Author Archives: cosv

Sustainable development starts and ends with safe, health and well-educated children

On the surface, it is a common-sense argument. Of course the children of today and tomorrow are central to sustainable development and the future of our planet and all its inhabitants. All too often in practice, however, the issues of children and young people are seen only as a “social” issue – while their health, safety, education and rights are also inextricably linked to ensuring economic growth and shared prosperity, a protected natural environment and more stable, safer societies. Overlooking their role is to the peril of us all, the communities in which we live and to the planet.

Children and young people are both shapers of and shaped by the world around them. When a child is not healthy, has compromised brain functionality due to chronic poor nutrition, does not receive a quality education, does not feel safe in his or her home, school or community, will that child be able to fulfil their potential and responsibilities as a parent, an employee or entrepreneur, a consumer, a citizen? In many cases, the answer is “no” and that denies the individual child his or her rights, but also deprives the entire human family of the intellectual, social and moral benefits that derive from the fulfilment of these rights.

In this paper, we explore the dynamic and dramatic interplay between the realization of children’s rights and sustainable development. The evidence presented makes a powerful case for why and how these issues must be directly addressed in the discussions towards a Post-2015 Development Agenda and the eventual framework that will emerge. It is a call to action for decision-makers to invest in children’s rights and well-being as an integral means to achieving sustainable development.

THE UNIQUE ROLE OF EUROPEAN AID – The fight against global poverty

In these challenging political and economic times, leadership on aid is needed more than ever. Unfortunately, however, Europe’s

leadership appears to be waning – on the boundaries of aid, on its effectiveness, and on its quantity. This needs to change.
This eighth Concord AidWatch Report focuses on the unique role of aid. It shows that, while all sources of finance are important
for development, aid can achieve things that other sources cannot.

Think Tanks and Civil Societies program – Final Release 1.24.13

The 2012 Global Go To Think Tank Rankings marks the sixth edition of the annual report. As in previous years, the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the University of Pennsylvania’s International Relations Program has relied on the indexing criteria and process developed by James G. McGann for ranking think tanks around the world. The Program’s Rankings remain the first and most comprehensive ranking of the world’s top think tanks, and are based on an annual global peer and expert survey of over 1950 scholars, policymakers, journalists, and regional
and subject area experts. Given the rigor and scope of the process, the Rankings produced have been described as the insider’s guide to the global marketplace of ideas. As part of the process, all 6,603 think tanks in the world were contacted and encouraged to participate in the nominations process as well as a group of over 9,000 journalists, policymakers, public and private donors, think tanks, and regional and subject area specialists. This group of peers and experts were surveyed to nominate and then rank public policy research centers of excellence for 2012. Additionally, the Program has assembled a set of Expert Panels, comprising over 750 expert members from around the world, spanning the political spectrum and drawing from a wide variety of disciplines and sectors, to help in the refining and validation of the lists generated. These experts were consulted at every stage in the process. The nominations and rankings were based on the detailed set of criteria that included the think tanks’ production of rigorous and relevant research, publications, and programs in one or more substantive areas of research (see “Methodology and Timeline” for the complete set of nomination and ranking criteria, and “Appendices” for a detailed explication of the rankings process).