Economics – Whose Education Is It Anyway?

“Show me the money”: Some personal reflections on the July 2023 UN High Level Political Forum

I recently spent a few days in New York City to attend the latest United Nations (UN) High Level Political Forum (HLPF). This event was focused on a subset of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and how the world is progressing toward achieving these goals (spoiler alert: not at all or not fast enough).

This was my first trip to New York since 1996. Some things were the same as then – Tom Cruise was still on Times Square billboards, in 1996 it was for Jerry Maguire, in 2023 it was Cruise driving off a cliff edge for the latest Mission Impossible. Perhaps the most long-lasting cultural legacy of Jerry Maguire has proven to be the “Show me the money” (NSFW) scene. In 2023, the UN sessions sounded similar, with near desperate calls for funding to fix the world’s problems before we all, metaphorically for some and literally for others, fall off the cliff. So, is achieving the SDGs, in fact, Mission Impossible?

The Outsider(s)

Based on my level of access, I basically spent the morning of the four days I attended watching from the gallery as the HLPF discussed topics. Day one was in the famous General Assembly room, the other days in a smaller conference room:

I will do a separate post on my reflections on the UN experience, and I will instead attempt in this post to just summarise some of the more interesting points from the sessions.

The three afternoons, for me, were attending the “Learning, Teaching and Practice” side event – which I spoke at on one day – plus an additional lunchtime event which took place to launch a new report. Again, I’ll do a separate post of the experience of submitting, resubmitting, and presenting a proposal to this event but will include some of the more interesting content and takeaways in this post.

Whilst this is my attempt at a write-up, daily write-ups were handed out and are available online from IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). These are less full of Tom Cruise related wordplay, than this post, and are actually very comprehensive.

Oblivion

As a Brit, especially as a child of the 1980s, there was only thing I could think of walking away from the event:

Indeed, the HLPF event left me largely dispirited and fearing that we may, finally, be facing oblivion as a species. Virtually every session stressed that the SDGs are way off target and there was limited confidence of achieving them without huge effort – the introductory session suggesting only 12% of targets are on track.

Since attending the event, I have watched the aforementioned Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning film and the plot, as has been heavily advertised, is that Tom and the gang faceoff against a deadly Artificial Intelligence. What is less well advertised (spoiler ahead) is that the American government (and others) are trying to control this AI in anticipation for, what the film outlines as, a third world war to control our dwindling world resources. Whilst this feels farfetched in some ways, we also have to consider that even if the AI threat is exaggerated the potential for wars over water, oil and other resources are all too real.

The start of the “SDGs Learning, Training and Practice” side event (the event I presented at) suggested that “shocks” such as Covid, war(s) and natural disaster have been negatively impacting the SDG agenda. In reality, given the event was focused on post-covid solutions, we surely face huge challenges given the post-Covid “new normal” is a normalisation of increasingly extreme weather and political challenges. Indeed, the eve of the event had seen horrendous flooding nearby in New York state and extreme temperature warnings in the southern USA, as well as much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

Risky business

Many sessions called for something like we “can’t keep doing same things we have always been doing”. However, there seem to be no easy answers and even if the money/finance models that many sessions were calling for existed there is, of course, human nature to contend with from a corruption and waste perspective. Any investment, be it from an NGO, government, private sector or elsewhere will come with considerable risk unless based on global good practice.

Mavericks

Success stories and concrete ways forward were relatively few and far between, but there are clearly people out there managing to achieve the seemingly unachievable, some of the more interesting examples I made note of:

The SDG Atlas (https://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas) was one of the few tables with resources that could pass as “conference stalls”. It looks like an interesting site with access to SDG related data for transparency and comparison.
Whilst emission targets and other SDG challenges led to advocacy for renewable energy through out the week a number of speeches through the week still made the counter case and asked the world not to throw out gas and to include nuclear as options. Indeed Senegal, expressed a need to use its oil to fund improvements to the poverty situation.
If looking for mavericks the most impressive speech of the week came from Edward Ndopu, (SDG Advocate, youth representative) who stressed the need for diversity, inclusion of those with disabilities and more in our shared futures. You can see a transcript here.
Work being done on water access (outlined in this session, which I learned quite a lot from given I am not an expert in this area) and the point made that it needs to go beyond just water – that it makes sense to combine water projects with electricity access projects, etc. This was a good example of where the siloed approach of agencies, NGOs, etc needs to be challenged and many talks called for big picture “whole government” thinking. At the same time there were a number of sessions stressing real success is when local people and governments are empowered as they know their situation best. Overall, getting the balance correct will likely depend on existing government models and the balance between local/centralised. A Swiss diplomat, for example, making the case that the Swiss canton system is local-first and therefore, potentially, in a better position than some countries that over centralised power.
Fundação Antonio Meneghetti (a school in Brazil) outlined their education model which, whilst not too revolutionary in some ways, at least suggested that young people can be engaged with global issues and be better positioned to deal with world challenges (as well as helping tackle limitations from class/social status).
I personally liked a presentation from International Movement ATD Fourth World, this session made me think about the language we use. One key point was to consider people as “currently experiencing poverty” rather than calling them “poor” and “temporarily homeless” rather than “homeless”. The point being that these conditions can, and should, change and we should not classify people by them. You suspect this will become increasingly important as more of the world face flooding, fires and other disasters.
There was minimal mention of standards to ensure quality, but one or two people thankfully did mention them, otherwise you fear the calls for cash will lead to a lot of waste and probably dumping of poor solutions on the countries needing the most help.
There were some mentions of examples of good work being done, for example Denmark working in partnership with South Africa and India bilaterally on water projects. Similarly South Korea was one of relatively few countries to proactively offer support and data to others during the general HLPF sessions.
Morocco mentioned desalination as key to their water strategy given climate change, I remember this being the big hope in the 90s. This article suggests it is technology that is finally being used more and more.
The IFMA Foundation (who I shared a session with) did a really good presentation stressing the impact of building on lives and climate and the need for good facilitates management to help ensure the SDGs are met, including through their membership, education programmes, etc. A good example where an NGO or professional association have a clear link, via their profession, to SDGs and the common good.
The UN itself was called out for doing enough in a couple of sessions – specifically that peacekeepers do not use renewable energy when deployed and the UN HQ campus lacks solar panels and other tech.
Finland and others highlighted that investment in energy had been accelerated, in their case due to a decline in access to Russian resources but ultimately to a good result.
Sweden, interestingly, using Gothenburg as an example to convert a big city into a greener version with lessons to be learned for others (that would seem to be covered here). Nusantara (the planned new capital of Indonesia) was also mentioned as a city being built to be sustainable.
Some of the delegations handed over their slots to other parties – one advocated for https://www.climateview.global/ as a tool that is useful to tackle funding and capacity challenges.
https://www.resolve.ngo/healthgrid_sierra_leone.htm– Electrifying healthcare facilities in Sierra Leone, sounded like a really good project to combine water, electricity and healthcare services (I also liked another talk that said to focus on “services” not “access”).
The hope/potential for global south to develop through local supply chains was mentioned a few times, however, this sounded more aspirational than in place. What was more optimistic was that the tech is largely in place, the challenge is more the delivery due to financing and other resources. This included better deployment of open source solutions. Therefore, plenty of opportunity for learning and capacity building professionals!

After “I Disappear”ed

After leaving the event I did have chance to join “VNR Lab on Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships and Engagement (HLPF 2023 Special Event)” online remotely. This was a slightly odd experience having presented at HLPF just the week before. For this event (https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1v/k1v0qmae5q) discussions were held around how countries are engaging stakeholders in Voluntary National Reviews, reviews that may be presented at HLPF by diplomats but with lots of people working on them in advance. As with a number of the other events, there was a panel, “lead discussants” and contribution from the room.

For engaging stakeholders tips were shared, including from Portugal. Portugal sought to include all of government and all of society in their approach to the SDGs and VNR. It was said that this was leading to a national picture for sustainable development in Portugal with wide involvement and shared ownership.

A technical committee, with thematic structures [subcommittees?], is the approach being followed by the Maldives. The Maldives highlighted a few things still needed, including funding in general and capacity building around data management. A speaker from Tanzania, meanwhile, insisted for a need to focus on who the VNR is actually for and that if the SDGs are to actually ensure no one is left behind. It was a challenging presentation asking if we, globally, are achieving this with our policies and asking if people in villages, people with disabilities, etc. are being involved fully in the processes.

A speaker, with a remit of how the private sector can be involved, highlighted the major issue that the private sector have not been included in VNRs enough. From their perspective (Fiji) they highlighted the need for small and medium sized companies, in particular, to be involved via funding to support growth and success.

Interestingly, given Portugal were invited as an example, there was a point made in the Q&A from the Portuguese private sector, that they were not involved enough. All in all, a sign that it is problem for getting the right people involved, in making people engaged with the SDGs via the VNRs and still a lack of financing.

Show us the money perhaps.

Two podcast recommendations on the history of business/L&D

I recently had the “Behind the Bastards” podcast recommended to me (well it was recommended in a Reddit group) due to a two-part series on Jack Welch.

Now Jack was a character I was already aware aware of, from business literature, but I did not know anything about his background. Whilst the pod hosts are not for everyone – it is very American, with bad language and at one point a claim that the American capitalist boom in the 50s and 60s was great for Americans but based on mistreatment of people outside of the USA (er…what about racial segregation?) – it does a great job on outlining Welch’s role in helping to create many of the problems in modern business practice and management approaches. It is worth a listen on how the pursuit of money and share value has corrupted so much, essentially in recent times since the 1970s, for the loss of long term sustainability and employee protection. When companies complain employees are no longer loyal it is because people like Welch broke that reciprocal relationship.

Another good recent pod looking at the history of business – the Mindtools pod looked back at 20 years of transition in the training/L&D area. Interesting insights/discussion points in this one – such as the move from “training officer” as the most common job title (although I do not think I had ever made the link that officer went out of fashion as it felt too militaristic), a certain amount of reinventing the wheel even during just 20 years (albeit within the bigger macro shift from f-2-f delivery), the possible impact of AI being bigger for HR than L&D and more.

The inevitable Brexit post

This post isn’t really for a particular audience (I guess even less so than normal on this site!).

Indeed I’m hoping writing it may simply be cathartic.

That all being said, I’ve also been asked regularly why the UK voted the way it did (yes, okay England and Wales voted the way they did) and, more recently, how it has made such a mess of things since the referendum. This has obviously all been covered elsewhere in various levels of detail (I’ve tried to avoid it on Twitter but did put some previous thoughts up there) but, as I say, I thought putting something down might be helpful for at least my own mind. Nuance is the challenge here as in many ways Brexit is about a multitude of things yet, at the same time, inherently a reaction to badly managed change.

First up an admission

My pencil lingered over the Leave option.

Not for long, but there was a linger.

Now, I was very much in the Remain camp all the way up to the vote but there were a number of factors why I considered Leave on the day and some of those issues are still very much in play. However, a key reason I did vote Remain was that I thought it would be close, closer than the opinion polls on the day had suggested and when I saw two women leave the polling station basically saying to each other “there are too many of them we have to vote leave” (despite clearly not being of British Isles heritage themselves) I thought that Leave could well win.

It was clear in the run up to the vote that there was a generational divide and whilst the narrative since the vote is that old people have ‘robbed young people of their futures’ it should also be recognised that some sympathy should lie with those who have seen the original 1975 EC referendum result morph progressively into today’s globalised EU with representatives that the people feel do not represent them and on issues (like foreign affairs) that many feel the EU never needed to deal with.

The referendum in the ’70s set a precedent that political parties have not followed through with in more recent changes to the EC/EU. Indeed one of the nightmares of the Brexit result is that it almost certainly has killed the desire for more referendums in Britain (due to the difficulty of putting complex questions into a poll-able vote) rather than encouraging more direct democracy where ‘the people’ would feel less distant from the ‘political classes’ (the role of representative and masses breaking down across the political spectrum).

The political (cl)ass

This bit is one area where it feels like the mainstream media continue to miss a trick, in part as they are too caught up in their own importance and the ‘Westminster bubble’. The vote was, for some, two fingers up at the Cameron government. For others it was two fingers up to the European elite for be unwilling to do more with regards to what Cameron wanted and other issues. However, whilst the media continues to focus on the impact of their own (predominately) anti-EU stance and the impact of Facebook advertising, etc. the reality is that the referendum campaign will have made no difference to voting intentions. Most people will have known what they were voting well in advance – as shown by the fact the %s have not changed much in opinion polls since (even with post Brexit implementation showing Leave had no real plans and that the EU is now so all encompassing it is incredibly difficult to leave) .

The previous UK-wide referendum, on changes to the electoral system, increasingly feels like a missed opportunity. That would have allowed for voices from UKIP, the Green and other parties to be heard to challenge the prevailing narratives in the media and the two main parties without giving Farage and others hero/outsider status. Alas many people argued against vote form, not least because of the likely increase in coalitions and the inevitable politicking that follows.

Yet we have seen Theresa May and the DUP in effective coalition, going against both of May’s 2017 promises that there was no ‘magic money tree’ and that she offered ‘strong and stable’ government. Ultimately it feels like a failure of the system and, in May, a cold and ineffective leader who has helped highlight the competence of previously derided predecessors such as John Major, Gordon Brown and ‘failures’ such as Ed Miliband. This thread is good on some of the crazy moments in the last 5 years of politics for quite how bizarre things have got.

The man who in many ways led the Brexit campaign was, though, Boris Johnson, already seen as an ass by many at the time of the Brexit bus tour his political failings are now transparent to many more people. That he still holds apparent sway over many in the Conservative party shows a respect for arrogance (and admittedly some intellect) that laughs in the face of good government (considering his waste in the form of water cannon, London buses, ‘garden bridges’ and more). Of course the laughing at Boris, his fame created on Have I Got News For You as much as anywhere else, is nothing new. It is just more tragic now.

The EU’s arrogance

Britain of course isn’t alone in all of this. Grexit for a long time looked like a real possibility whilst Italy and other nations have expressed their concerns.

Alas, the face the EU has put in front of the cameras to deal with this challenge to the post WW2 order in Europe amounts to a line up of ‘pale, male and stale’ in Juncker, Barnier and Tusk.

Whilst Tusk has shown quite a generous touch of late (not least on Twitter) the EU has failed throughout from a public relations perspective. Juncker is a personification of the EU’s failings in the eyes of many, being from a small country given disproportion levels of representation. That he is adjudged to have aided ‘bad’ globalisation with generous tax arrangements for corporations in 20 years as Luxembourg Prime Minister (a period of power that would not even be allowed in many sovereign states) makes him a target for left wing Brexiters. On the right meanwhile, whilst his opposition to the likes of Nigel Farage has often been correct, it has also failed to recognise the reasons for UKIP’s support and the popularity of the anti-EU block in European elections across the continent.

The ‘left behind’ in society therefore feel they have seen little from the EU or globalisation that benefits them – the volume of areas receiving EU help funds but still voting Leave showing the lack of impact of the EU’s good work with regards to dealing with societal issues.

British arrogance

Part of the issues leading to Brexit has undoubtedly been legacy snobbishness over British quality and exceptionalism.

The supposed superiority of British banks, universities, etc. is often laughable in the face of evidence and advantages they did have are fast fading away such as:

language (English is now the business language in many organisations and cities worldwide, you do not need to be in London),
facilities (undermined by austerity and with only really Crossrail to aid London in the coming decade),
societal (violent crime and other issues up due to multiple issues including Brexit and austerity).

In some ways this feels a little like a British version of late Byzantium – still referring to itself as Rome but in reality a collapsing power, still with lots of fancy gold and jewels on show in the capital but a shadow of its former (large/imperial) self – with even Parliament no longer able to keep up the pretext as the roof, literally, falls in. If World War 2 and decolonialization were the ‘loss of the empire/west’ moment it feels like Brexit might be the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians (aka foreign interests funding Brexit giving what is left of the empire a good kicking under false pretext). The UK will struggle on even with a No Deal scenario but independence for, at least, Northern Ireland and Scotland could prove to be the equivalent of 1453.

Of course mentioning 1453 might not be very helpful given that the vote against remaining in the EU was, in part, thanks to anti-Turkish sentiment. Yep, folks, we’ve moved on a long way in 500 years… but not that far.

Foreign interests

Now we really get onto the nub of the matter. Foreigners.

Whatever anyone says, Brexit has been driven in large quarter by anti-immigration feeling (see my comment about the two ladies departing the polling station above).

Britain’s seeming failure to deal with the latest wave of immigration (starting with riots against Portuguese people and then opposition to Poles, Bulgarians and more) is in part due to the drive for small government since Thatcher. Britain simply has not had the infrastructure to handle change management at the local level – and there are close links between immigration, crime and other issues in some areas. Even when very real issues like multiple occupied housing have been raised you suspect the will to enforce rules and laws simply doesn’t exist, in part due to lack of resources for the police and other agencies.

Britain has not put in place the rules around 90-days immigration that she could have, and you suspect it was in part due to the admin. An admin burden and cost now dwarfed by the huge expense of Brexit and ‘bringing back in-house’ functions from Brussels – or at least paying Kiwis and other consultants huge sums for consultancy to help Britain ‘go it alone’.

If then we acknowledge that this is about a complete failure of British society to absorb the latest wave(s) of immigration the question is why has this happened? Well, immigration in the post war period was largely recognised as needed (see Italians rebuilding large parts of the country) or a pay-off from the empire/commonwealth (Windrush, etc.). However, there are obviously still huge issues with racism (as visible in football recently) even when there was also a recognition of the part Indians, Africans and Antipodeans had played in both world wars. So perhaps it is simply a case of the volume combined with stagnant (or declining living standards). Indeed you suspect the Corbyn/left-wing view in support of Brexit would be protection of works and better wages – as unlikely as that seems with current problems.

The failure to deal with immigration and resulting change is not anything particularly new and of course not unique to the UK. President Trump (for example) has built on long standing issues with his ‘wall’t – as Limp Bizkit said:

“[be]Cause hate is all the world has ever seen lately “
Take a Look Around, Limp Bizkit (2000)

Lets not forget that immigration controls were one of the “Ed Stone’s” promises. This ongoing desire (and another reason for the Leave vote) remains a strong view of British jobs for British people – of course the issue there is time to align what skills we need: another thing not very well done and the positive of immigration has been that it has covered over the cracks. As someone who spent a week looking through trade union archives from c.1900 as part of his university degree, whilst we’ve come a long way (a lot of the union pamphlets were unbelievably racist to modern eyes) some of the sentiments from the early 21st century are very similar to the early 20th.

Of course the other foreign aspect that lingers large is if Russians (and/or others) have had their fingers in the pie to disrupt the EU/UK/etc. The fact the British political system can be so funded by one man’s £9m is surely wrong no matter what (never mind the apparent dodginess of all as shown in this German investigation). Whatever happens politics needs to change, from funding, house/expense rules, etc. Unfortunately Farage and others have the opportunity to express this in completely the wrong language, failing to remember Jo Cox’s memory and ignoring that the whole point is that we vote for them as representatives – it is not ‘them and us’.

What next then?

Personally it feels like voting reform needs to come back on the agenda, the House of Commons needs to move to a new location, the house rules need modernising (watching Brexit through the House of Commons and the modern EU voting systems really are chalk and cheese) and much more.

Politicians, i.e. the new PM when May finally goes, needs to acknowledge that societal and structural reforms in the post-Thatcher era have failed – with far more needing to be done to reduce wealth inequality between the richest and poorest. Changing these issues was what encouraged support for Corbyn in 2017, that so many people seem to have not realised his pro-Brexit approach to this shows how limited engagement with politics is. Thus the press and other media need to reengage in a more positive way, focused on issues/facts and not personality. That said, politics is complicated (I’m sure not all of this post will be correct), lots of people are confused by what the referendum was meant to be, mending wounds is going to be difficult (not helped by all the name calling), etc.

As for Brexit, a second referendum seems the only sensible way forward – ideally followed up by further votes and more direct democracy. With the run-up to any second vote needing to be far clearer on growth for the UK, with clear means to deal with the issues people feel are limited by immigration (pressure on the NHS, house prices, school places, crime, etc.) via an end to austerity.

Capitalism 4.0

Anatole Kaletsky’s 2010 book has a question that I had not really thought about before – when did the 21st Century start?

1815 and 1918 are the dates, as a historian, you often associate with the previous two centuries. Kaletsky considers key dates in the 21st.

Identified are 1989 (Berlin Wall collapse and the WWW being two of five “major transformations”).

However, the era of “Capitalism 3.0” ended in 2008 (with the collapse of Lehmans) and thus the 21st century began.

For the record:
– Capitalism 1.0 = laissez faire (1776-1932)
– Capitalism 2.0 = state involvement (1931-1980)
– Capitalism 3.0 = Thatcher-Reagan led (1979-2008)

As a history graduate I like to try and step back from issues and consider these trends. In-particular, the point made that it was not just cheap credit that caused the 2008 problems. It was a wider self-destruction of “market fundamentalism”, growth driven by 30m communist souls opened to western goods.

The argument is that we now face a period of balance between state and free-market.

So will we look back and consider a banking crash to be the great apocalyptic moment of our generation – when we moved into a new century of new concepts? Perhaps – its something to keep in mind going forward though.