Planetary-scale systems: technology and development

When: 17th December 2021 at 17:00 CET / 16:00 CET. Check hour in different time zones here.

Where: University of Belgrade / Faculty of Political Sciences and online 

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event
  • coming to the online event on Zoom – REGISTER HERE
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Vladan Joler via Zoom or Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

This lecture starts a mini series of 3 meetings with Vladan Joler: 

17th December 2021: „Planetary scale Systems: From the internet packet to the algorithmic factory”

19th January 2022: „Planetary scale systems: Anatomy and geology of media technologies”

16th February 2022: „Planetary scale systems: Engines of new extractivism” 

In a networked society data and infrastructures are sources of power, both material and immaterial, and yet they are hard to track down, materialize, understand, or even perceive in their magnitude. The shapes and topographies of those systems represent a reflection of complex geopolitical and economic relations, colonial and neocolonial practices, and one of the modern metrics of power. Our capacity to understand those systems is crucial for our future development. These black boxes, hidden behind the corporate and government walls have defined new forms of labor, exploitation, and generation of the enormous amount of wealth and power. Through the tracerouting of individual Internet packages, metadata analysis, and investigation of algorithms we will discover step by step, the story of physical infrastructure embodied in millions of kilometers of cables, huge impersonal and dehumanized facilities for data storage and analysis, and various parasitic systems of the surveillance economy. 

The lecture is hosted by the University of Belgrade / Faculty of Political Sciences.

Economic and political development: the importance of institutions

The Kapuscinski Development Lecture was opened by dr. Anna Wróbel from the Department of Regional and Global Studies (Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw) who welcomed the distinguished guest, Professor Francis Fukuyama.

Next, Professor Daniel Przastek, Dean of the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw, welcomed the guest, and expressed hope to be able to welcome Professor Fukuyama for a real life event at the University of Warsaw in the future.

Then the floor went to Martin Seychel, Deputy Director-General, EC International Cooperation and Development, who delivered opening remarks on behalf of the European Commission.

Final speaker at the introductory part of the lecture was Ivan Zverzhanovski, UNDP Regional Partnerships Advisor to welcome Professor Fukuyama on behalf of the UNDP.

Professor Fukuyama started his lecture on “Economic and Political Development: The Importance of Institutions” by pointing out that in the study of development economics, there was a period when the role of institutions was largely omitted, and it was only since the 1980s, that development economists have begun to recognize the importance of institutions. According to Professor Fukuyama it was inter alia because of the work of economists like Douglass C. North.

Yet initially inclusion of institutions into the study of development was limited, and narrowed the focus mostly to contract enforcement and property rights. Speaking of this Professor Fukuyama indicated that it is not certain whether western-style property rights were applicable globally. He stressed that there were many other institutions outside of property rights that were needed to achieve development, transparency, democratic accountability and modern state capacities. Yet it was only by the early 2000s that the institutional agenda in development studies broadened to include “good governance and anti-corruption,” but policy responses to achieve the latter have yielded disappointing results. Following Professor Fukuyama, believe in the power of markets and the disparaging of the state is destructive for development and democracy. This is why the ideas of good governance and anticorruption are that important. This is also why many development institutions today are pushing for a broader governance agenda to extend the basic state-building process and initiate more pervasive anticorruption measures. Even though various successful anti-corruption measures have been put in place, we do not know if aggregate corruption has changed. It might have moved from one sector to another, from one level of hierarchy to another. But getting rid of corruption is difficult – those in power know what they are doing. One needs to have enough power to bring about this political change, because it’s so entrenched. Professor Fukuyama expressed regret that even in countries where serious reforms were undertaken, some years afterwards, one by one these have been reversed. At this point, he indicated once again how important institutions are for development, but institutions are not efficient by themselves to bring about good results. It is because political power and money following it have been able to manipulate the institutions. It is possible to use the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate some of the points brought about in the lecture, and it is not democracy that is the most important factor here. Other important features that increase efficiency of institutions include: 1) state capacity (inclusive health services during pandemic), 2) citizens’ trust in government, and 3) bad leadership indicating those who saw the pandemic not as a threat to general health but a threat to their personal political interests. Professor Fukuyama concluded his speech by yet again emphasizing the importance of strong institutions, and the importance to have rules, and impersonal, expert-led institutions.

Next, dr. Karina Jędrzejowska from the Department of Regional and Global Studies (Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw) opened the discussion, and forwarded to Professor Fukuyama selected questions asked by the audience. The first group of questions asked related to the current state and threats to democracy. Responding to that Professor Fukuyama stated that we are living in a difficult time for global democracy. But a silver lining to the current pandemic is that it is exposing bad governance. It is revealing structural inequalities and showing what reforms are needed to make institutions effective. Next questions addressed the prospects for transatlantic cooperation, and future of economic and security multilateralism. According to the speaker, in order to have strong multilateralism, a strong hegemonic power is needed. When responding to the question on the condition of the concept of developmental state, Professor Fukuyama expressed the opinion that the idea has not lost it relevance, and the lessons drawn from implementation of this development model in East Asia still matter for development worldwide. Next, there were questions about impact of cultural diversity on development. Responding to that, Professor Fukuyama said that it is possible to govern diversity successfully, but ethnic and racial diversity can make democracy more difficult. Liberal democracy exists to accommodate and govern diversity, but – unfortunately – “human beings do not need race & ethnicity to hate each other”. In the final remarks Professor Fukuyama expressed his worries regarding the concept of transhumanism, and made some recommendations to the students of international relations at the University of Warsaw. Students were reminded of the importance of studying economics in order to get a better understanding of the surrounding world.

Next, dr. Jędrzejowska thanked Professor Fukuyama for the lecture and debate. Next, she thanked the UNDP, European Commission, and the authorities of the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw, for making the event possible, as well as thanked the participants for their attendance and questions. Then the event was closed.

Economic recovery in the post-pandemic world

The post-pandemic world: restructuring globalization for the global public good

How will the world economy look like after the pandemic? Will governments take initiative to reshape their economies for serving human needs? Is this a turning point for restructuring globalization for the public good? These were some of the questions addressed by Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz in his Kapuscinski Development Lecture on „The Post-Pandemic World: Restructuring Globalization for the Global Public Good”.

Joseph Stiglitz started his lecture by saying that countries around the world responded differently to Covid-19 pandemic. The US, Brazil and India failed in their respective responses to the crisis, whereas Denmark and New Zealand did a better job in controlling both the pandemic and its economic aftermath. So what accounts for the successes and failures of different countries in coping with the Covid-19 pandemic? Are there any generalizations, Stiglitz asked, that we can draw from this encounter? According to Stiglitz, countries that recognize the importance of science and the institutions; and those that demonstrate deep respect for their citizens have done better. As he discusses in his recent book, Power, People and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent , countries which respect science, social organization, credibility and the institutions for the verification of truth have succeeded to raise the standard of living for their societies in the last 250 years. Not surprisingly, these countries managed to cope with the pandemic better than others.

Stiglitz argued that 6 months after the outbreak of the pandemic, it became more clear that the US was particularly vulnerable to this crisis due to the existing inequalities such as the lack of access to health care and good nutrition. “This is not an equal opportunity virus,” Stiglitz continued, “it goes after those who are most vulnerable. It has exposed and exacerbated inequalities in our society.”

Now, there is a global consensus that we don’t want to bounce back to where we were in January 2020. Speaking on the impact of Covid-19 on globalization, Stiglitz argued that the pandemic made us all realize, all of a sudden, that “viruses do not carry passports, they can go anywhere in the world.” However, the economic system that we have created is not resilient to global supply chains. At the height of the pandemic, the US was not able to produce masks, protective gear for health care workers or ventilators. There is a need to create more resilient supply chains going forward. The lecture was followed by a Q&A session moderated by Anya Schiffrin.

Photo: Daniel Baud and the Sydney Opera House

The narrow corridor: states, societies and the fate of liberty

As part of the Kapuscinski Development Lecture Series, Daron Acemoğlu, Institute Professor at MIT, gave a talk on “The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies and the Fate of Liberty” – also the title of his recently-published book – on December 20, 2019 at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Turkey. 

Over 500 people attended the live-streamed event. It opened with welcome messages by Fikret Adaman, Professor of Economics at Boğaziçi University; İpek Cem Taha, Director of Columbia Global Centers | Istanbul; and Ivan Zverzhanovski, Head of Partnerships at the UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub.

Daron Acemoğlu then took the stage. He opened by saying that he would not give a summary of the book he co-authored with James Robinson, but would talk about some of its main themes, and what he and James Robinson wanted to achieve by writing about them.

He then showed an image of an environmental protest, something that would have been unthinkable in small-scale societies and early despotic states of years past. He stated that this kind of protest is the essence of liberty today: individuals can make their own choices without getting permission to do so.

To illustrate this, he showed a graph that simplifies economic and political history into two variables: 1) the power of society and 2) the power of the state. When the power of the state is greater than that of society, we have despotic states. When the state is weak, a complex set of norms and traditions regulate conflict and do not allow for a strongman to gain power.

In between, there is a “narrow corridor” where both the state and society become stronger together. It is here where the environmental protest that he spoke about earlier, thrives. It thrives because both the state and society have greater capacities, e.g. the state can take action against climate change, and society can foster change through its civil society efforts, elections, etc. In addition, the relationship between the state and society has changed over time such that individuals have gained a deep trust in institutions, and thus in the state.

Being a democracy does not mean that the state is in the “narrow corridor;” however, there is a positive affinity between the two. Democracies have more economic growth than non-democracies; after countries transition to democracies, their GDP per capita increases by 20% over the following 20-25 years. Infant mortality also drops as states invest more in education and health.

How do we make the “corridor” work? We look to Europe as an example. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, two things coincided: 1) there was a blueprint for centralized administrative institutions from the Western Roman Empire, and 2) there was a tradition of “assembly politics” in Germanic tribes, allowing for society to participate in politics.

Social norms can hinder liberty. In India, the constitution prohibits the caste system, but it de facto still exists because of a cage of norms. States need to break the cage in order to democratize.

There are multiple ways of getting into the corridor. If a state is despotic, then society must get stronger. If a state is disorganized, then the state’s capacity must increase and laws must be obeyed. Leadership does matter, and that person must immediately start building trust in institutions. The state must simultaneously be strengthened while also be more open to criticism. States need to cherish the trust to stay in the “corridor.”

Daron Acemoğlu then spoke briefly about Turkey. Turkey has had several opportunities to enter the “corridor,” but has not taken them. Society’s power over politicians has to increase, and this has not happened in Turkey. Even though Turkey has had growth over the past 20 years, it has not been high-quality growth. One indication of this is that total factor productivity has been negative or zero over this time period. Turkey also exports low-tech products, whereas it should be aiming for medium-tech or high-tech exports. This creates inequality in society, which is at levels similar to those in Latin America.

In summary, entering the “corridor” not easy, while exiting it is. It is not a gift from leaders, but something that society demands. If society works at it, and the right conditions are present, then society together with better laws can help the state enter the “corridor.”

European Union statecraft for sustainable development

He argued that sustainable development requires a new kind of statecraft, and the new European Commission has the opportunity to put the EU in the global lead of this effort: “Unless we have a strong Europe and a Europe that understands that when American leadership has collapsed, it is necessary for European leaders to step forward, we won’t be making it”, he told an audience at the Hertie School. 

According to the annual Sustainable Development Report, which estimates each country’s capacity to achieve the SDGs, the globally top-ranked countries are European. “Without question, the quality of life in Europe is the highest quality of life on the planet. It’s also the part of the world that comes closest to achieving the ethos of sustainable development”. Sachs argued that sustainable development at its core means economic prosperity, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the rule of law. Despite Europe’s practice of importing goods from polluting countries, Sachs acknowledged its intent to comply with the standards of environmental sustainability, but nonetheless called for further SDG alignment among EU member states. 

The new EU Commission has the opportunity to become a global leader of the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement. This comes with the question of how Europe can lead other countries to achieve the SDGs and how Europe affects other countries through global supply chains and other spill-overs. Sachs’ recommendations for the new European Commission under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen included introducing EU-wide strategies to target the “seventeen- dimensional problem” of achieving the SDGs. He emphasized the need for technology-driventransformations for decarbonized means of transportation in air, sea and on land and energy systems. “Europe has a big job to do because where is the goal? The goal is zero by 2050!” This technology puzzle could only be solved by significant investments in research and development, leading to a climate-neutral and circular economy. Sachs highlighted the inherent need for a new investment agenda to cope with the lack of innovation in some regions. Therefore, the EU needs a budget increase with more resources spent on directed research and development, increasinginnovation and thereby the quality of life.

The issues need to be addressed at every level of government, from local to global and require constructive problem-solving. The complexity and timeframe of the issues Sachs outlined require intensive analysis and research, as well as a multidimensional approach that includes both the public and private sectors. Furthermore, Sachs suggested that a Eurostat framework for SDG measurements and indicators should be introduced as a means to monitor the implementation of policies by governments and the alignment of businesses with the SDGs.

He recommended a shift in the European Union’s diplomacy agenda, and challenged Europe to take the lead in the multilateral environment and climate change agreements: “Europe’s leadership is vital to make the world system work”. With respect to Europe’s position as the largest donor in the world, Sachs argues that it needs to scale up its strategy and focus on attaining the geopolitical heft that comes from raising resources for development. Furthermore, he suggested partnerships with key bilateral forums: “Europe’s bilateral relations with other regions will come to be the defining diplomacy”. The European Union should partner with the African Union to endow everyAfrican child with the opportunity for secondary education. He urged Europe to commit to a sustainable Eurasian economy and to further cooperate with MERCOSUR.

Global Goals: social rights as human rights

Kapuscinski Development Lectures will open the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Development in New York City at Columbia University with two global advocates of the Sustainable Development Goals:

Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians will deliver her Kapuscinski Lecture keynote address on „Transformative Thinking to Achieve the SDGs”.

Eddie Ndopu on social rights as human rights: a conversation with prof. Jeffrey Sachs about inequality and exclusion.

When: 25th September 2019 at 9:00 am EDT / 15:00 CET (Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians)

10:30 am EDT / 16:30 CET (Eddie Ndopu)

Where: Lerner Hall, Columbia University, New York City

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in New York City (registration required, click here)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to SDGs Advocates via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

The SDGs cannot be fully achieved if certain groups in societies are left out. For instance, living with a disability has a strong impact on educational opportunities and jobs, which in term affects our efforts for universal poverty reduction.

Social rights need to be developed alongside human rights

Join #KAPTalks lecturers Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians, Eddie Ndopu and Jeffrey Sachs in conversation as they discuss inequality and inclusion, and how focusing on disadvantaged groups must be done when working to achieve the Global Goals.

#KAPTalks interviews: sustainability of development results

Ryszard Kapuscinski’s works addressed leading development issues of the 1970s, 1980s, and (arguably to a lesser extent) the 1990s.  Have the world’s development challenges changed since then?  What was the biggest challenge then and what is it now?

Kapuściński witnessed the end of the colonial world and the development challenges of his time were mainly linked to the painful process of state building. Today’s biggest challenges are global, ie not specifically limited to the developing world – climate change, asymmetrical conflict, trade barriers, irregular migration. Therefore, the Sustainable Development Goals have been adopted as a global agenda for all.

Some people dismiss sustainable development as an aspirational vision, others an unattainable fantasy, and still others absolutely necessary to our future. In this age where few seem interested in working for the collective good of all, what’s your argument to convince others that it is necessary to change the way we develop?

The development policy was born some 70 years ago and has come of age. Yet, the world community is still struggling to meet some of the objectives set back then – eg the 0,7% GNI ODA ratio formulated in 1968 by the Pearson Commission. Development policy today is rightly looking beyond the task of dealing with post colonial legacies and focuses on common global goods like access to water, limiting effects of climate change and dealing with migratory pressures. Discussion on the definition of ODA should continue at OECD DAC as further updates seems necessary.

What is the biggest challenge/hindrance to successful development?

What area of development or Global Goal do you think sustainable development hinges on? Which one is at the core of all the others?

Despite white spread perception, the main hindrance to successful development of not access to funding. The main obstacle remains sustainability of the results achieved – or still to be achieved – which hinges on much more than money – international burden sharing in dealing with global challenges, ownership by partner countries, maintaining peace and stability.

What’s the most striking thing you have personally witnessed in relation to development? i.e. a challenge, opportunity or just personal observation about a human story.

Firstly, it is the appearance of new players – private donors with global outreach, middle income countries turning into donors, South-South cooperation. Secondly, it is really striking how important the security/development nexus has become and how military and civilian institutions have developed into both providers and recipients of aid.


Inequality, exclusion and democracy

When: 18th June 2019 at 15:15 CET / 13:15 GMT (check time around the world).

Where: Tour & Taxis, Brussels, European Development Days 2019

You can join the lecture by:

The lecture will mark 10th anniversary of the Kapuscinski Development Lectures and will be hosted during the European Development Days 2019.
The keynote speech entitled „Transformative government: The path to development” will be delivered by Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. A special address will be delivered by Luis Felipe Lopez-Calva, UN Assistant Secretary-General and Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean of UNDP. The speech will be followed by the panel discussion with participation of:
  • Santiago Levy, Brookings Institution, former vicepresident of Inter-American Development Bank
  • Jos Verbeek, World Bank, special representative to UN and WTO
  • Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International
There is an agreement in the public discourse that inequality around the world is high and on the rise. In Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, the poorest 20 percent of households hold less than 5 percent of income, while the richest 20 percent hold over 55 percent. The situation is even more acute when we look at the concentration of wealth across households, with 26 people owning as much capital as the bottom half of the world’s population. Also, it is well established that the share of labour in total income has been shrinking compared to that of capital. Not surprisingly, few issues have captured the public attention in recent years like discussions around inequality. This increased interest begs us to examine what we have learned about inequality in recent decades, and push the debate further asking questions such as, how we can more accurately measure the dimensions of inequality that matter for development? How we can capture the polarization the is happening within societies, and eroding social cohesion and stability? Moreover, what are the process that generate and perpetuate inequality? And ultimately, what is the impact of inequality in democracy? The Kapuscinski Development Lecture will focus precisely on these questions, aiming to push the debate further building on we have learned about inequality and why it matters for democracy.

#KAPTalks interviews: multilateralism helping effective solutions

Kapuscinski challenged us in his writings to see the world as it is, and at the same time to see it in fundamentally different ways to convention. Sustainable development likewise challenges us to understand not only where we want to get to, the first sixteen ‘goals’, but through the seventeenth and the broader 2030 Agenda to shape pathways to success based on a fundamental reappraisal of both where we are and how ambitious action can be effective in today’s world.

More of the same, in a nutshell, will not get the job done. This is not just because we made bad decisions in the past, but because the world around us is changing, demanding new approaches to old as well as new problems and opportunities. The fall in global poverty and inter-country inequality over recent decades, for example, largely resulted from China’s rise, a driver that will not repeat itself any time soon. Automation will reshape labor markets and the basis of international competitive advantage in years to come in ways that require different development models as export-led growth becomes less likely for many developing countries. Climate change is now upon us, and means a world of growing numbers and impact of shocks, with livelihood, security and political implications.

Actually, we are overwhelmed by solutions as much as by oft-repeated problems. Perhaps for the first time in human history, we have the science, the technology, the finance, and the know-how to deliver on sustainable development. Our greatest challenge is in how best to organise the delivery of well understood and quite affordable solutions. Our failure to organise is widespread, from weakened multilateralism, to corporate disfunction, to inadequate civil society organisations, and to short-term financial markets. The state formations, civil forms of action and the market institutions we have inherited are proving inadequate to harness the potential of our inventiveness and make it widely available. Digitalisation provides the prospects of a frictionless world of networked opportunities, certainly, But without institutions that can form and oversee equitable rules, this technological surge is more likely to drive further instability and injustice. Our vision of society’s underpinned by human rights and individual choice is threatened by the deterioration of our belief in election-based democracies, the equalising effects of information, and our capacity to sustain empathy at scale in the face of disruption and uncertainty.


Our capacity to organise is inter-twinned into our evolutionary process. It is more than anything what makes us able to actualise our imagination in becoming what we are, a technological species. As a civilisational building block, we exist as long as we can organise in ways that are commensurate with new challenges and opportunities. Reforming the UN is but one tip of this imperative. We need likewise to reinvent the purpose and logic of business and the state, and their respective interfaces with each other and the underlying, organic dynamics of self-organisation.


#KAPTalks interviews: Kapuscinski’s concern about voices of people

When Ryszard Kapuscinski was addressing development issues, the world was clearly divided into blocs: the First World of advanced capitalist countries; the Second World of communist and socialist states; and the Third World of impoverished nations. There was little connection between these worlds and even less understanding or desire to be informed of others’ conditions. Kapuscinski’s great contribution was to bring these divides into focus and to help people in one bloc understand what was happening in other blocs, especially in the Third World. Today, such distinctions are irrelevant. Thanks to social media there is a torrent of information about everyone’s lives, sometimes accurate, but sometimes distorted. With globalization, people are also more concerned with, and aware of, what is happening in other countries. There is a greater continuum among countries along the development scale. Countries can no longer be easily classified into simple categories—both China and India have space programs as well as pockets of abject poverty. Should they be called underdeveloped? In many instances, the challenges of development today are as much about the distribution of income and differences in living standards of people within countries rather than between countries.

Many of the issues that Kapuscinski wrote about remain relevant today. His stories of revolutions, coups and wars have today morphed into stories of “fragile states,” but the basic concept is the same. States without governments that enjoy the support of their own populations provide staging posts for outbreaks of violence and extremism and cannot be expected to develop. The nature of violence may have shifted from wars and revolutions to non-state actors and criminal elements, but the problem remains.

Kapuscinski was intimately concerned with people and people’s voices. He would find the idea of working for the collective good rather strange. But this does not mean that sustainable development is merely aspirational. It means that we need to find ways to connect global problems and issues more closely with people’s own lives and livelihoods. For example, it is no accident that China is emerging as one of the world leaders in low-carbon technologies. This is largely because China’s cities have become so polluted that citizens cry out for better solutions. The hugely positive impact on the rest of the world is a convenient by-product. What remains unclear, however, is whether these win-win incentives will be sufficient to achieve the pace and scale of the needed global change. So far, there are still plenty of win-win solutions available. We’ve not yet tested the frontier where real trade-offs might become necessary.

These connections between global issues and national issues must be made by leaders at the State and community level. Kapuscinski wrote extensively about leaders and their personal idiosyncracies. These could easily become the most important obstacles to development. Then, as now, the foibles of leaders were revealed. In The Emperor, he was characteristically forthright: “the King of Kings preferred bad ministers. And the King of Kings preferred them because he liked to appear in a favorable light by contrast.” Such idiosyncracies, and the personal patronage that leaders use to retain power, remain central obstacles for development, creating the conditions for widespread corruption, bribery and flattery, as well as the dimming of individual enterprise towards betterment of family and community. All of which we refer to today as “bad governance” but that was described by Kapuscinski as the lack of institutions and reliance on personalities in all political systems.

Yet despite these failings, there has been astonishing progress since the time when Kapuscinski was writing. In his long career, he never witnessed the transformation of societies in the same way as modern development practitioners have. Take the case of Lao PDR, one of the poorest countries in the world in the mid-1980’s. When I first went in 1988, Laos had a GDP per capita of only $308 according to the IMF. Small boys would turn their heads to look at my car, such was the rarity. They “fished” for bats to be made into soup in the capital city of Vientiane. Shortly thereafter, Laos started a program of reforms and development of its considerable hydropower and minerals sector. Today, in the span of one generation, Laos has achieved a GDP per capita of $2,700. Even adjusting for inflation, it is four and one-half times richer than thirty years ago. Development progress has been halting and uneven, with many of the problems of governance so richly detailed by Kapuscinski, but progress in material conditions of the people has been real: life expectancy has risen from 54 years to 67 years (1990 to 2015); expected years of schooling has risen from 6.7 years to 10.8; over one third of the population now has at least some secondary education; and so on. While still a poor country, Lao PDR offers opportunities for a new generation that were unthinkable for the last. It is being transformed.



#KAPTalks interviews: Planetary labour market

Ryszard Kapuscinski’s works addressed leading development issues of the 1970s, 1980s, and (arguably to a lesser extent) the 1990s. Have the world’s development challenges changed since then? What was the biggest challenge then and what is it now?

In this age where few seem interested in working for the collective good of all, what’s your argument to convince others that it is necessary to change the way we develop?

To me it is a question about justice. There is a global lottery that some of us win and some of us lose. The fact that some of us are born in countries that have high living standards and get to benefit from that is not because we worked harder or because we’re smarter than anyone else. It is simply luck. People born into contexts with low life expectancies or high rates of disease simply have bad luck.

As human beings, we can, and we should do better. We need to broaden our sphere of empathy to encompass our increasingly connected planet. It is much harder to plead ignorance about the breadth of human suffering than it used to be. But if we now are able to know as much about people on the other side of the world as we are about people in the cities that we live in, then sitting on our hands shouldn’t be an option.

This isn’t an argument for a blind faith in 'development’. But rather an argument in favour of sharing wealth and resources. If we acknowledge that luck, due to the geographic lottery, plays a massive role in how long we live, whether our children survive childbirth, our odds of surviving disease, and our chance of finding a rewarding and decent profession, then it isn’t good enough to be satisfied with the current scale of global inequalities. Because of the luck that those of us in the Global North were born with, we have a responsibility to develop and support structures and systems that facilitate global sharing.

What is the biggest challenge/hindrance to successful development?

What area of development or Global Goal do you think sustainable development hinges on? Which one is at the core of all the others?

What’s the most striking thing you have personally witnessed in relation to development? i.e. a challenge, opportunity or just personal observation about a human story.

With over half of the world’s population now connected to the internet, one of the most striking things I see happening today is the creation of what I’ve referred to as a ’planetary labour market’. Millions of workers from around the world are escaping some of the constraints of their local labour markets and competing for the same jobs. This has enormous implications for workers in parts of the world where jobs are scarce. However, the sheer scale of what is happening brings with it concerns about a massive global over-supply of labour power, and a consequent race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions.


#KAPTalks interviews: leave no one behind

Ryszard Kapuscinski’s works addressed leading development issues of the 1970s, 1980s, and (arguably to a lesser extent) the 1990s.  Have the world’s development challenges changed since then?  What was the biggest challenge then and what is it now?

In the period of the 1970s and 80s, development was largely seen in terms of modernisation and economic growth. Key challenges turned on enabling countries to establish stable, growing economies through an appropriate balance between industrialisation and agriculture and rural development. Concerns with poverty reduction and social development challenges such as health, education and gender were growing in significance, but often marginalised. And as the neo-liberal era of the 1980s set in, the state-led development agendas of the 1970s gave way to the promotion of free markets. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, dealing with the fallout of structural adjustment and related programs through a renewed emphasis on human development came to be seen as a critical challenge, with states and civil society organisations frequently assuming responsibility.

The last few decades have witnessed major progress in these aspects of economic and social development in many parts of the world. Yet they also reveal a series of paradoxes and contradictions. First, growth has accelerated in many countries but has been accompanied by growing inequalities of many kinds. Global income growth has been very unevenly shared, concentrated in rising middle classes in India and China and in a booming global elite, but with the poorest percentiles locked out, and a declining shared of growth amongst the middle classes in the developed world. Old industrialised countries, emerging middle income ones, and poorer countries are almost all experiencing rising economic inequalities. These intersect – nationally, and in terms of people’s lived experiences – with other kinds of inequaity – social and gender, cultural, political, and in terms of place and knowledge. Inequalities matter fundamentally because they are unfair and unjust, but they also affect other development proprities. Inequality can hamper economic growth, and certainly reduces the impact of that growth on poverty reduction. Health and nutrition are worse in countries with higher income inequality. Inequalities are threatening our democracies, and contributing to rises in conflict – and more.

Second, dominant development paths are proving deeply unsustainable in environmental terms, with climate change, biodiversity loss, land and water degradation and pollution threatening our ability to thrive on a pressurised planet. What were relatively marginal development issues in the 1970s and 80s have moved centre-stage, with growing attention going hand in hand with growing evidence of trends in human-induced climate and environmental change, and its devastating impacts on lives, livelihoods and societies across the world. Development has, by necessity, become sustainable development, and a central challenge is to find and unlock pathways which can ensure human thriving while avoiding further threats to our biophysical life support systems.

Third, the burden of insecurity, and its counterpart, lack of inclusion, affects historic numbers of people across the world on a daily basis. Both nation states and the international community have invested intensively in military security, yet conflict and violence affect many people’s lives. Many face complex, protracted emergencies in which political insecurity intersects with disease epidemics and natural disasters. We have a growing migrant crisis as unprecedented numbers of people leave their countries to escape war, repressive regimes, political alienation or economic hardship. While political participation is given more attention, there is growing distrust in political institutions. Technological innovations offer once unimagined opportunities, yet are also exposing people to new threats, exclusions and invasions of privacy.

In this context, development needs to move from a narrow focus on economic growth and poverty, to navigating complex challenges in ways that reduce inequalities and build more sustainable, inclusive and secure futures for people and societies. (i) Reducing inequalities, (ii) Accelerating sustainability and (iii) Building inclusive and secure societies can be seen as the major defining challenges of our time. Yet there are no single motorways or roadmaps to progress in this new era of development. Multiple and flexible pathways of change and transformation that adapt and respond to diverse contexts, needs and priorities will be required, supported by new ways of thinking, acting and collaborating.

Some people dismiss sustainable development as an aspirational vision, others an unattainable fantasy, and still others absolutely necessary to our future. In this age where few seem interested in working for the collective good of all, what’s your argument to convince others that it is necessary to change the way we develop?

Climate change, biodiversity loss, the degradation of land, vegetation and water resources, pollution whether of the air we breathe or of rivers and oceans increasingly choked with chemicals and plastic – these problems are inextricably linked and affect people across the world. They are the consequences of dominant development pathways which have brought prosperity to some, but at deep cost to non-human nature and people’s safety, health and livelihoods locally and globally. Indeed, there is growing evidence that current development paths risk irreversible damage to the earth’s biophysical life support systems, with further shocks and stresses in store that will affect us all, undo development progress and block it for future generations. There is therefore an urgent need to seek new development pathways that are both sustainable, and equitable. These will require transformative, not just incremental change, recognising that business as usual is not an option, and fundamental shifts are needed in some of the key structures, institutions, systems and norms that shape our societies and economies, along with the transformational politics to deliver these. While this is a major challenge, it is not unattainable. Transformations to sustainability are already happening in some places and around some issues, led both by top-down international and government action and policies, and crucially by grassroots action by citizens in rural and urban settings. Building the political momentum to intensify and grow these initiatives, and to challenge the ‘lock-ins’ that block pathways to sustainability, are key tasks ahead.

What is the biggest challenge/hindrance to successful development?

What area of development or Global Goal do you think sustainable development hinges on? Which one is at the core of all the others?

The Global Goals lay out an ambitious and important agenda for both people and planet, to which all countries have committed. This is a vital and positive step in meeting the challenges of sustainable development. All 17 goals are important, and it is in their combination that progress by 2030 and beyond can be expected. There are also important synergies and tensions between the goals which need to be acknowledged and addressed. For instance meeting the goal for food production could compromise the water goal if agricultural strategies do not take into account surface and groundwater needs; on the other hand opportunitie exist for multiple wins in addressing food, energy and water together. Addressing climate change goals and targets could compromise goals around poverty, tackling inequality and gneder equality if technological and market schemes dispossess local people of rights and livelihoods; on the other hand appropriate policies and strategies could address all these goals together, for instance by building on grassroots initiatives with women’s leadership, or building in appropriate safeguards. Because of these interactions, it is not appropriate to define any particular goal as the most important for sustainable development. People do not live their lives in separate silo-like goals, and nor should responsive, transformative development.

Alongside the significance of the SDGs themselves are their cross-cutting principles and approaches. The imperative to ‘leave no one behind’ is a vital step in forging a development agenda that is genuinely inclusive, and which tackles extreme forms of marginalisation – whether related to poverty, ethnicity, disability, peace, gender or intersections of these. The SDGs are also universal, applying to all countries and people. This is a is a major step in dismantling the problematic divides between so-called North and South, developed and developing country, which have pervaded so much aid and development discourse and practice. Instead, we can now look properly to development as positive change for everyone, everywhere. We can fully acknowledge and address the global-local interconnections between people and places around challenges such as climate, finance, food, and pandemics. And we can forge a development agenda that is about mutual and multi-way learning and co-operation in all directions.

What’s the most striking thing you have personally witnessed in relation to development? i.e. a challenge, opportunity or just personal observation about a human story.

I’ve witnessed and experienced many striking things in relation to development, but a story from recent times illustrates some of the themes I have addressed above: the importance of interconnected challenges in a complex world, and the importance of combining different forms of knowledge and practice – grassroots as well a sglobal, social as well as technical – to address them.

The spectre of a deadly disease emerging in a remote place, spreading rapidly to become a global pandemic is the stuff of nightmares. This ‘global outbreak narrative’ fuels popular media, and now a new wave of global ‘pandemic preparedness policy’. Ebola has become paradigmatic, topping the World Health Organisation’s latest priority disease list. This isn’t just because Ebola is a particularly dramatic haemorraghic fever transmitted through body fluids and killing more than half those infected, but also because in 2014-2015 the global outbreak narrative came true. The Ebola epidemic that began in the village of Meliandou in the Guinea-Sierra Leone-Liberia border region in December 2013 spread fast through the towns and trade routes of this highly-peopled, mobile region, and cases – and fear of them – reached neighbouring countries, Europe, the US and the world. By January 2016 when all countries were finally declared Ebola-free, the death toll was just over 11,000, with 17,000 survivors struggling with the medical and social fallout. It was a devastating crisis – but it could have been much worse. The story of grassroots and social knowledge is critical to this.

Why was this? The problem was that by August 2014, when the World Health Organization belatedly declared the epidemic to be a so-called „public health emergency of international concern”, it was already out of control, with scientists predicting not thousands but millions of deaths. The early international response by humanitarian agencies had foundered, largely for socio-cultural reasons. Many villagers suspected that both the virus, and alleged attempts to control it, were plots to repress their livelihoods and practices, or even kill them. Villagers stoned response agencies’ vehicles and dug trenches across their bush roads to keep them out. People hid and cared for their patients in their remote farm camps rather than bring them to Ebola Treatment Units, and sometimes ‘stole back’ patients treated there. Funerals were quickly identified as a key moment for transmission, when bodies are at their most infectious, and local practices involve touching and visits by kin – yet people resented and resisted the external teams sent in to conduct so-called safe burials. And as the response scaled up, so did local anxieties about it.

Really worried about what was unfolding, a group of anthropologists in Sierra Leone and the UK who had worked for decades in the region on various development-related issues wondered what we could do. We set up an Ebola Response Anthropology Platform, and established links with networks of concerned anthropologists that also emerged in West Africa, Europe and the US. Together. We mobilised social science knowledge in real-time to re-shape the public health and humanitarian response, away from the top-down approach that was clashing so badly with local values and fuelling resistance that magnified the crisis, and towards a more respectful, community-engaged approach that appreciated and built on people’s own social and cultural logics, practices and innovations.

Take funerals: our work showed the need to see them as part of a longer period of caring for the extremely sick by kin; and their social and cultural significance, ensuring people become ancestors, social faults are addressed, and matters of inheritance settled. At one point there was a stand-off in a Kissi village where a pregnant woman had died of Ebola; villagers insisted that the fetus be removed before burial, to avoid the social fault of ‘maa’, in which regenerative cycles of generations are mixed, with devastating consequences for land, crops and people. The burial team refused because of the infection risk. Mediation by an anthropologist and a local healer helped broker a creative alternative; a sacrifice that would appease the relevant spirits without the fetus being removed. As in examples like this, communities were willing to adapt their practices to balance social and infection risk; but agencies needed to appreciate their social significance to support this balancing. Such understanding fed directly into new guidelines for ‘safe and dignified burials’ with community involvement.

Or take local anxieties about the response: far from being the ignorance based ‘rumours’ that agencies initially assumed, our work showed their logics embedded in the region’s experience of development and inequalities. The idea that foreign agencies might be trying to depopulate an area to take land – or that Ebola is being spread by white miners – are all too feasible given people’s lived experiences of land and resource grabs and disposession. One of the most devastating incidents in the epidemic, when villagers in the Guinea forest village of Womeh out of fear attacked and killed a 6 person Ebola sensitisation team, happened less than 10 km from Mt. Simandou, the planned site of the largest integrated iron-ore mine and infrastructure project ever developed in Africa by Rio Tinto Group, BSG Resources and the Aluminium Corporation of China (Chinalco). Ebola also became embroiled in longstanding ethnic and political tensions. For instance in Guinea, the epidemic’s epicentres in the forest and coastal regions are also heartlands of ethnic groups opposed to the Malinke-led party in power. A politicised response by government was easily interpreted as genocide. By explaining these tensions, we were able to support agencies to tailor their messages and teams – for instance by working through ethnically trusted or neutral officials.

Our Platform directly shaped humanitarian and development strategies. It supported the UK government’s strategy in Sierra Leone, becoming a first-time social science sub-committee of the UK Government Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), directly advising the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientist. Impacts included the decision to develop Community Care Centres for initial triage and isolation of cases, as a more acceptable and accessible alternative to the large Ebola Treatment Units which people so feared. We also directly informed the social mobilisation efforts of the Sierra Leone government and NGO-led Social Mobilisation Action Consortium, highlighting how community learning and behaviour change was turning the epidemic round, and how to build on this in ‘Community Lead Action on Ebola’ efforts which eventually reached 67% of communities in Sierra Leone.

International agencies have recognised this. Margaret Chan of WHO said in 2015 ‘we have learned the lessons of community and culture’, and WHO’s re-vamped Health Emergencies Programme has a major emphasis on community engagement, as does UNICEF’s new Health Emergency Preparedness Initiative (HEPI). The importance of social science knowledge has been recognised – at the invitation of UNICEF and USAID we’re now running a broader social science in humanitarian action platform, and agencies are calling for the development of social science protocols to be ready for quick use in further outbreaks, of all priority diseases.

Outbreaks and potential pandemics will recur in our current and future development era – although when and where we cannot be certain. These are part of the protracted crises that affect so many. What I think we can be sure of is that alongside medical technologies and epidemiology, social knowledge – and the ability to mobilise it in real time – will be critical parts of the world’s ability to be ready and respond, and crucial to addressing humanitarian and development issues.



#KAPTalks interviews: bold leadership needed

Ryszard Kapuscinski’s works addressed leading development issues of the 1970s, 1980s, and (arguably to a lesser extent) the 1990s.  Have the world’s development challenges changed since then?  What was the biggest challenge then and what is it now?

I disagreed with Kapuściński, when he claimed: “We know everything about the global problem of poverty. What we can’t figure out is how to reduce it in practical terms. [The moment we try] there appear obstacles that cannot be surmounted, and interests one cannot go against

In fact, when I founded the UN Millennium Campaign in 2002, I insisted: we are the first generation that can put an end to extreme poverty: we know what to do, we have the resources, and we have the commitments of the world’s governments to do what it takes. But it requires political will: and lack of that was a challenge at the time – and even more, today. Political will only materializes when politicians feel they can win elections by doing the right thing: it is up to us, citizens and civil society to make these issues vote-getters.

And indeed, the Millennium Development Goals were broadly achieved, as (according to the UN SG in 2003) “There has been …most importantly mobilization far beyond governments by Civil Society, among parliamentarians, faith-based communities and local authorities.” Alas, in the present climate of growing xenophobia and nationalism, it became much harder to mobilize citizens in favor of international responsibility and solidarity and get the message to politicians.

Some people dismiss sustainable development as an aspirational vision, others an unattainable fantasy, and still others absolutely necessary to our future. In this age where few seem interested in working for the collective good of all, what’s your argument to convince others that it is necessary to change the way we develop?

Everybody wants a better life for their children and grandchildren. Obviously already much of the quality of life as we enjoyed it, clean air and waters, beautiful fauna and flora, is being lost. We are failing the imperative to pass on this planet to the next generation in as good shape as we inherited it from our parents. And to care about the planet implies caring about people, as poverty is the greatest polluter. This is what sustainable development is about…

 What is the biggest challenge/hindrance to successful development?

The real problem is that government leaders come to international meetings, make beautiful speeches and sign up for ambitious promises; and then take back the plane from New York or Paris home, to business as usual, instead of meeting with their Cabinet members to discuss what their signature implies, per sector, for all the different portfolio’s Ministers hold – from health to finance and trade, and regularly monitor implementation of the actions agreed.

And they can get away with this, as they are not being held to account by their own citizens and Parliaments, the only ones that can do so, as the UN cannot send the police to a country that fails to live up to its promises. There is no point in producing global norms and goals unless they are translated in concrete political action at country level.

And it is not only lofty UN Declarations that gather dust without being implemented. Treaties might suffer this fate: the 2007 Lisbon Treaty requires all EU’s policies to be consistent with its external policies, including fostering sustainable development whose primary aim is the eradication of poverty and helping the environment. But until this day the EU’s common agricultural policies continue to pollute the environment and hurt poor producers in developing countries.

What area of development or Global Goal do you think sustainable development hinges on? Which one is at the core of all the others?

 Goal 1 – Poverty – is in my view – the overarching goal. I see all other goals as instruments and/or issues to be tackled in order to achieve this first goal. And given the relationship between poverty and the health of our planet, reaching the first goal is also paramount for environmental sustainability.

What’s the most striking thing you have personally witnessed in relation to development? i.e. a challenge, opportunity or just personal observation about a human story. 

On more than one occasion I met poor African women, empowered by a little extra income, thanks to access to minimal resources or assets, proudly telling me that now they could afford to send their daughters to school and how that would ensure she would have a much better life that they had. These encounters never failed to move me deeply; and to make me realize that this is at the heart of what the development is all about.

#KAPTalks interviews: Global Goals need more work

When Ryszard Kapuscinski was putting pen to paper, the biggest global challenge was human poverty, including high mortality among children and mothers, widespread malnutrition and persistent illiteracy. Since then, respectable progress has been made. Perhaps the most striking statistic is that some 18,600 fewer cases of infant and child deaths occurred each day in 2015 compared with 1990; notwithstanding the significant rise in the world population over that period. But progress was not observed across the board. Deforestation, overfishing and pollution has continued unabated, jeopardising the planet’s biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions have soured. The picture can be summarized by the one-liner Progress for people, regress for the planet.

Whilst human poverty still requires hard work, it no longer constitutes the prime global challenge. The most pressing one now is twofold: sustainable and equitable development. The world is not facing two separate challenges—environmental and societal, with fragmentation and polarisation of all sorts—but one complex inter-connected challenge in which inequality occupies a central role. Evidence shows, for instance, that people in more equitable countries are more environmentally friendly across the board: they consume less water for personal use, produce less waste and emit less CO2.

Girl in a jacket

Although the SDGs represent a better framework to respond to this dual challenge than did the MDGs, they are too muddle-headed to be effective. The goals regarding climate change and inequality rank in thirteenth and tenth position respectively—suggesting they do not really constitute top priorities. Moreover, their relevant targets are flawed. The stated target for inequality aims to ‘progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average’. The metric for inequality is faulty because it fails to capture the entire distribution and ignores the top 10%. Inequality is not only due to the poverty of the poor but also to the wealth of the wealthy. It is perfectly possible for a country to meet the above-mentioned target and yet witness an increase in inequality. If faster income growth for the bottom 40% is based on transfers from the next 50% whilst the top 10% of the distribution are left unaffected, then the country will indeed see a rise in inequality. A hollowing out of the middle class is being observed in many a country.

The significance of high inequality cannot to be underestimated, because it influences the way people feel, think and act. We do not only crave for status and constantly compare ourselves with others, we also mimic the behaviour of others, especially those at the top, to whom we look up in awe whilst feeling contempt for those lower on the social ladder. We inadvertently internalise the values, the opinions and even the interpretation of events of those whom we admire. This can have deleterious effects on our moral sentiments, giving rise to more incivility. People voluntarily abstain from acts that are individually beneficial but socially harmful as long as others do so too. But once wealth is perceived as an entitlement to selfish behaviour, it will quickly cascade down the social ladder and good behaviour quickly evaporates. Psychology professor Paul Piff conducted experiments that show that respondents who were made to feel rich were ‘more likely to break the law while driving, to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies, and to cheat to win a prize’. Other studies reveal that individual tendencies of self-absorption, bragging and self-aggrandisement are most prevalent in more unequal countries. In short, high inequality harms more than just the economy; it affects all aspects of development.

Considerable work remains to realise the potential of the SDGs. The good news is that several of their flaws can be fixed. First, each and every country must cut the long list of SDG targets to a manageable level by prioritising them to fit the reality on the ground. Second, the fuzziness of many SDG targets must be swapped for conceptually clarity, because wooly targets cannot be verifiably monitored. Third, numerical outcomes must be tailored to reflect local realities. It is unreasonable to expect that all countries will progress at the same rate. Global targets are always collective in nature, and must never be imposed on each country individually. Selection and adaptation are urgent steps, given that the SDGs have gotten little traction so far. One thing I have learnt is that development is always context-specific, driven by local priorities, local actors and local institutions. There can be no universal agenda with one-size-fit-all targets for all countries. International and regional organisations are yet to take effective steps to encourage and support member states in selecting and adapting the SDGs to their specific situation.

Finally, more fitting indicators must be selected to monitor progress. Regarding income inequality, the Palma ratio—income share of the top 10% divided by that of the bottom 40%—is a better metric because it covers more of the distribution than just the bottom 40%. In addition, all vital statistics and other relevant indicators for human development must be equity-adjusted, by attaching more weight to the lower quintiles than to the higher ones. Given the increased availability of better and more disaggregated data, it is now possible to adjust key national indicators to reflect inequalities within a country, following a straightforward methodology for producing equity-adjusted statistics. By embedding inequality into national statistics, countries will occupy a different place in international rankings, depending on how unequal they are. This is likely to generate a much-needed focus on inequality across the board, which is overdue because high inequality constitutes a major hindrance to achieving sustainable development. 

Jan Vandemoortele, PhD., co-architect of the MDGs, served with UNDP and UNICEF in various countries and at headquarters.

#KAPTalks interviews: democractic empowerment of majorities

Ryszard Kapuscinski’s works addressed leading development issues of the 1970s, 1980s, and (arguably to a lesser extent) the 1990s.  Have the world’s development challenges changed since then?  What was the biggest challenge then and what is it now?

There have been significant changes in the leading approaches to development: in the agents and agencies taking charge of it, in the theories and values guiding them, in the goals they prioritize, and in the academic analysis and journalistic commentary accompanying development work. Still, the real challenges are akin to what they were half a century ago. Billions of human beings still are at risk of undernourishment, malnutrition, communicable diseases or death from neonatal or maternal conditions. Billions still lack clean water, sanitation, shelter, electricity, basic health care or elementary education. Back in Kapuscinski’s day, the world was rich and productive enough to avoid these massive deprivations but instead chose to spend its riches on an incredibly expensive arms race, an incredibly destructive war in South East Asia and an extravagant but exciting space program. Today, with global average income some 130% higher in real terms and after spectacular advances in science and technology, humanity is even much more capable of avoiding such deprivations. But this will not happen so long as a small global elite runs this planet, capturing 46% of global wealth for its 36 million millionaires while confining humanity’s poorer half to less than 1%.

While inequality remains the key foe of development, there has been a significant shift from inequality’s international to its intra-national component. While the logarithmic distance between the poorest and richest countries has remained about the same, international Gini inequality has declined as some very large developing countries have been rapidly catching up to the global average.

For the world’s poor, this decline in international inequality has been nullified by significant increases in intra-national inequality – not merely in India and China, but pretty much everywhere in the world (least so in Latin America, where intra-national inequality was at nosebleed levels even in the 1960s). So the poorer half of the world’s population is still left behind economically, still socially and politically marginalized if not excluded. But the countries in which most of them live now command much more influence on the international stage. While the high-income countries peaked at 85% of the world economy in 1992 and have since declined to 64%, China’s share bottomed at 1.7% in 1981 and has since increased to 16%. Where developing countries had little or no influence on the design of the global economy 50 years ago, they have substantial influence today, especially where they engage in South-South collaboration (as in BRICS or IBSA). Today’s problem is that, all too often, this influence is exerted in behalf of small Southern elites rather than for the benefit of the majority – and also that the world’s poor find themselves increasingly disempowered, excluded and ignored by the politicians of their own countries.

Some people dismiss sustainable development as an aspirational vision, others an unattainable fantasy, and still others see it as absolutely necessary to our future. In this age where few seem interested in working for the collective good of all, what’s your argument to convince others that it is necessary to change the way we develop?

The expression “sustainable development” brings together two different projects: to avert climate change and to eradicate poverty. These two projects are superficially at odds as is often pointed out by saying: “just imagine what the world would be like if those who are now poor attained the affluent lifestyles common in Germany, Japan or Maryland! Our planet would be ruined even faster.” This appearance is often exploited and entrenched by those who, for whatever reasons, oppose either project. They are quick to exclaim either that we should not vigorously fight climate change because doing so would impose intolerable burdens on the poor or that we should not vigorously fight poverty because doing so would accelerate environmental disaster.

I have two main arguments against such claims of tension.

First, severe poverty can be eradicated through economic growth or through a reduction in economic inequality (or through some combination of the two). Adopting the former method, we might seek a quadrupling of the gross world product, hoping that doing so would “lift all boats,” thus quadrupling the income of the world’s poor as well. Such an anti-poverty strategy would court ecological disaster. But then the horrendous magnitude of accumulated inequality makes it possible for us to adopt the latter method instead: to make enormous progress against poverty even without any further global economic growth. We could, for example, quadruple the income of humanity’s poorer half (from 4.5% to 18% of gross world product) by shrinking the income share of the richest quarter by merely one sixth (from 85% to 71%). To be sure, the fourfold income increase in humanity’s poorer half would have adverse ecological effects. But these would be largely or wholly offset by the ecological benefits of reduced income in the richest quarter (fewer private planes and yachts, reduced air travel, smaller cars, less waste of consumption goods, etc.).

Second, as longitudinal and cross-country studies spectacularly confirm, poverty eradication has a massive negative effect on total fertility rates (average children per woman), especially when it comes with improved educational and employment opportunities for women and girls. Some poor populations in Africa – Niger, Angola, Mali – still have TFRs over 6, while the EU’s TFR is 1.58 and TFRs in more than 100 mostly affluent countries have fallen below 2.00 (implying that their populations will decline). Humanity’s future population size is one crucially important factor in humanity’s future ecological footprint. The UN Population Division currently forecasts that humankind will number between 9.6 and 13.2 billion in the year 2100 (90% probability), with pretty much all of the increase occurring in the less developed regions (mostly in Africa). With a serious anti-poverty offensive, TFRs among the currently poorest populations would fall much faster than predicted and humanity could peak at 9 billion in 2050 and return to the current 7.5 billion by century’s end. By reducing the size of the year-2100 population by one third (relative to the current median projection of 11.2 billion) and the size of later populations by even more, a serious effort against poverty could bring dramatic relief in the struggle to avert climate change, resource depletion and other ecological hazards.

The arguments I have sketched will convince those who are interested in working for the collective good of all. The rest are, I fear, hard to convince, especially if they are affluent. Rich people are above all mobile and can use golden passport programs to relocate away from areas that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change or poverty (into the US Northwest, perhaps, or into safe parts of Canada, New Zealand, Chile, Russia or South Africa). And they will rationally prefer doing so over giving up even just one sixth of their income for the sake of eradicating poverty and preserving our beautiful planet. Once they will have pulled out their investments – or even have gone short – they will care nothing about the fate of Venice, Mumbai, Rio, Cape Town, Christchurch, Miami or Bangladesh.

What area of development or Global Goal do you think sustainable development hinges on? Which one is at the core of all the others? 

The fundamental problem of sustainable development is the problem of political empowerment or, to put it negatively, the problem of regulatory capture. Political power in this world has been seized by a small international elite of super-rich financiers, tycoons and politicians who, abetted by armies of well-trained accountants, lawyers and lobbyists, capture an ever-increasing share of the social product. Their fortunes and machinations are shrouded in secrecy as over a hundred secrecy jurisdictions compete to keep their assets hidden under layers of anonymous accounts, shell companies and fake trusts. Such people dominate politics in most developing countries and thereby control the basic resources on which we all depend: food, fossil fuels, metals and other minerals. They dominate politics in the United States, where the practice of bribing elected politicians through future employment or contributions to their campaigns and political action committees (PACs) is protected by the Supreme Court. And through their exorbitant influence on national governments, they also dominate international rulemaking through treaties and conventions as well as through the associated international organizations and agencies (WTO, IMF, OECD, etc.) in charge of interpreting, refining and applying international rules.

These rich and powerful people are, for the most part, not evil, nor even ill-disposed toward the poor. But they do have a special affection for their own fortunes and therefore use their disproportional political power toward defending and increasing their own outsized shares of the social product. They do so by evading their tax obligations (even in civilized and public-spirited Scandinavia, the richest 0.01% of the population – with wealth above USD 40 million – evade about 30% of their taxes on average). They do so by deploying their financial and political power to reduce or eliminate taxes on the rich and social safety and social mobility programs for the rest of the population. And they do so by organizing and supporting elaborate propaganda efforts designed to show that things are getting better and better for ordinary people (the Gates-Pinker-Roser team) and that those in power care deeply about preserving our planet and “leaving no one behind” (the Millennium/Sustainable Development Goals exercises and the Paris Agreement).

This is not to say that the global elite acts in close coordination, as part of some grand conspiracy created and sustained at Davos or Bilderberg meetings. Political, finance and business leaders often compete, clash, even destroy one another as they seek to enhance their own power at one another’s expense. Still, the net effect of their exertions favors their shared interests over those of the vast majority of the human population who are feeling increasingly confused, helpless and demoralized, often blaming unloved minorities or themselves for their economic, social and political marginalization. Though disunited, the elites together maintain a public culture and institutional arrangements that systematically impede human development and keep billions in at a level of severe poverty that has long ago become wholly avoidable.

The democratic empowerment of these majorities is the fundamental problem of development. And a formidable problem it is! Over the last forty years, the elites have greatly increased their economic advantage over the rest, keeping billions in conditions of severe poverty where they must focus their energies on the survival of their families rather than on fighting for political reform. This increasing gap is magnified by huge advantages in education and especially in technology – such as surveillance, big data, disinformation, artificial intelligence, all of which are overwhelmingly used by and for the elites. Democratic movements exist (witness the Bernie Sanders campaign) and still have a genuine chance to win here and there. But without some important democratic victories in the near future, we will slide farther into a world of extreme inequality in which the lives of the vast majority will be blighted by poverty, marginalization and increasingly severe environmental burdens. We don’t have much time.

Taking peace-building to the world

Mr. José Ramos-Horta delivered a keynote speech at the Hertie School of Governance as part of the Kapuscinski Development Lecture Series, 2019 on “Taking Peace-building to the World: Our Responsibilities and Failures”. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 “for his work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor”. For over two decades, he served as an international spokesperson, extensively lobbying governments and creating networks of supporters for the cause of his people. He was successful in advocating dialogue and presented a peace plan to Indonesia (through extensive humanitarian cooperation). His passion to liberate his homeland through peace, laid the foundations for Indonesian withdrawal and peace objectives being accomplished in 2001.

In his lecture he spoke about, [how] “we are living in very dangerous times. Right here in the heart of Europe forces of good and of intolerance are on a collision course. Across the English Channel there are forces bent on wrecking a magnificent social, political and security architecture built over many decades pushing Europe towards the abyss of chaos and irrelevance. In the course of over 40 years, starting as an innocent and romantic believer in the promises and possibilities of the United Nations, I have seen the best – when the UN lived up to the expectations of the people it deployed to protect – but also I witnessed or heard heart wrenching stories of shocking betrayals on other front lines. I have engaged with UN personnel in my own country and in remote outposts where dedicated field staff absorb the indifference of headquarters, whose envoys descend to evaluate the mission, yet things stayed the same. The UN can do better. We are all the UN and we can and must do better.”

National reconciliation through healing the wounds of the divided community of Timor-Leste, Ramos-Horta noted, has been the greatest success. He spoke about the failures of the national governments to resolve conflicts and crises around the world. He pointed to the failures of the international community at the UN to address conflicts, such as in South Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, and Syria. Countries should feel empowered, he argued, to reach out to the international community for help in times of conflict or war. Yet, he made a clear distinction that “we cannot blame everybody else,” referring to national governments to use the Secretary-General as the scapegoat for national gridlock. He argued that if they had failed in Timor-Leste to end the war that he would not have the audacity to blame the United Nations, but rather signed out that others can help but the responsibility falls on the leaders of the country to pave the road toward peace and resolution.

Furthermore, he discussed that the prevention of conflict begins at home. He asked, “who are the best actors to prevent conflicts?” as well as “what are the best prescriptions to prevent conflicts in society?” His answer to this was that policies must be set in place that are inclusive and embrace everyone from both minority and majority groups in society. Policies that do not discriminate against anyone, such as language, religion or ethnic are the foundation for conflict prevention. Cultural diversity must be seen as an asset and not a threat to society, as he believes that the disregard and discrimination resulting from a lack of diversity as the major root of conflict and crises. Ramos-Horta strongly advocated that prevention begins with tolerance and this is the first and primary responsibility of the leaders of countries around the world.

Following his lecture he was joined by Inge Kaul, Adjunct at the Hertie School and the first director of the Human Development Report office of UNDP, for discussion with the audience. During the discussion they touched on topics such as activities of the UN and peace operations on the ground as well as lessons from Timor-Leste that Mr. Ramos-Horta gave during his lecture. Ramos-Horta agreed that the UN remained indispensable for the success of Timo-Leste’s struggle for independence.

Governance, Capture and Corruption: Solutions for a Changed World

When: 1st March 2019 at 13:30 TRT / 11:30 CET (check time around the world).

Where: Kadir Has University, Galata Hall, Cibali Campus, Kadir Has Caddesi, Fatih, Istanbul

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Istanbul (registration required – click here)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Kaufmann via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

Based on Daniel Kaufmann’s prior estimates, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that annually about USD 2 trillion is lost due to corruption and bribery every year, exceeding 2 percent of global GDP. This work contributed to the IMF’s position that the challenge of corruption is “macro-critical” and to its recent engagement on the topic. The United Nations and its constituents have also become more explicit in their attempts to address misgovernance and corruption, which are part of Sustainable Development Goal 16 on strengthening institutions.

The Panama Papers leak as well as multi-billion-dollar scandals (such as “Lava Jato” in Latin America and bribery cases involving international oil companies in Nigeria) illustrate the interconnected, global nature of corruption, and its costs to society and development.Corruption has persisted over time, yet its form and manifestations have changed, necessitating a new approach to fighting it. Both “state capture” and corruption in the natural resource sector, among others, warrant increased attention. And from a broader governance perspective, the current threats to civil liberties, democratic values and rule of law in many countries require attention and action.

What does the evidence show about trends in governance and corruption around the world? How costly are mis-governance and corruption, and which particular manifestations pose a major threat in the current context? Is corruption in reality becoming “legalized” in many settings? What is state capture, why is it so costly and what can be done about it?  Are some sectors—such as natural resources—and countries particularly vulnerable, requiring special attention? What could constitute the central elements of approaches to good governance and corruption control in the future?

#KAPTalks interviews: go beyond project-level development

Taming Cerberus: the new challenge of international development

The framing of the Sustainable Development Goals provides an important reminder that there is still far to go in building ‘the world we want’. To take just one example, 22% of all children under five were stunted in 2017: that is 150 million children whose current life and future prospects are blighted by undernutrition. The SDGs set clear goals on all aspects of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

It would be wrong, however, not to recognise the progress made since the UN’s first Development Decade in the 1960s. At the beginning of that decade, for example, and to take one country example, Tanzania, about a quarter of children could expect to die before the age of 5; by 2016, that had fallen to under 6%. Higher living standards, better nutrition, improved health care, and the impact of immunisation have all played their part. And, yes, of course, there is still more to do, in Tanzania and many other countries.

It is remarkable, however, that in 2017, there are only 34 countries officially classified as ‘low income’, with per capita income of $US 995 or less. Most of those turn out to be conflict-affected, or otherwise fragile states. Syria is on the list, Afghanistan, North Korea . . . These are not text book ‘developing countries’ with the usual problems of Government capacity and budget shortfalls. Instead, they represent a different kind of challenge, requiring large amounts of humanitarian aid, but also deep engagement in peace-making, peace-keeping and reconstruction. Development agencies need to work in new ways, often in close cooperation with foreign ministries and the armed forces. The UN, of course, has unique legitimacy in these contexts.

There is a further issue, which is that the SDGs provide an excellent vision of a desired end-point, but a rather poor road map of how to get there. Should action be taken uniformly on all goals simultaneously, or do choices need to be made? The answer, of course, is that development strategies need to be locally-specific and locally-owned. Beware, then, SDG box-ticking.

Furthermore, reaching all or some of the SDGs means hitting a moving target, because the world is changing fast. There are three fundamental drivers. First, the uneven impact of globalisation, driving political discourse in many countries as some citizens advance and others are left behind. Second, automation, which will create and destroy jobs on a global scale. And third, climate change, with mountains to climb if Paris targets are to be met, again with global consequences. This is about taming Cerberus, the mythical dog with three fierce heads, but a single body. Indeed, in all these cases, the test facing policy-makers is to manage disruptive change on a world scale: in effect to deliver an industrial revolution which manages the social disruption associated with transformation, and manages public policy and the sequencing of interventions so as to deliver benefits to all.

Can it be done? Yes, if a path can be found between free-market neoliberalism and inward-looking populism. History teaches many lessons about: the role of people’s voice, including unions and civic organisations; the need to secure basic service provision, including social protection; the role of the state in supporting innovation; and the regulatory foundation of equitable and sustainable growth. The free market left to itself will not deliver these public goods; nor will policy which ignores the need for global engagement and collaboration.

Development actors can no longer concentrate on project-level interventions. Instead, they need to look beyond the SDGs and recognise the complexity of present and future challenges.


Netflix for Agriculture? Digital Technology for Development

The rapid spread of mobile phones in developing countries, coupled with recent advances in our ability to analyze big data through tools such as machine learning and artificial intelligence, has generated considerable excitement about the potential of ICT for development. How does the reality of ICT use for development stack up to this excitement? And, which institutional arrangements best promote the use of ICT for development? Michael Kremer begins to answer these questions by examining the case of mobile-phone enabled agricultural extension for smallholder farmers.

Recent changes in technology have made it possible to disseminate personalized agricultural information to smallholder farmers via their mobile-phones. In this lecture, Kremer explores the rapidly accumulating evidence on the impact of mobile-phone based agricultural extension. There appear to be at least some settings where farmers change their behavior and increase their yields in response to advice delivered via their mobile phones. Preliminary evidence suggests this may be highly-cost effective. However, due to market failures and asymmetric information private markets will typically undersupply this public good.

Governments tend to fail as well due to design flaws that make their solutions difficult for farmers to understand. Kremer discusses potential hybrid solutions that incorporate elements of both private and public provision and argues that zero (or negative) pricing for such services is likely optimal. Finally, the lecture ends with a speculative vision of a “Netflix for Agriculture” in which farmers would provide information, knowing that this would allow the system to make better recommendations for them, and this would in turn improve the performance of the system in offering recommendations to other farmers.

Human security in the age of geopolitics, terrorism and new wars

We are living through a period of transition, which is characterized by competing conceptions of power and competing ways of doing security. In contrast to the Cold War and indeed the whole period of modernity, the combination of new wars and the war on terror in places like Syria, DRC, or Yemen is undermining many of the norms and laws of war associated with traditional geo-politics – bombing schools and hospitals, long distance assassination, the use of poison as a weapon or beheadings and sexual slavery – and producing large-scale forced displacement.

Against this background, the Kapuscinski Development Lecture with Professor Mary Kaldor argued that the European Union potentially represents a new form of political authority – a model of global governance in contrast to traditional states like the US, Russia or China. This is illustrated by its security culture as represented by the European Union Global Strategy on foreign and security policy. The Global Strategy aspires to a form of Liberal Peace that is based on human security rather than national security. The evolution of the EU, she argued, depends to a considerable extent on whether the EU adopts a closed-in traditional inside-outside bordered approach to security or alternatively whether it pursues a global human rights-based approach and is able to respond effectively to its crisis-ridden neighborhood. To this end, the promotion of sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions will be of vital importance.

Agenda 2030: Two Years In

The lecture formed the keynote part of the 6th International Conference on Sustainable Development „Breaking Down Silos: Fostering Collaborative Action on the SDGs.e World in 2050: Looking Ahead for Sustainable Development” organised by the Columbia University, Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Master’s in Development Practice.

The lecture „Development and human progress: why I believe in a brighter future” was delivered by HRH Crown Prince Haakon of Norway, UNDP Goodwill Ambassador who was introduced by Stefano Manservisi, Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO). The lecture is organised during the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting.

Achieving the SDGs: Lessons from the Social Progress Index

When: 21st May 2018 at 15:00 EEST / 14:00 CET (check time around the world).

Where: Magna Aula, Sofia University

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Sofia. Registration below required.
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Michael Green via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

Register here for the event: 

Development is much more than GDP per capita. If we want to achieve ambitious global goals we need to look at development from many different angles, not just the money in the pocket. Otherwise they will not be achieved fully and effectively.

The Social Progress Index…  What can we learn from this model that will help the world achieve the SDGs?

The Sustainable Development Goals have set an ambitious agenda for our world. But how do we get there? Michael Green, CEO of the Social Progress Imperative will share insights from the Social Progress Index to show how far we have to go and what we have to do to get there.

Youth in movement

When: 26th January 2018 at 4:00 pm CET / 3:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where: Turnzaal of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Grote Gracht 90-92, Maastricht

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Maastricht. Register here.
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Alcinda Honwana via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

Across the globe a growing number of young women and men, both educated and non-educated, find themselves unemployed or underemployed, and have to improvise livelihoods outside of dominant economic frameworks.

Alcinda Honwana will discuss waithood – a liminal space in which young people are neither dependent children nor fully autonomous adults.

Young people in waithood are living in the periphery of major socio-economic processes, sometimes migration and often no longer trusting the ability of their leaders to deliver on their needs and expectations.

Democracy, Truth and the Perils of Information Age

When: 6th December 2017 at 12:15 am EET / 11:15 am CET (check time around the world).

Where: Assembly Hall of the University of Tartu (Ülikooli 18)

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Tartu
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Kalensky and Lauristin via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

In today’s world, new digital tools and the global reach of social media platforms have brought along a transformation of lifestyles: we order goods and services by a few clicks in an app, we rely on GPS to take us home, we prefer online sources to newspapers, and we rely on instant messages and social media to keep up with the lives of relatives, colleagues and friends. This requires us to be constantly available online, ready to receive and make sense of endless flows of information. We have come to lead our entire lives online and this has made us vulnerable.

While the perils of information age have been known for a long time, recent debates have focused on the viability of democracy in an age where everyone can easily create and disseminate information on a mass scale. The problem of “post-truth” is aggravated by the borderless world of the internet and the global reach of social media platforms. Democratic societies have limited tools to counter the threats posed by disinformation, lies and propaganda. How to control the spread of disinformation without restricting democratic principles? How to distinguish between trustworthy and non-trustworthy sources of information? How to ensure that people, the supreme sovereign, base their political decisions on information that bears at least some semblance to reality?

Global challenges, global solutions

When: 15th November 2017 at 10:00 am CET / 9:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where: Aula of the Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Stockholm. Register here.
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Jan Eliasson via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

On January 1, 2016, the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) came into force. Over the next fifteen years, with these new goals that are universally applicable, countries will mobilize efforts to end poverty, fight inequalities and tackle climate change.

These goals spell out the challenges we need to meet to ensure the sustainability of our planet, and to ensure prosperity and equity for all. To solve the global challenges of today we need to think of the world as one system.

Jan Eliasson, former deputy secretary general for the United Nations and former Foreign Minister of Sweden, discusses how the development goals are mutually reinforcing, interdependent and universally applicable. Furthermore, he argues that progress in reaching the goal on peace, justice and strong institutions underpins realizing all 17 goals.

Together with a panel and the audience we will discuss the sustainable development goals and Sweden´s role around them.

Introduction by Lars Strannegård, President SSE

Resilience in the Anthropocene


Resilience in the Anthropocene: Governing through Mapping, Sensing and Hacking

When: 10th November 2017 at 2:00 pm EET / 1:00 pm CET (check time around the world).

Where: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Latvia, 1 A Lomonosova Street, Riga, LV 1019

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Riga
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to prof. Chandler via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

The rise of resilience is intimately connected to the perceived failings of traditional, liberal or modernist forms of politics, which assumed that governance could be centrally directed on the basis of ‘command-and-control’ understandings.

Confidence in this framework has gradually eroded, with an appreciation that the world is much more globalised, interconnected and relationally entangled than ‘top-down’ forms of governance assume.

David Chandler, a leading international academic and commentator in the field of international theory and governance, will talk about the new paradigm of governing through mapping, sensing and hacking.

1) The resilience mode of mapping shifts the focus from the ideas and understanding of governing agencies to the importance of the object of governance itself.

2) Sensing as a mode of governing resilience shifts the emphasis of thinking from causality to correlation.

3) Hacking as a process of ‘becoming with’ seeks to achieve resilience through enabling the creativity of contingent relations rather than merely seeking to resist or limit external effects.

Moroccan-EU connection. Migration

When: 13th December 2017 at 2:00 pm CET / 1:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where:Metropolitní univerzita Praha, Dubečská 900/10, Strašnice, 100 31 Praga

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Prague
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Khadija Elmadmad via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

Morocco has always experienced all types of migration: immigration and emigration, voluntary and forced migration as well as legal and illegal migration. Nowadays, more than 10 percent of Moroccans live abroad. As the vast majority of them reside in European countries and as the Morocco-Spain migration route is slowly becoming one of the main routes used for illegal migration to Europe, the need for cooperation between Morocco and its European counterparts is more urgent than ever before.

All the while, Morocco serves as a transit and immigration country for migrants coming from various parts of the world, mostly from Sub-Saharan Africa and Syria. In 2013 the Moroccan government adopted a new migration policy, which focused on legalizing the status of illegal migrants living in the country and reviewed migration law in order to make it more human and protective for migrants.

All these topics will be touched upon and discussed during a guest lecture of prof. Khadija Elmadmad in which you are cordially invited to participate!

Finance for the people

When: 16th October 2017 at 6:00 pm CET / 4:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where: Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploscad 5, 1000

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Ljubljana
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to prof. Kay via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

The finance sector of Western economies is the product of a ‘bottom-up’ process, in which institutions evolved to serve the local needs of households for payments, savings, and the mutual sharing of risks. These institutions were adapted over time to meet the developing needs of merchants and business.

But that was a long time ago. America and Western Europe today have a finance sector excessive size; a sector that has lost touch with the real economy, and which trades with itself, talks to itself, and judges itself by its own criteria. The outcomes have proved catastrophically unstable. What lessons for developing countries can be learned?


Agenda 2030: One Year In

When: 18th September 2017 at 9:00 am EST / 3:00 pm CET (check time around the world).

Where: Columbia University, Lerner Hall, 2920 Broadway, New York City,

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in NYC (registration required – click here)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to President Akuf-Addo via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

The lecture will form the keynote part of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Development „The World in 2050: Looking Ahead for Sustainable Developmentorganised by the Columbia University, Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Master’s in Development Practice.

The lecture will be delivered by President of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo who will be introduced by Stefano Manservisi, Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO). The lecture is organised during the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting.

Peace Education: Change Starts Here

When: 17th January 2017 at 10:00 am CET / 9:00 am GMT (check time around the world).

Where: University of Warsaw, University of Warsaw Library, at Dobra 56/66 st., 3rd floor, room 316

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Warsaw (registration required – below)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Dawn Engle via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

Register here for the event:


Dawn Engle, the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the The PeaceJam Foundation, will share her experience on encouraging young people from all over the world to work for their local communities.

Dawn Engle – a tireless peace campaigner – has created a network of 13 Nobel Peace Prize winners who now pass their spirit, skills, and wisdom to create young leaders committed to positive change in themselves, their communities, and the world. More than 1.2 million young people from 40 countries have participated in the PeaceJam Program to date. 

Speaking at the University of Warsaw, Dawn will also tell the story of starting the „One Billion Acts of Peace” Campaign – an international global citizens’ movement designed to tackle the most important problems facing our planet. Her efforts inspired young leaders across the globe to perform 15 million (so far and still counting) “simple acts of peace” that include: improving access to clean water, tackling poverty, promoting women and children rights to name just a few.

The lecture will focus on presenting inspiring methods of youth education and creating sustainable, lasting global change through educational activities.

Why securitization only works in Star Wars

We live in the complex world with security becoming a more pressing issue every day. In the face of security crisis, migration challenges and health-related issues, people are often caught in the crossfire in our attempts to frame our security. The response seems to be securitization of health, migration and other humanitarian disasters.

One response for sustainability and peace is through communities. By strengthening local leaders, women in particular, we give them tools to change their communities from within.

Alaa Murabit, one of world’s leading voices for gender equality, addressed these issues, challenge the way we look at them, and frame sustainable development in light of currently emerging trends.

Challenging inequalities and unsustainabilities

When: 2nd November 2016 at 4:00 pm GMT / 5:00 pm CET (check time around the world).

Wherethe Paccar Theatre, Science Gallery, Trinity College Dublin

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Dublin (registration required – below)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Melissa Leach via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag


Across the world, the rise of multiple forms of inequality, and growing environmental problems such as climate change and resource degradation, present defining challenges of our era. These challenges are interlinked, and affect people locally, nationally and globally with devastating consequences for wellbeing and security, and for the achievement of global development goals. Yet pathways to more equal and sustainable futures are possible. These involve innovative combinations of top-down and bottom-up strategies, and novel alliances between states, markets, technologies – and crucially, the knowledge and action of citizens themselves. As examples from urban and rural settings in Asia and Africa show, power and politics are critical in enabling such pathways to unfold, and shaping whether they add up to the transformational change needed to secure more equal, sustainable futures.   

Globalization, migration and future of middle class


When: 12th October 2016 at 5:30 pm CET / 3:30 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where:VUB Campus Etterbeek – Aula Q.b, Brussels, 1050 BELGIUM


When: 13th October 2016 at 6:00 pm CET / 4:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where: Faculty for Economics, Finance and Administration, Boulevard Zorana Đinđića 44, Belgrade

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Brussels (registration required) or Belgrade (registration required)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Branko Milanovic via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

Development @ 70: New Life or Gracious Exit?

When: 23rd September 2016 at 7:00 pm CET / 5:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

WhereAuditório 2, Rua do Quelhas 6, Lisbon, Lisbon School of Economics and Management (ISEG)

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Lisbon (registration required)
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Arturo Escobar via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

As the era of development nears its seventh decade, and in the context of a much changed world since its inception, it warrants posing the question of whether development studies can be infused with new life, or whether we should instead actively wish for its tactful but steady evanescence. After reviewing some of the landmarks of development theory according to its three main paradigms (liberal, Marxist, and poststructuralist theories), this presentation discusses current debates on postdevelopment, with special attention to the emergence of trends centered on Buen Vivir, autonomy, and a re-conceptualization of the communal in Latin America, particularly in the context of territorial struggles against extractivism. The last section presents some work in progress by the author on the interrelation between design, (post)development, and civilizational transitions.

Register for the event:


Human Development: achievements and challenges

When: 29th June 2016 at 6:30 pm CET / 4:30 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where: Paraninfo building of the University of Zaragoza (Plaza Basilio Paraíso 4)

You can join the lecture by:

  • coming to the event in Zaragoza
  • following livestreaming from the event at
  • asking your questions to Frances Stewart via Twitter using #KAPTalks hashtag

This lecture will trace the evolution of thinking from an exclusive emphasis on economic growth to Human Development starting with the 1990 Human Development Report of the UNDP. It will  trace the achievements in Human Development since then, differentiating between basic Human Development and broader dimensions. While there has been very major progress on many of the dimensions, particularly basic HD, there has been more mixed progress on other dimensions – for example in relation to community and social aspects, while there is ongoing gross failure with respect to sustainability. The lecture will end by pointing to some defects in the approach and the challenges they represent for future analysis and policy.

Remind me about livestreaming: 


Remind me:


Education: fundamental to a country’s future

When: 31st May 2016 at 6:00 pm CET / 4:00 pm GMT (check time around the world).

Where: University of Pretoria, Senate Hall, Hatfield Campus, Lynnwood Road, Pretoria

You can join the lecture by:

„The next century is already being built daily in today’s classrooms. However, it becomes more and more obvious that family, government, the media and civil society must be included in the transmission of cultural heritage and key values. To address current and future challenges to peace, prosperity, public health, environment, etc., especially in developing countries, educational systems can no longer be enclosed in traditional schooling patterns. The learning environment has to go beyond the classroom and must mobilize key actors from other sectors. We have to gradually take down the classroom walls. This will require the reengineering of curricula, of learnings, finansings, etc.” – said Nesmy Manigat, former education minister of Haiti ahead of his lecture. 

Remind me about livestreaming from the event:


Remind me: