Goals in a Post-2015 Development Framework - Center on ...

cic.nyu.edu

Goals in a Post-2015 Development Framework - Center on ...

At Rio+20, world leaders renewed their commitment to sustaong>inong>able development (“an economically, socially andenvironmentally sustaong>inong>able future for our planet”). They also emphasized that freeong>inong>g humanity from povertyremaong>inong>s the world’s most urgent global challenge.After Rio, the High-level Panel of Emong>inong>ent Persons on the ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong> ong>Developmentong> Agenda was asked to: Design a post-ong>2015ong> development agenda that will end poverty, while settong>inong>g out prong>inong>ciples for reshapong>inong>g theglobal partnership for development. Integrate its work with the ong>inong>tergovernmental Open Workong>inong>g Group, which is designong>inong>g a set of sustaong>inong>abledevelopment goals.In the Rio outcome document, goals, targets and ong>inong>dicators were described as “valuable ong>inong> measurong>inong>g andacceleratong>inong>g progress.” This paper explores the role that goals could play ong>inong> a post-ong>2015ong> agenda.Its objectives are to: Explore what different types of goals can (and cannot) achieve. Set out options for ong>inong>tegratong>inong>g poverty and sustaong>inong>able development goals. Clarify the choices that must be made if the post-ong>2015ong> development agenda is to end poverty withong>inong> a generation.This paper does not advocate a particular option. Instead, it aims to contribute to a more ong>inong>formed post-ong>2015ong> debate,by ensurong>inong>g that all participants understand areas of potential agreement and disagreement. Its maong>inong> focus is onpoverty, given the early stage of debate on the development of a comprehensive set of SDGs.1


Designong>inong>g ong>Goalsong> and Targets ong>Goalsong> for people, systems, and planet What makes a good goal?2


Understandong>inong>g ong>Goalsong> and TargetsThe Millennium ong>Developmentong> ong>Goalsong> are a framework of eight goals, twenty-one targets, and sixty ong>inong>dicators. The goals express ambitious commitments to “freeong>inong>g the entire human race from want” (for example, eradicateextreme poverty and hunger). Targets are used to quantify each goal (halve, between 1990 and ong>2015ong>, the proportion of people whose ong>inong>come isless than one dollar a day), while ong>inong>dicators enable progress agaong>inong>st these targets to be measured.Most of the MDGs focus directly on deliverong>inong>g outcomes for people across multiple dimensions of poverty. Meetong>inong>gthese goals would fulfill the commitment to freeong>inong>g all “men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizong>inong>gconditions of extreme poverty.”The Millennium Declaration also aimed “to create an environment… which is conducive to development and to theelimong>inong>ation of poverty.” The right to development can only be delivered through “good governance withong>inong> eachcountry,” for example. Specific action is also needed to protect civilian populations from natural disasters, genocide,armed conflicts and other humanitarian emergencies. The MDG framework, however, largely excludes targets forbuildong>inong>g the effective societies on which poverty reduction depends.Some global targets are ong>inong>cluded ong>inong> the framework, with potential benefits that stretch far beyond the poor. An open,rule-based, predictable, non-discrimong>inong>atory tradong>inong>g and fong>inong>ancial system is important to “ensur[ong>inong>g] that globalizationbecomes a positive force for all the world’s people.” The target on biodiversity loss aims to protect both this, andfuture, generations “from the threat of livong>inong>g on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resourceswould no longer be sufficient for their needs.”3


Primary focus ofthe MDGsUniversal goals and targets for changong>inong>g thelives of the world’s poorest peopleCovered by theMillennium Declaration,but not by the MDGsBuildong>inong>g national and local systems thatsupport poverty reductionLesser focus ofthe MDGsong>Goalsong> and targets that deliver or protect publicgoods that benefit this and future generationsThe Millennium Declaration contaong>inong>s a vision for creatong>inong>g a global and national environment that would end poverty,while ensurong>inong>g development could be sustaong>inong>ed for future generations.The MDGs, however, are composed primarily of people-focused goals, and have few targets that cover the factorsenablong>inong>g poverty reduction.4


What Makes ong>Goalsong> Effective?ong>Goalsong> and targets have two primary functions: They provide a yardstick that enables us to monitor whether a desired result has been (or is likely to be) achieved. They can themselves become tools that drive progress towards achievong>inong>g that result.Although data quality is sometimes problematic, the MDGs have been extensively monitored, allowong>inong>g the UNSecretary-General to report “results [that] represent a tremendous reduction ong>inong> human sufferong>inong>g and are a clearvalidation of the approach embodied ong>inong> the MDGs.”However, we lack robust evidence on the extent to which the MDGs are responsible for acceleratong>inong>g this progress.Clearly, much poverty reduction would have happened without global development goals, but has there been anong>inong>cremental impact on the speed with which people are escapong>inong>g poverty? And if so, which goals and targets havebeen most effective, and why?In the absence of a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the MDGs, it seems likely that normative goals canachieve three distong>inong>ct types of impact. First, they can provide a focus for debate, advocacy, and policydevelopment. Second, they offer a common strategic language that allows different types of actor to understandand work with each other. And fong>inong>ally, they can attract and direct resources, and drive higher standards of delivery.Targets ong>inong>evitably have costs as well as benefits, however. ong>Developmentong> is complex, but goals and targets must belimited ong>inong> number and relatively simple. The result is a trade-off. Simpler targets are more likely to be useful, but candistort ong>inong>centives. More sophisticated targets may be more technically appealong>inong>g, but risk beong>inong>g quickly forgotten.5


The MDGs have retaong>inong>ed their relevance to global policy and strategy for a decade. It is important to select goals andtargets that will be equally effective after ong>2015ong>.6


To summarize, when designong>inong>g goals andtargets, we need clarity on…….the overall missionIs the framework designed to achieve a song>inong>gle mission for a clearlydefong>inong>ed target group, or does it have multiple objectives?…the role played by different types of goalWhat is the right blend of goals for people, goals for societies andsystems, and goals for global public goods?…the hard choices ong>inong>herent to effective goalsHow do we balance the need for effective advocacy with goals thatdrive strategy and implementation? And what is the right trade-offbetween simplicity and complexity?7


Integratong>inong>g Poverty andSustaong>inong>able ong>Developmentong> ong>Goalsong> for 1 and 7 billion people Options for ong>inong>tegratong>inong>g poverty ong>inong>to abroader SDG framework8


SDGs and Poverty ong>Goalsong>In designong>inong>g goals to replace the MDGs, the most fundamental question is how to ong>inong>tegrate goals for povertyeradication ong>inong>to a broader sustaong>inong>ability framework.The MDG framework is primarily focused on poverty, but ong>inong>cludes a small number of broader sustaong>inong>ability goals. Thisis an unsatisfactory compromise. Why ong>inong>clude biodiversity, but not climate or energy? And why ong>inong>clude global goalsfor the environment, but not for the economic and social pillars of sustaong>inong>able development? The Rio+20 outcomedocument sets much more ambitious criteria for SDGs, which it says must cover all three dimensions of sustaong>inong>abledevelopment and their ‘ong>inong>terlong>inong>kages’.It describes poverty eradication as one of the ‘overarchong>inong>g objectives’ of sustaong>inong>able development, along with: Sustaong>inong>able production and consumption, and the related challenges of ong>inong>clusive and equitable economicgrowth and creatong>inong>g greater opportunities for all. Equitable social development and ong>inong>clusion – for all the world’s citizens, and not just for those livong>inong>g ong>inong> absolutepoverty – and the related objective of reducong>inong>g ong>inong>equality. Managong>inong>g the resource base and ecosystems on which economic and social development depends, whileong>inong>creasong>inong>g resilience ong>inong> the face of new and emergong>inong>g challenges.It is therefore clear that poverty reduction is an essential part of sustaong>inong>able development, not the other wayaround. Poverty reduction will not happen, or will only be temporary, if the world contong>inong>ues on its currentunsustaong>inong>able trajectory.9


The High-Level Panel has been asked to make recommendations on a post-ong>2015ong> development agenda that will endpoverty, while ensurong>inong>g its work feeds ong>inong>to that of the Open Workong>inong>g Group. The eradication of poverty can only besustaong>inong>ed if there is a broader commitment to the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustaong>inong>abledevelopment.10


Options for Integratong>inong>g Poverty ong>inong>to the SDGsThere are three broad options for ong>inong>tegratong>inong>g poverty ong>inong>to the SDGs. Under the first, a set of poverty goals would bean important component of the broader SDG framework. These goals would sit alongside economic, social, andenvironmental components that pick up the key objectives set out at Rio+20, although they could also stand alone.This approach: Fulfills Rio+20’s commitment to focused and urgent action to tackle the challenges facong>inong>g the world’s poorestpeople, while allowong>inong>g poverty goals to be agreed well ahead of the expiry of the MDGs. Offers a logical division of responsibility between the High-level Panel and the Open Workong>inong>g Group, whileensurong>inong>g compatibility between the work of the two bodies.The second option builds on the approach developed by the Sustaong>inong>able Energy for All ong>inong>itiative, which has threetargets, the first of which is specifically tailored to endong>inong>g energy poverty. Under this option, poverty targets wouldbe ong>inong>tegrated ong>inong>to each sustaong>inong>able development goal. This would: Allow for a family of SDGs to be constructed around the “priority areas for the achievement of sustaong>inong>abledevelopment” identified at Rio+20. Ensure that poverty is fully ong>inong>tegrated ong>inong>to a broader approach to sustaong>inong>able development, but could riskdilutong>inong>g the focus on the vision of endong>inong>g poverty.While these options offer strategic clarity, a third approach could see the adoption of a hybrid that ong>inong>cluded elementsof options 1 and 2, probably as the result of an attempt to fong>inong>d a compromise that satisfies demands from differentong>inong>terest groups. The potential shape of this compromise is considered ong>inong> more detail on page 14.11


OPTION 1Integrate poverty goals ong>inong>to a sustaong>inong>able development frameworkEconomicSustaong>inong>able production andconsumptionSocialEquitable social developmentand ong>inong>clusionEnvironmentalManagong>inong>g the resource base andecosystemsPovertyEndong>inong>g absolute povertyFulfills part of the vision set out at RioEnsures contong>inong>ued focus on the poorest, andprovides contong>inong>uity with MDGsPoverty consensus could provide foundation forbroader SDG agreementThe HLP's work supports the OWG’s broadermandateInevitable overlap between goals for 1bn and7bn peopleMany are skeptical about whether consensuscan be built around comprehensive SDGsPoverty goals will be ong>inong>complete if thesustaong>inong>able development framework is weakMay leave rich countries with few responsibilitiesif SDGs are not agreedUnder this option, a set of poverty goals is agreed first and ong>inong> a format that allows them to slot ong>inong>to a broadersustaong>inong>able development framework that could ong>inong>clude economic, social, and environmental goals. They can beimplemented immediately after ong>2015ong>, even if the full sustaong>inong>ability framework is still beong>inong>g discussed.12


Under this option, each sustaong>inong>able development goal ong>inong>cludes one or more targets for reducong>inong>g poverty.13


Many different hybrid options can be imagong>inong>ed. Three illustrative examples are set out.The first has the same strengths and weaknesses as the origong>inong>al MDGs.The second brong>inong>gs together planetary and social goals, but may not be politically feasible.The third may lead to an unsatisfactory compromise, but could emerge from a difficult negotiation.14


Integration of poverty and sustaong>inong>abledevelopment goals…….can be approached ong>inong> three ways…A set of poverty goals could be ong>inong>cluded ong>inong> a broader sustaong>inong>abilityframework, each SDG could have a poverty target, or various hybridscould be created.…with each option havong>inong>g strengths and weaknesses…ong>Goalsong> for the world’s billion poorest people are ong>inong>evitably related to,but distong>inong>ct from, goals for 7 billion that have comprehensive coverageof economic, social and environmental issues.…while no solution will be perfect and it could take time for anew framework to be agreedIt is possible that only parts of the new framework will be ong>inong> place ong>inong>ong>2015ong>, with new elements beong>inong>g added over time.15


Designong>inong>g Poverty ong>Goalsong> ong>Goalsong> for people ong>Goalsong> for societies Global goals16


ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong>: ong>Goalsong> for PeopleIn whichever way poverty eradication is ong>inong>tegrated ong>inong>to a broader sustaong>inong>ability framework, people will remaong>inong> at itscenter. Like the MDGs, most or all headlong>inong>e goals will describe outcomes for people across multiple dimensions ofpoverty. However, the nature of these goals will be distong>inong>ct from the MDGs for four reasons: First, many or all of these goals will be zero-based, with an objective of endong>inong>g poverty, not just reducong>inong>g it.These goals will act as a global social floor and all poor people will have the right to expect help to meet them.National governments, global development partners, and other responsible actors will face a powerful obligation tomeet mong>inong>imum standards of equity and social justice. Second, every success will make the remaong>inong>ong>inong>g mission harder to achieve. Poverty reduction will proceed atmultiple speeds, as economic growth means some people will move fairly swiftly above the absolute poverty long>inong>e.Those that are left behong>inong>d will face the steepest barriers to escapong>inong>g poverty, experiencong>inong>g high levels of violenceand conflict, and social and economic exclusion. Third, the post-ong>2015ong> framework will be most important for the ‘last poor’ – those who remaong>inong> ong>inong> poverty thelongest. ong>Goalsong> will direct global attention to their needs, while focusong>inong>g the efforts of all development partnerstowards creatong>inong>g the conditions ong>inong> which human and economic development reaches the world’s most vulnerablepeople, and changes their lives ong>inong> meanong>inong>gful and lastong>inong>g ways. Fong>inong>ally, technology will change the way that post-ong>2015ong> goals are set, monitored, and implemented. We willsoon live ong>inong> a world where it is possible to know the names, addresses, and mobile phone numbers of every poorfamily. Better, and more open, data will allow near ‘real time’ measurement of results. The combong>inong>ation of newgoals with new technologies will make it ong>inong>creasong>inong>gly easy to offer social protection floors for all citizens.17


ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong> goals should be designed to complete the unfong>inong>ished busong>inong>ess of the MDGs. However, the mission to endpoverty ong>inong> a generation, and a changong>inong>g global context, means that the new goals will need to be significantly differentfrom the ones agreed a decade ago.18


Is Dollar a Day Poverty Enough?The MDGs focus on ong>inong>dicators of absolute poverty – ong>inong>come ($1.25/day), nutrition (hunger), education (primaryschoolong>inong>g), health (maternal/child mortality; major ong>inong>fectious diseases), resources (water/sanitation). Gender(educational ong>inong>equality; access to reproductive health services) adds a ‘rights’ dimension to the MDGs.After ong>2015ong>, some argue that the world should complete the ‘unfong>inong>ished busong>inong>ess of the MDGs’ with a strengthenedfocus on absolute poverty. Others, however, believe that the post-ong>2015ong> framework should adopt a broader defong>inong>itionof poverty, makong>inong>g it relevant to the lives of poor people ong>inong> a greater number of countries.Options ong>inong>clude:Endong>inong>g absolute poverty – use the defong>inong>ition of poverty used for the MDGs to construct a global social floor, withappropriate refong>inong>ements (for example, basic learnong>inong>g outcomes, rather than attendance at school).Move the poverty long>inong>e up – use $2 or $5 a day ong>inong>come poverty, with more stretchong>inong>g thresholds for non-ong>inong>comedimensions of poverty (for example, completong>inong>g secondary schoolong>inong>g).Global social floor, national elevators – use the current defong>inong>ition of absolute poverty to set a global social floorfor all countries and all people, but encourage countries or regional groups to build on this mong>inong>imum by settong>inong>gtheir own tougher targets.All poverty, everywhere – aim to reduce poverty ong>inong> all countries, usong>inong>g a poverty long>inong>e that is relative to their wealthand development status.Reduce ong>inong>equality – ong>inong>stead of focusong>inong>g on poverty, set targets that reduce the gap between rich and poor.19


ong>Goalsong> for reducong>inong>g poverty will be very different ong>inong> ambition, focus, and potential impact, dependong>inong>g on the defong>inong>itionof poverty that they are based on.20


ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong>: ong>Goalsong> for SocietiesAt Rio+20, leaders acknowledged that “democracy, good governance and the rule of law, at the national andong>inong>ternational levels, as well as an enablong>inong>g environment, are essential for sustaong>inong>able development.” Three broadclusters of issue are at stake:Strengthenong>inong>g societies – can targets contribute to buildong>inong>g the stable, peaceful and predictable governanceenvironment needed to promote human development?Transformong>inong>g economies – can targets create conditions under which economic transformation is possible orong>inong>crease the rate at which growth is translated ong>inong>to sustaong>inong>able, equitable human development?Tacklong>inong>g conflict and violence – can targets help address the challenges of countries ong>inong> conflict and post-conflictsituations, and reduce the violence that poor people are subjected to?After ong>2015ong>, should goals and targets be set for these enablers or should they be ong>inong>cluded ong>inong> the broaderframework, but not quantified?On the one hand, sustaong>inong>ed action on the enablong>inong>g environment will become ong>inong>creasong>inong>gly important as the remaong>inong>ong>inong>gpoor become concentrated ong>inong> societies with the greatest need to strengthen ong>inong>stitutions, revitalize their economies,and build the ong>inong>frastructure needed to support poverty reduction. On the other hand, objectives ong>inong> these areas arenot easily quantified. National circumstances, capacities and priorities also differ markedly between countries.There are three options: (i) exclude enablers from post-ong>2015ong> goals and targets; (ii) ong>inong>tegrate the most importantenablers ong>inong>to the headlong>inong>e goals; (iii) split targets for societies from targets for people, and treat them differently.21


Three options for dealong>inong>g with goals/targets for creatong>inong>g an enablong>inong>g environment for poverty reduction.22


Designong>inong>g ong>Goalsong> for SocietiesOptions 1 and 2 (excludong>inong>g enablers from the post-ong>2015ong> goals, on the one hand, or ong>inong>tegratong>inong>g them on the other) arerelatively simple on a conceptual level. In contrast, the third option – splittong>inong>g targets for societies from targets forpeople – creates a number of design challenges.It would be likely to lead to a post-ong>2015ong> framework with: A set of headlong>inong>e goals/targets for people that were simple, powerful and easily measurable – and that could bebroadly communicated to a non-technical audience. Targets for societies and economies that could be tailored to national circumstances, ong>inong> ways that wouldsupport the delivery of global goals.However, it is still likely to lead to contentious debates about the extent to which ong>inong>ternational norms can be createdfor core areas of national sovereignty such as security and justice, taxation and public services, politics andgovernance, and property rights and market regulation. Clarity may be provided by: Focusong>inong>g on those enablers that can be shown to make the most difference to the lives, and future potential, ofthe people that the headlong>inong>e goals aims to help. Experimentong>inong>g with different types of goal and ong>inong>dicator (more qualitative, for example) and different ways ofmeasurong>inong>g progress agaong>inong>st these goals (periodic peer review, for example). Offerong>inong>g countries or regional groupong>inong>gs the flexibility to defong>inong>e their own standards, based on their own analysisof the obstacles most likely to deliver improvements ong>inong> the quality of life of poor people.23


Various ong>inong>ternational agreements and plans have addressed the ‘constraong>inong>ts and structural impediments’ that impedepoverty reduction. This ong>inong>dicative list – drawn from the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for theDecade 2011–2020, the New Partnership for Africa's ong>Developmentong>, and the work of the g7+ group of conflict-affectedcountries – shows the areas that might be ong>inong>cluded ong>inong> a post-ong>2015ong> framework. It is also illustrates the politicalchallenges that must be confronted if agreement is to be reached ong>inong> this area.24


ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong>: Global ong>Goalsong>If a broader sustaong>inong>ability framework is agreed, most global goals will be ong>inong>cluded ong>inong> that (see pages 8-15). However,it will also be necessary to directly address global drivers that have the most impact on the poorest people andcountries, and to set out the obligations of the ong>inong>ternational community to support and sustaong>inong> poverty reduction.This requires: Concerted action to reduce the margong>inong>alization of poor people and countries ong>inong> the global economy, withcommitments to ong>inong>crease trade and market access, ong>inong>tegrate poor countries ong>inong>to fong>inong>ancial markets, and ong>inong>creaseong>inong>vestment ong>inong> agriculture and ong>inong>dustry.Reduction of their vulnerability to economic, natural and environmental shocks and disasters, and to theimpacts of climate change, combong>inong>ed with support for adaptation to climate and other environmental changes overthe medium and long-term. External assistance to help societies escape from cycles of conflict through political and peacekeepong>inong>gmissions. Tacklong>inong>g adverse impacts of globalization on vulnerable societies, such as transnational crime, corruption andmoney launderong>inong>g, and the damage caused by poorly regulated resource extraction. Mobilization of the fong>inong>ance needed to end poverty, ong>inong>cludong>inong>g development assistance, debt relief, foreign directong>inong>vestment, and remittances.25


BLOCKINGDEBATECATALYZINGDEBATESTOPBelief that development assistance willplay a declong>inong>ong>inong>g role after ong>2015ong>GOMission to end poverty will be impossible withoutong>inong>ternational assistance for the poorest of the poorSTOPFailure of rich countries to meet obligationsunder MDG8GOEssential role peacekeepong>inong>g and conflictprevention play ong>inong> the poorest countriesSTOPODA runnong>inong>g at 0.3% of donors’collective GNIGOIncreased potential to target resources directly atthe poorest through social protection programsSTOPUnsustaong>inong>able development models ofdeveloped countriesGOGrowong>inong>g ong>inong>fluence of South-SouthcooperationSTOPSlow progress ong>inong> reducong>inong>g Annex 1carbon emissionsGORise of new types of public-privatepartnershipSTOPLoss of trust if consensus cannot bebuilt behong>inong>d full SDGsGOGreater direct ong>inong>volvement of citizens,and especially of young peopleGlobal goals will be difficult to agree and quantify, while the construction of a new global partnership for developmentis likely to divide opong>inong>ion. However, there are factors that can catalyze a more constructive debate – especially as it ishighly unlikely that the mission to end poverty can be accomplished without effective and targeted ong>inong>ternationalassistance.26


Poverty goals…….will have three dimensions…They must deliver change for poor people, by buildong>inong>g robust societiesand economies, and addressong>inong>g the global drivers of sustaong>inong>edpoverty reduction.…with each dimension posong>inong>g different challenges…‘People’ goals are easiest to defong>inong>e and communicate, but will bedifferent from the MDGs ong>inong> important ways. ‘Society’ goals may haveto be tailored to national circumstance, while ‘global’ goals will raisecontentious geopolitical questions.…if the promise of endong>inong>g poverty is to be fulfilledAn imperfect framework – or a failure to reach agreement – wouldboth be a betrayal of the poor and a clear sign that the world is nolonger able to tackle the most important global challenges.27


David Steven is a Senior Fellow and Associate Director at New York University’s ong>Centerong> on InternationalCooperation and a Nonresident Senior Fellow ong>inong> the Foreign Policy Program of the Brookong>inong>gs Institution. For theong>Centerong> on International Cooperation, he directs a research program on the future of ong>inong>ternational development. AtBrookong>inong>gs, he is leadong>inong>g a research program ong>inong>to the geopolitical risks associated with natural resources and theenvironment. He is also research director of the Pakistan Task Force on the Next Generation, which is explorong>inong>g thecountry’s demographic risks and opportunities.The ong>Centerong> on International Cooperation creates the ideas, analysis and policies needed to transform ong>inong>ternationalcooperation on leadong>inong>g global challenges, such as ong>inong>creasong>inong>g peace and security, strengthenong>inong>g fragile states,securong>inong>g strategic resources and tacklong>inong>g climate change.We would like to acknowledge the generous support of the United Nations Foundation and the ong>inong>put of all thosewho have helped shape the ideas ong>inong> this paper. All views are those of the author.28


Related Publications:Beyond the Millennium ong>Developmentong> ong>Goalsong>: Agreeong>inong>g a ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong> ong>Developmentong> ong>Frameworkong>Alex Evans and David Steven, Brookong>inong>gs Institution and CICClimate, Scarcity and Sustaong>inong>ability ong>inong> the ong>Postong>-ong>2015ong> ong>Developmentong> AgendaAlex Evans, CICHittong>inong>g Reboot: Where Next for Climate Change after Copenhagen?Alex Evans and David Steven, Brookong>inong>gs InstitutionPower and Responsibility: Buildong>inong>g International Order ong>inong> an Era of Transnational threatsBruce Jones, Carlos Pascual and Stephen John Stedman, Brookong>inong>gs InstitutionConfrontong>inong>g the Long Crisis of Globalization: Risk, Resilience and International OrderAlex Evans, Bruce Jones, and David Steven, Brookong>inong>gs Institution and CICMore ong>inong>formation about these and other recent publications can be found at http://cic.nyu.edu.29


CENTER ONINTERNATIONALCOOPERATIONNew York University726 Broadway, Suite 543New York, NY 10003(212) 998-3680cic.ong>inong>fo@nyu.educic.nyu.edu

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines