lifestyle leader

Bill Gates announced today that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will spend $10bn over 10 years on developing vaccines for the world's poorest countries. They aim to vaccinate over 90% of children in these countries, and could save over 8.7 million young lives as a result. Gates and his wife are arguably the greatest philanthropists of modern times, using their wealth and influence to address some of the world most under-resourced problems.

Gates also has a sharp sense of humor, as evidenced by the following shot he took at epic blowhard, sometimes assault victim and eternal IPE Journal whipping-boy Silvio Berlusconi:

'Rich people spend a lot more money on their own problems, like baldness, than they do to fight malaria...Dear Silvio, I am sorry to make things difficult for you, but you are ignoring the world's poor.'

In other words, 'I drink your milkshake.'

According to FP Passport, Italy's foreign aid budget was approximately 0.11% of GDP in 2009, one of the lowest in the developed world and half its 2008 amount. This contrasts starkly with the amount of money Berlusconi spends on his own image, which my conservative estimates put at 4,000% of his GBI (gross Berlusconi income).

The Italian premier has grabbed headlines in Italy this week for a disappearing, then reappearing, then disappearing head of hair. The bald Berlusconi is a known purveyor of the art of hair restoration, but the country is gripped by his latest, some might say insufficient, attempts at scalp renewal (I might exaggerate a tad, but it's my blog, so it must be true).

In contrast, Bill Gates spent a great deal of his time and money this week helping the world's poorest and most vulnerable.

This is a couple of weeks old, but are you looking for a graphical representation of the cluster**** that is the US counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan? Good, I have one. Good luck.

Stephen Colbert tackles the COIN challenge below by playing 'Afghandyland.'

One final comment on Copenhagen (it's about to get ranty!). As the details trickle out from participants, it is becoming apparent that China was the primary obstacle to a real deal. It snubbed the US on more than one occasion, in rather undiplomatic fashion, over the past 24 hours, sending low-level diplomats to meet Clinton and Obama even though Obama extended his stay in the hopes of reaching a deal with the Chinese. In return, Wen wouldn't even show up for a meeting. This is bad diplomacy and bad news for the US-China relationship. Brazil appears to have also played a particularly unhelpful role.

I must admit that my expectations were low going into Copenhagen, but the outcome is still disappointing. I retained some optimism because for the first time in a decade, a US administration walked into discussions ready to act. Easier said than done, of course. Domestic political constraints limit Obama's hand, and this prevents the US from signing up to legally-binding and substantial emissions cuts. This is a real obstacle to an international agreement.

Yet, everyone knows this, and it wasn't going to be the biggest obstacle to an agreement in Copenhagen. In fact, this is part of the reason that Copenhagen was supposed to be a 'political', and not legal framework. In my opinion the US is no longer the primary obstacle to an international agreement; that dubious distinction now belongs to China, Brazil and India. Particularly China in the wake of their performance in Copenhagen.

Any restrictions on economic growth, which even reasonable climate change activists must admit are a likely short-term byproduct of a best-case agreement, are unacceptable to the Chinese. Nothing can jeopardize their fragile bargain with the Chinese people: political tyranny for economic prosperity. When does this domestic calculation cease to consume the Chinese leadership in international affairs? Further, 'sovereignty' might be the buzz-word of the summit as it seems China's total unwillingness to sign up to any substantive monitoring mechanism is what ultimately doomed their negotiations with the US. China is deeply sensitive to any challenges (real or perceived) to its sovereignty, with perhaps the notable exception of the WTO. But their hardened opposition to even passive, independent monitoring is not just unreasonable but unacceptable for a country that wishes to be treated as a global power and leader. Its diplomatic behavior following Obama's speech was childish.

So here we are.

Despite reaching a 'meaningful' agreement late this evening, world leaders have failed to fulfill their ambitions to reach a comprehensive political framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to the FT.

Listening to Barack Obama's press conference, it is clear that he is leaving Copenhagen with little optimism. A legally-binding international agreement, with substantial cuts in emissions pledged, and mechanisms in place to formally verify compliance, is a long way off.

Have a nice weekend.

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference opens today in the Danish capital, with expectations raised after progress from the US and China in announcing hard targets and the revelation that US President Obama will now attend the final days of the summit, a sign the White House believes a real political framework is achievable. We will do our best to cover the developments over the next two weeks and start by highlighting a remarkable editorial run by 56 of the world's leading newspapers this morning in support of real reform, of inspired collective action, of 'the better angels of our nature.'

You can find it in The Guardian here.

I can only speak for myself, but I endorse their message.

South African President Jacob Zuma, whose infamous ignorance of the HIV/AIDS virus made headlines, has marked World AIDS Day by announcing substantial changes to the government's HIV/AIDS policy.

These changes will include: providing all infants with antiretroviral treatment, providing HIV-positive pregnant women with mother-to-child prevention treatment, expanding antiretroviral treatment amongst the adult population, and the integration of TB and HIV treatment.

In a highly symbolic move, the president pledged to take a HIV test.

The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), South Africa's leading advocate for the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, applauded the move as a 'positive change.'

A final thought on Dubai: don't discount the city-state's long-term prospects too much. Service-based economies with weak domestic demand (or in Dubai's case almost no indigenous population) are destined to be pro-cyclical. The vision to become a financial, services, transport and residential hub in a region with limited integrated infrastructure and service capacity, as well as tremendous development potential, seems a sound one. If the new silk road will be paved with microchips, euros and renminbi, Dubai could very well become the great marketplace connecting east and west.

You have no doubt heard the term 'brain-drain' used to describe the flight of skilled and educated workers from developing countries. According to an FT article on Nigerian migrant flows, and nicely building off my 'Call of Home' and 'Go East Young Man' posts of late, many emerging market economies are now experiencing a 'brain-gain.'

Further, the FT has a whole online series analyzing the reconfiguration of migrant flows amidst the crisis, called 'Trading places: Migration in the crisis.' Check it out (or subscribe, i guess).

Finally, I've alluded to the fact that one of my pet-interests right now is the way in which the crisis is reorganizing economies of all scale. Migration is one such focal point that carries huge implications, from remittances to cuisine to development models.

As an ex-pat twice over, I appreciated this FT article on the 'call of home'.

A recently destabilizing, but positive in the long-term, trend has been the flood of ex-pats back into emerging economies. While it has caused short-term increases in unemployment, strained public finances, and cut remittances, it has brought money, skills, entrepenuership, and productivity.

Emerging markets' great gain is developed economies' great loss.

I attended a talk given by Jeffrey Sachs yesterday. For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Sachs is a rather huge deal when it comes to development economics. Love him or hate him, when he speaks, influential people listen. The talk was very interesting overall; here are some quick thoughts:

1) Attending a Sachs lecture is like attending church/mosque/synagogue: it reminds you of all the things you should be doing, but aren't. You walk away with a slightly stronger conviction that you will try harder this time, but knowing all the while that reality will get in the way.

2) Sachs has completed a remarkable intellectual shift in his career. He began with pro-market/small-government "shock therapy" policy recommendations that were tested in post-communist Poland, Bolivia and Russia. Now, two decades later, Sachs' idea of a model society is Sweden with its 50% tax rate. Indeed, most of his lecture focused around how America needs more (and better) government. I was already well aware of this shift, but it was still fascinating to hear it spoken so plainly.

(As a side-note, one of my undergrad econ TAs suggested that this was the best way to make a name for yourself in economics: start by espousing rigid pro-market theories, then gradually moderate your work to the center or left side of the spectrum. I wonder if that still holds true.)

3) Someone in the audience pointed out that the main themes of Sachs' talk were identical to those put forward by J.K. Galbraith in his 1958 book The Affluent Society - that is to say, even as the private sector has grown rich in recent decades, the wealth of the public sphere (in America) has not kept pace. This trend has created widening income disparities, crumbling infrastructure, a weakened welfare state, etc. It's interesting to see how we've returned to the very same debate 50 years later, and attitudes haven't really changed much.

4) While I don't agree with all of Jeff Sachs' priorities, his overall point was dead on: we cannot treat this crisis like an ordinary dip in the business cycle. Policies with short-run horizons that are designed to bring our financial markets back to normal are doomed to fail: "normal" was the problem, and we should not attempt to re-create it.

In a piece on Vox EU, Hadi Soesastro argues that East Asian countries should seize the opportunity afforded by the G20 and integrate their strategic interests and influence into the emerging post-crisis governance paradigm.

The crisis has created an opportunity for new players to bring their plights, interests, and aspirations to bear towards more inclusive global efforts to resolve it.

He argues that East Asia's inward focus over the past decade (with the big exception of China) has limited the region's collective influence and ability to project its strategic interests onto the global economic governance structure. Soesastro points specifically to the creation of a regional monetary fund, borne out of the collective sense of injustice at the hands of the IMF following the East Asian financial crisis.

He also believes, more broadly, that the focus should not be on the reform of existing international institutions. Global governance would instead be more effective if based on regional arrangements that coalesce the interests of developed, emerging and least developed economies within a geographic area. He points to efforts already underway within Latin America and the CIS to develop regional agendas for the G20 forum.

Finally, he identifies the G20 as a vehicle for China to increase its participation in global economic governance:

East Asia’s strategic participation in the G20 provides a framework for China to play an increased role – as a key member of the regional community – in the recovery of the global economy and in shaping global economic governance. In the Chinese language, the word “crisis” is made up aptly of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity”.

Soesastro's rallying cry for East Asia reflects a growing consensus that the G8 has become irrelevant and the post-crisis economic governance paradigm must be inclusive of a broader range of stakeholders, particularly those whose economic power far outweighs their political representation under the current global regime. If macroeconomic imbalances have played a central role in the crisis, the representatives of one half of that equation (i.e. Asian savings, which I know is a horrible oversimplification) should undoubtedly play as large a role in resolving the crisis as any party from the other side of the ledger. Further, trade is vital to East Asian economic growth and integration. Having a vocal advocate for open trade at the negotiating table, at a time when many of the major western countries are swinging towards protectionism, is of paramount importance to preserving the free trade consensus.

While I am skeptical of the ease with which Soesastro envisions a regional convergence of interests on issues like trade and investment (will China's interests always converge so neatly with Japan's?), he nonetheless highlights the enormous opportunity previously marginalized countries are provided by the crisis. Regions like East Asia can exert their collective influence to refashion global economic governance more in line with their own strategic interests. They can also play a vital role in preserving the open flow of trade and capital that has been so vital their own development.

I have turned into something of a podcast junkie recently, and one source of excellent material is The London School of Economics public lecture series. This week, however, there's a particularly prominent guest speaker in the form of US Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The title of the talk is "Policy Responses to the Financial Crisis" and I highly recommend you tune in. There will actually be a live webcast of the event (Tuesday, 13:00 GMT, 8:00 EST) for those who want visuals.

The trouble with high profile speakers who hold public office is that their talks tend to be vague and pull punches on sticky issues - that Bernanke is operating "between" administrations with different policy response ideas won't help either. That being said, however, it will definitely be worth a listen.

While you're at it, I also highly recommend a talk by Paul Collier, author of The Bottom Billion - an excellent book on poverty reduction that's aimed at non-academics. You can also find him doing a (shorter) TED talk here.

IPE Journal looks back at the cultural, sporting and down right random things that diverted our attention from economic Armageddon in 2008. In other words, The Rest...

-The 2008 Olympic Games were much more than China's coming out party. The world stood in awe at the Opening Ceremonies, Michael Phelps became the greatest Olympian of modern times and China's athletes topped the gold medal table. 2008 was a year of stark contrasts for China: the tragedy of the Sichuan earthquake, tainted milk, and exposure of the shortcomings of China's economic miracle v. the scale, triumph and symbolism of the games, land reform and progress with Taiwan. 2009 promises to be an interesting year.

-In the Prem, Arsenal collapsed following a very bad day in Birmingham, throwing away the 07-08 title. They began the 08-09 season in disarray, and placed their future on the young shoulders of Cesc Fabregas, who, naturally, was immediately lost for four months with ruptured knee ligaments. ManU and Chelsea provided a cardiac finish to both the Prem and Champions League final in Moscow, with SAF's men taking the double.

-Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and an epic Wimbledon final, considered by many the greatest tennis match of all time.

-The Year in Japanese innovation: robots that feed you, bionic legs and a trumpet playing robot joins the Cincinnati Pops. According to the International Federation of Robotics, robot use will increase substantially over the next few years, for combat, labour and personal uses. The Guardian identifies Japan as the world leader in robotic labour density (25 per 10,000 workers).

-In what will surely go down as man's historic victory over the animal kingdom, monkey waiters hit Japan.

-Contemporary art market boom/bust: The contemporary art market is an interesting barometer for investor sentiment (the Mayfair, not main street, investor) and Banksy provides a perfect case study. In October 2007, 10 prints by the London-based street artist sold at auction for a whopping ₤546,000. Fast forward to September 2008, and the five Banksy pieces at auction in London went unsold. In fact, two thirds of the items in the Loyd and Turnbull contemporary art auction were withdrawn. (Editor's note- my two Banksy prints were purchased in Covent Garden for 30 quid. Beat that.)

-Finally, in a year of great You Tube moments (Bush shoe thrower, Brown's messiah slip), this one takes the cake, both for humour and IPE symbolism: