
Foreword Global Monitoring Report (
Page 15 and 16:
Acknowledgments This report has bee
Page 17:
Abbreviations and Acronyms ADB Asia
Page 20 and 21:
GMR 2013 Rural-Urban Dynamics and t
Page 22 and 23:
4 OVERVIEW GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
10 OVERVIEW GLOBAL MONITORING REPOR
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39: Goals and Targets from the Millenni
Page 40 and 41: Progress toward the MDGs Only two y
Page 42 and 43: primary completion, and access to s
Page 44 and 45: FIGURE 1a Poverty rates (living on
Page 46 and 47: MDG 2 Achieve universal primary edu
Page 48 and 49: MDG 3 Promote gender equality and e
Page 50 and 51: MDG 4 Reduce child mortality In mos
Page 52 and 53: MDG 5 Reduce maternal mortality MDG
Page 54 and 55: MDG 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
Page 56 and 57: FIGURE 6e Children under age 5 who
Page 58 and 59: FIGURE 7b Access to sanitation by r
Page 60 and 61: Improving the measurement of develo
Page 63 and 64: 1 Macroeconomic, Trade, and Aid Dev
Page 65 and 66: GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 MACRO
Page 87: GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 MACRO
Page 103 and 104: 2 Rural-Urban Disparities and Dynam
Page 105 and 106: GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 RURAL
Page 139 and 140:
GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 RURAL
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 147 and 148:
3 How Can Urbanization Accelerate P
Page 149 and 150:
GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2013 URBAN
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Appendix Table A1.1 Classification
Page 198:
ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits St
show all

rural-urban dynamics_report.pdf - Khazar University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?