The LAFF Society

Submitted by Rosalia Sciortino, who worked on Reproductive Health at the Foundation in 1993-2000 in Manila and Jakarta.

From the Citizens News Service (CNS)

June 13, 2010

by Shobha Shukla

On the 1st day of Women Deliver 2010 conference, taking place in Washington DC, USA, leaders from United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and CARE International announced an agreement to enhance collaboration on maternal health programs in more than 25 countries, by working with national governments and by engaging local communities. However for women to deliver, they need power. Successful women change makers have to deal with their power –getting it, keeping it and using it wisely. Read more

Helen Clark, Administrator, and the first woman to lead the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) believes that “achieving gender equality is not only morally right, but also catalytic to development as a whole, creating political, economic, and social opportunities for women, which will benefit individuals, communities, countries, and the world. With women currently comprising only eighteen per cent of the world’s legislators, we are far from parity. Initiatives like legislative quotas, civic education drives, and voter registration campaigns which seek to boost the numbers of women legislators need to be applauded and replicated.”

On the economic front, women are joining the workforce in increasing numbers, but still, almost two thirds of women in the developing world work in vulnerable jobs where they are either self-employed or work as unpaid family workers.

This increases the responsibility of women in power, as they are the inspiration as well as aspiration of millions of their ‘not so fortunate’ sisters. Helen rightly feels that women have to work with men, (as well as with other women) and not against them. Inclusive leadership is the crying need of today.

Building alliances, forming networks and working together will give women leaders the strength to work more and live up to the expectations reposed in them by millions who still lack the basic access to maternal health. Sharing experiences not only restores confidence, but also results in better outcomes.

Arianna Huffington, co-founder of The Huffington Post, feels that the quest for power should bring more balance and wisdom. She finds a lot of intelligence around her but very little wisdom. In a lighter vein she remarked that if ‘Lehmann Brothers ‘were ‘Lehmann Brothers and Sisters’, then they might still be standing. She laments that today’s young women are beset with the fear of failure. Young girls are stressed to the maximum as they are scared of dealing with failure. But then failure is the stepping stone to success. The author of several books, she cites her own example when her 2nd book was rejected by 36 publishers before seeing the light of the day.

There should not be an unbridled hurry to achieve all that we can and wish to. Perseverance is the key to success. And to be powerful in a wise manner one needs to be healthy. Very often women undermine their own need for a healthy and joyous existence and succumb to the traditional role of keeping family happiness above everything else. But if they have to deliver to the world they need to use their creative abilities to the maximum. A good night’s sleep is essential to be able to enjoy each waking moment of life. At this point of inflexion, when women are coming out of their well (and veil), it is important for them to exercise the power they hold as a mother, sister and wife, in a wise manner in order to make this world a more just and humane place to live in.

Ashley Judd, actress and activist, feels that ‘what comes from the heart goes to the heart, and what comes through the head, goes over the head’. So it is important to have passion, as well as compassion in our quest for power and in exercising that power.

Investing in women and girls will be critical for achieving the goals. Development progress is lagging where the needs and status of women and girls are given low priority. Women’s reproductive health needs remain hugely under served. More than half a million women die every year from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. Moreover, 25 years into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, gender inequality and unequal power relationships expose women to great risk. While about half of all people living with HIV/AIDS globally are female, in sub-Saharan Africa, approximately sixty per cent are female.

Women Deliver is an initiative which works globally to focus attention on fulfilling what is called “Millennium Development Goal #5.” This goal calls for a reduction in maternal mortality and universal access to reproductive health globally. We must not forget that “Women are at the economic heart of the developing world. And to do all this work, they need to be healthy”.

Shobha Shukla

(The author is the CNS Editor, has worked earlier with State Planning Institute, UP, and teaches Physics at India’s prestigious Loreto Convent. Email: shobha@citizen-news.org, website: www.citizen-news.org)

Edgar O. Edwards was born in Foxborough, Massachusetts in 1919 and earned an associate of arts degree from Green Mountain College in 1939. Following service in the Pacific with the U. S. Army during World War II, he earned a bachelor’s degree from Washington and Jefferson College and masters and doctoral degrees in political economy from The Johns Hopkins University. Following nine years on the faculty of Princeton University, he was named Hargrove Professor of Economics at Rice University.  His work at The Ford Foundation included the following positions:

August 1963 to July 1965 - Project Specialist-Economics in Kenya advising the government

August 1965 to April 1966 - Consultant

September 1966 to September 1969 - Project Specialist-Economic Planning in Kenya

September 1969 to October 1974 - Economic Advisor for Asia and Pacific

November 1974 to April 1977 - Program Specialist -  Macro Economics in Nairobi

May 1977 to December 1977  - Program Specialist – Macro Economics In NY

He retired from the Foundation in December 1977, but continued to be a consultant until 1979.

Professor Edwards played important advisory roles for the governments of Kenya, Botswana, and Lebanon.  He is author or co-author of over a dozen books and monographs and more than 20 articles in scholarly journals bridging economic development, planning, and accounting, including the classic text on business income, “The Theory and Measurement of Business Income”, published in 1964 with Philip Bell.  Professor Edwards resided in Poultney, Vermont.  He passed away on June 5, 2010.   He is survived by his wife Jean and their three children, Kathryn, Carolyn, and Douglas.

Submitted by Mary Ann Burris who was with the Foundation in 1991-2003, working in Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom and in the Reproductive Health Program.

I keep meaning to find the time to share what I have been doing since I left the Ford Foundation in 2003 with LAFF colleagues.   I am embarrassed to say that, except for joining with a lifetime membership, I have not been very communicative.  My apologies.  In the years since 2003, I have been fully engaged in running and growing a small nonprofit in Kenya called TICAH, the Trust for Indigenous Culture and Health.  All of our work has to do with the connections between culture and health.  Our programs include work on herbal medicine and nutrition for AIDS-affected families, a medicine plant garden and peace shrine at the National Museums of Kenya, a sexuality project called “My Body, My Choice” which started as work with HIV-positive women’s groups, but which now includes work with a wide range of ages and orientations.  We have a training and outreach program in Nairobi slums that focuses on household security— food, services, health, safety, gardens, and another focusing on HIV-positive children and their needs in which we use a lot of art, meditation, music, and play.   One of our earliest projects was collecting treatment experiences of positive friends, colleagues, and acquaintances.  We have done this work in Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, South Africa, India, China, Thailand, and the USA so far.  As part of this “Listening To Those Who Live It” program, we have been painting body maps to share our stories.  Body maps are life-size self portraits that tell our stories of healing and illness, stigma and strength.  We have been trying to bring body mapping to HIV support groups in the USA for a couple of years now.  They have been exhibited in London and Berlin so far.  We have found a partner called Urban Zen, started by Donna Karan, and they have offered us space in their NY gallery in November.  They have also helped to secure the help of Baaba Maal, Senegalese musician, and Bajah and the Dry Eye Crew, from Sierre Leone, who have agreed to do a fund-raiser concert for TICAH at the Urban Zen gallery in New York on June 15.

Jeffrey Puryear was at the Foundation from 1973 to 1990 in the Latin America and Caribbean Program.

By Jeffrey Puryear

May 18, 2010

Originally published in Jeffrey Puryear’s “Human Capital” column in the Dialogue’s daily Latin America Advisor

WASHINGTON—It’s worth noting that inequality has declined recently in much of Latin America. The most commonly used indicator for income inequality, the Gini coefficient, decreased in 13 Latin American countries between 2002 and 2007. Among them is Brazil–the region’s largest country and one of its most unequal. But are these decreases part of a long-term trend? Has Latin America found an effective and sustainable strategy for reducing inequality?

We should certainly be encouraged. Latin America is the most unequal region in the world, so any progress in reducing inequality is positive and deserves applause.

But it is unclear if a long-term trend is underway. The declines in inequality have coincided with an extraordinary boom in commodity prices and an increase in remittances—both of which have since been reversed by the global economic crisis. Absent robust economic growth, it is not clear that inequality will continue to fall.

Moreover, few Latin American governments have adopted the fundamental policy changes that would systematically bring inequality down. To be sure, most countries have increased social spending over the past decade. But the programs they fund have a sorry record of helping the poor. Social programs tend to be neutral or even regressive in Latin America, favoring the richest 40 percent and doing little for the poor.

The big exception is conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs), which provide the extreme poor with a monthly stipend in return for positive behaviors like keeping children in school or regular visits to health clinics. These programs have clearly reduced inequality by establishing an income floor for very poor families. But they are only a small part of social spending.

Larger social programs like education are of such low quality that they contribute little to giving the poor a leg up in the job market. Pension programs, which dwarf spending on CCTs, overwhelmingly benefit the richest 40 percent. Tax revenues are relatively low in most countries, and fail to shift the burden of funding government from poor and middle-income households to the rich.

Latin America has probably gotten as much reduction in inequality as it can from the commodities boom and relatively small progressive programs like CCTs. Additional, sustained progress will depend on qualitatively different policies that will be much more difficult to enact. Governments will have to reduce tax evasion and close loopholes, particularly in personal income taxes. They will have to re-engineer education and improve teaching so that poor children learn what they need in order to be successful in modern job markets. And they will have to establish pension programs that benefit the poor, rather than just the richest 40 percent.

Making these changes will involve tough choices. Leaders will have to invest significant political capital to get them approved and implemented. Those who benefit from the status quo will fiercely resist these changes. But the alternative is hardly preferable: the world’s highest rates of inequality and fertile ground for authoritarian, populist politicians.

Jeffrey Puryear is vice president for social policy at the Inter-American Dialogue and co-director of the Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL).

Radhika Balakrishnan worked at the Foundation from 1992 to 1995 in the Asia Programs.

From The Huffington Post June 7, 2010

By Radhika Balakrishnan and James Heintz

On April 24th and 25th, the International Monetary Fund, together with the World Bank, will meet in Washington, D.C. to assess their work, their policies, and their future role in the world economy. In April 2009, the IMF got a huge boost from the G-20 with a promised injection of new funds. The resources are meant to support low-income and emerging market economies as they struggle against the global economic crisis. Now that the IMF is looking forward with a new lease on life, we should demand that the policies set by the IMF be scrutinized by international human rights standards.

However, the world’s premier international financial institutions, the IMF and World Bank, have until recently paid little attention to human rights. The World Bank has recognized the human rights dimensions of its activities, but sees human rights, at best, as one more item of its laundry list of development objectives — not as a set of principles to which it should be held accountable. The IMF is even less concerned with human rights and does not routinely consider whether the conditionalities it attaches to loans may themselves obstruct the efforts of governments to meet their basic human rights obligations.

The IMF is officially a part of the United Nations system. And lest we forget, the human rights framework — including workers’ and women’s rights, rights to education, health and housing — is a fundamental pillar of the UN system as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These obligations have been spelled out more fully through a number of treaties, agreements, and mechanisms.

States, as part of the UN, are required to contribute to international cooperation in the full realization of human rights. When acting within inter-governmental fora, such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF, states must guarantee that their policies are consistent and conducive to the realization of human rights. Although the IMF is not a party to the fundamental international agreements on human rights, it has a direct and immediate impact on the policy decisions that governments undertake. Given this influence, the IMF should support the efforts of countries to realize human rights standards and norms. However, many of the policies required by the IMF — in particular the conditionalities attached to loans — imply that governments receiving IMF loans may have to violate their economic and social rights obligations to get access to these badly needed resources. Cooperation in the realization of human rights is frequently impaired when macro economic policy conditions are demanded by international financial institutions and donors.

Three human rights obligations are particularly pertinent to the macroeconomic policies of the IMF:
(1) Obligation of progressive realization and non-retrogression, which means that governments must move as expeditiously and effectively as possible to realize economic and social rights, and cannot take steps backward.
(2) Non-discrimination and equality, which means that governments have an immediate obligation for ensuring that deliberate, targeted measures are put into place to secure substantive economic equality of all and that all people have an equal opportunity to enjoy basic human rights, and
(3) The principle of maximum available resources, which means that a government, even in the face of public revenue limitations, must use the maximum resources available to fulfill economic and social rights.

In the heyday of the IMF’s structural adjustment programs in the late 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 1990s, developing countries which borrowed from the IMF often were required to pursue economic reforms that included reductions in the money supply and in government spending, privatization, trade liberalization, shock devaluations of national currencies, and financial deregulation. One of the stated objectives of the reforms was to restore economic stability. This goal is laudable - no one would advocate for increasing economic instability. However, the costs of the IMF approach in human rights terms - including the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to education and health, and the right to life - were not factored in. Even on the basis of the IMF’s narrow objective of faster growth, the policies often failed to deliver. In terms of economic and social rights, the policies were frequently a disaster, in effect coercing the countries which received loans violate the obligation of non-retrogression, by cutting social services, such as education and healthcare.

Structural adjustment loan facilities have now been renamed ‘Poverty Reduction and Growth Facilities’ or PRGFs. Instead of Structural Adjustment Programs, low income countries are required to develop Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). However, the core macroeconomic policies remain remarkably the same. Though the PRSs include sizable chapters on social services, they are still often not accompanied by macro economic policies that will allow for an increase in social spending. It is unclear where the resources will come from to finance the public services outlined in the PRSs and which are directly tied to the realization of economic and social rights.

Receipt of an IMF PRGF loan is seen as a sign of ‘good housekeeping’, and is generally followed by an increase in aid from donors. However, IMF conditionalities often require recipient governments to ’sterilize’ the injection of additional resources so they do not increase the level of demand in the national economy. What does it mean to sterilize the inflow of resources? In effect, countries either reduce their domestic money supply to ‘make room’ for the overseas assistance or they take steps to prevent the funds from entering their economy in the first place. For example, IMF conditionalities may require the Central Bank in a recipient country to contract the domestic money supply to offset the inflows of foreign aid. Such contractionary policies reduce domestic credit, raise interest rates, and slow down economic growth, and hinder job creation. Or governments may be required to simply park the aid at the Central Bank in dollar-denominated accounts (that is, keep them as ‘foreign reserves’).

The whole objective of sterilization is to minimize the impacts of the development assistance, because of fears that the inflow of funds will lead to inflation or leave the country short of foreign exchange if inflows of foreign capital were to reverse themselves. However, this approach ignores the basic fact that donor dollars not only add to the demand in a country, but they also help increase productivity to meet that demand. Because they seek to counteract the impact of development assistance, such sterilization policies may violate the obligation to use the maximum available resources to realize human rights.

None of this discussion implies that important trade-offs do not exist. Very high rates of inflation are indeed costly and destabilizing and hinder the realization of economic and social rights, but that does not mean that near-zero inflation is best. Policies to maintain very low rates of inflation entail loss of employment and cutbacks in public expenditure. Running short of the foreign exchange required to buy essential monthly imports, such as food or energy, is disastrous, but it would be better to deal with foreign exchange problems by coordinating policies across countries and regulating international financial flows.

In setting the conditions attached to loans to the poorest countries, the IMF has ignored the implications its policies have for governments’ ability to meet their human rights obligations. Instead, the IMF narrows its focus to stable growth and lower inflation. Adding human rights into the mix involves more than an additional chapter tacked onto a Poverty Reduction Strategy. It requires a fundamental change in how the IMF supports development. Human rights obligations represent the constraints under which macroeconomic policies must operate, not the other way around.

The G-20 - a group of states with clear human rights obligations - has bailed out the IMF using taxpayer money. It’s time for some new thinking on conditionalities for the poorest countries. In exchange for the G-20’s financial support, the IMF must be held accountable for advancing human rights for all.

Between the years of 1984 and 1997, David Arnold worked for the Ford Foundation, serving as its first program officer in the field of governance and then as the organization’s representative in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

June 07, 2010 12:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–David D. Arnold will become the new president and CEO of The Asia Foundation, the premier non-profit, non-governmental organization working to promote reform, development, and prosperity in Asia. Mr. Arnold will formally begin his new role January 1, 2011, overseeing all aspects of The Asia Foundation, including its field offices across 18 Asia-Pacific nations, offices in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., as well as working closely with Give2Asia, its sister organization. Mr. Arnold is currently the president of the American University in Cairo and is a former Ford Foundation representative who worked for years in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. He also served as executive vice president and interim president at the Institute of International Education in New York.

“David is an experienced leader, a respected educator, and an administrator with a wide-ranging background in development and governance practices in Asia. He possesses the ideal combination of skills needed for the president of The Asia Foundation”

Mr. Arnold succeeds former Congressman Douglas Bereuter as president and CEO, who retires from his leadership position September 30, 2010, having fulfilled a six-year commitment to the Board of Trustees. In a related statement this morning, The Asia Foundation announced it has experienced unprecedented growth and diversification in programming, funding, and staff under Congressman Bereuter’s successful tenure.

“I have known and admired the work of The Asia Foundation for many years, and am honored to be the next president of this visionary organization,” said Mr. Arnold. “Sensitivity, knowledge, and agility have long been hallmarks of the Foundation’s programs and people, and the assistance it provides throughout Asia is critical to the future development of the region. I am joining The Asia Foundation with great enthusiasm and a strong commitment to its mission, values, and aspirations.”

“David is an experienced leader, a respected educator, and an administrator with a wide-ranging background in development and governance practices in Asia. He possesses the ideal combination of skills needed for the president of The Asia Foundation,” said Michael H. Armacost, chairman of the Board and Executive Committee of The Asia Foundation and former U.S. ambassador and under secretary of state. “Asia is changing and The Asia Foundation is changing. Our field offices and specialists on the ground are pioneering daring, new methods to advance reform, prosperity, and peace, based on deep local networks of partners and staff—our defining approach. David has worked on the cutting-edge of international development, philanthropy, and education and is highly knowledgeable about the areas in which the Foundation works: promoting the rule of law, empowering women, advancing human rights, reforming economic policy, and advancing prosperity, justice and peace in Asia. He has lived and worked for years in Asia and the Middle East, and understands local cultures, structures, and institutions. This combination led the Board to a unanimous decision.”

“Millions in Asia remain under threat and are vulnerable, and societies continue to suffer from impasses and deadlocks,” said Surin Pitsuwan, secretary-general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and a trustee of The Asia Foundation. “Mr. Arnold understands the myriad of challenges facing the region—and he shares our belief that Asians themselves must contribute to, and participate in, Asian reforms and Asian agendas. I have full confidence in him as a leader, and I anticipate his presidency to be deft, robust, and inclusive.”

Mr. Arnold is a skilled and respected veteran of large, successful non-profit organizations active in philanthropy, higher education, international exchange, and development. He maintains a global network of contacts and is uniquely adept at creating international partnerships and alliances. Mr. Bereuter said of the appointment: “David Arnold has shown himself to be a strong and effective leader and I am confident he will guide The Asia Foundation to further heights of achievement and contributions to international development in Asia. He has significant first-hand knowledge, gleaned from living and working in the region, along with practical experience from his innovative work with the Ford Foundation in Asia and his leadership of renowned international educational institutions. I am extremely pleased he has accepted an appointment to be the next president and CEO of the Foundation, and I have no doubt that he will expand upon all the Foundation has already become in its long and productive history.”

About Mr. Arnold

In 2003, Mr. Arnold became the tenth president of the American University in Cairo. He oversaw the construction of a new, state-of-the-art $400 million campus, including the region’s largest English-language library and the first public park in the suburb of New Cairo. He was responsible for spearheading AUC’s $125 million fundraising campaign, the largest in the University’s history, and also oversaw the launch of several new academic programs, including the University’s first Ph.D. program and new masters’ programs in education, biotechnology, gender studies, digital journalism, and refugee studies. Under Mr. Arnold’s leadership, AUC expanded its continuing education and community outreach programs and created new scholarship opportunities funded by private donors, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative.

Prior to that, he served for six years as executive vice president of the Institute of International Education, the world’s largest educational exchange organization.

Between the years of 1984 and 1997, he worked for the Ford Foundation, serving as its first program officer in the field of governance and then as the organization’s representative in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

Arnold began his public service career in 1975 in his home state of Michigan as a program budget analyst with the Michigan Department of Labor. He moved to Washington, D.C., in 1977 to join the National Governors Association, where he handled intergovernmental relations in the areas of employment, housing, and economic development. He later served as executive director of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, a regional think tank and policy institute.

Mr. Arnold holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and a master’s degree in public administration from Michigan State University.

About The Asia Foundation

The Asia Foundation is a non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to the development of a peaceful, prosperous, just, and open Asia-Pacific region. The Foundation supports programs in Asia that help improve governance, law, and civil society; women’s empowerment; economic reform and development; and international relations. Drawing on nearly 60 years of experience in Asia, the Foundation collaborates with private and public partners to support leadership and institutional development, exchanges, and policy research.

With 18 offices throughout Asia, an office in Washington, D.C., and its headquarters in San Francisco, the Foundation addresses these issues on both a country and regional level. In 2009, the Foundation provided more than $86 million in program support and distributed nearly one million books and journals valued at over $43 million.

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation