When historians distill the first decade of this new millennium, the relationships between rich and poor nations will be a dominant theme. Which rich countries advanced development? Which ones didn't? How did national policies affect poor people working hard to improve their lives? To help answer these questions, the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy teamed up three years ago to create the Commitment to Development Index (CDI) -- a measure of how the policies of rich countries help or hinder the poor.

COMMENTS (0) SHARE:

Twitter

 

Reddit

 

 

More...

Much has happened in relations between rich and poor since last year's index. In July, the Group of Eight (G-8) industrialized nations finalized a deal in Gleneagles, Scotland, to drop the debt of 18 developing nations. Days before the G-8 summit began, millions of music fans thronged to "Live 8" concerts organized around the world to encourage the leaders to act. In September, a major U.N. conference is convening in New York to evaluate progress toward the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty. And this December, trade negotiators will gather in Hong Kong to wrangle once more over how rich-world agricultural subsidies harm poor-world farmers.

No single event of the past year was more notable than the tsunami that pounded the shores of many of Asia's poorest countries, washing away whole villages in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Perhaps not since the Rwandan genocide have so many died so quickly. Images of the tragedy provoked an unprecedented $12 billion tide of charity -- at once showcasing the West's generosity and sparking a lively debate about whether, as a nation of unparalleled wealth and power, the United States is stingy or generous.

But how far do such outpourings of charity and sympathy really go? The debt relief deal, though welcome, will only generate $750 million a year in new foreign aid -- that's a 1 percent increase in total aid, assuming governments do not take the money out of the budgets of existing aid programs. As significant as the enormous outpouring of funds was following the tsunami, it merits little more than a footnote in any full accounting of the way that rich countries affect the poor on a daily basis. It is for this reason that the cdi ranks 21 nations by assessing their decisions across seven major domains of government action: foreign aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology. The index grades wealthy nations on their policy stance, not their absolute impact. For example, the United States gives far more foreign aid than the Netherlands, but far less when compared to the size of its economy. On the other hand, Dutch trade barriers are higher than America's -- and though they matter less than the barriers to the giant U.S. economy, they are penalized more.

The biggest policy change that this year's index takes into account occurred on New Year's Day, 2005, when the United States, the European Union, and Canada abolished their quotas on fabric and clothing imports, as required under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Textile workers, factory owners, and politicians in North America and Europe worried that the West would soon be flush with cheap clothes from China. That concern was shared by Bangladesh's workers, factory owners, and politicians, who long benefited from guaranteed, if limited, access to Western markets. Nevertheless, the index rewards these countries' ending the quotas. Meanwhile, negotiations to revise the World Trade Organization's rules foundered, thanks in part to squabbles over massive agricultural subsidies and high import barriers in Europe and America, which artificially prop up their domestic farms at the expense of much-poorer farmers elsewhere.

An equally historic event that did not change cdi results was the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change. The event   highlighted the continuing refusal of Australia and the United States, lone among the index's 21 countries, to ratify Kyoto on grounds that it puts no emissions limits on developing countries, such as India and China. Large developing countries countered that the rich countries that created the global warming problem ought to take the lead in solving it. The result: stalemate on the ground while the nations least prepared to cope with climate change risk huge losses.

Some of these events serve as reminders of the huge power gap between rich and poor countries. Others, more interestingly, reflect new tensions arising from developing countries' becoming more assertive in the pursuit of their rights. World Trade Organization talks have stalled, for instance, partly because India and Brazil flexed their diplomatic muscle. There is a growing danger that stiffer competition from China and India, along with concern about mounting environmental pollution from these two giants, will raise doubts about the benefits of development itself.

But rich countries should welcome development gains in poorer countries because it is good in itself and because development serves the interests of rich countries, too. Just as it was better for Spain that its northern neighbors escaped the poverty of the Dark Ages, so too would it be better if its southern neighbors in North Africa emerged from their present travails.

Poor countries must take the lead in their own development -- only rarely in history have such advances been forced by outsiders. Yet, in many ways, rich and powerful countries control the environment in which poorer countries operate. Smart calls by South Korean technocrats in the 1960s triggered a development miracle. But that miracle would have been impossible without access to the markets and technologies of wealthier nations.

The same is true today. That's why the CDI focuses on the intersection of actions and policies. And, if one analyzes the crosscurrents of development during the past year, Denmark emerges as the clear winner. The Danes top the index thanks to an ample and high-quality foreign aid program, steady contributions to U.N. and NATO peacekeeping operations, and their declining greenhouse gas emissions. But sadly, in all but three policy areas, even Denmark only earns an average score (near 5.0). That means that no country in the index can rest on its laurels. In the year ahead, every nation in the index can do more to help those most in need.

123NEXT