Missing indicators of remedial capacity

Indicators of Political Will, Remedial and Coping Capacity? (Part #3)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

Beyond the capacity for problem containment there is then the distinct question of remedial capacity, as separately discussed (Remedial Capacity Indicators versus Performance Indicators, 1981). What sense is there that anything effective can be done about the problem?

Of particular relevance in this respect is the systemic distinction between technical possibilities and the reality of operational systems in practice, again separately discussed (Recognizing the Psychosocial Boundaries of Remedial Action: constraints on ensuring a safe operating space for humanity, 2009). The naivety of techno-optimists is succinctly clarified as a systemic adaptation of Le Chatelier's Principle by management cybernetician Stafford Beer in the following terms:

Reformers, critics of institutions, consultants in innovation, people in sort who "want to get something done", often fail to see this point. They cannot understand why their strictures, advice or demands do not result in effective change. They expect either to achieve a measure of success in their own terms or to be flung off the premises. But an ultrastable system (like a social institution)... has no need to react in either of these ways. It specialises in equilibrial readjustment which is to the observer a secret form of change requiring no actual alteration in the macro-systemic characteristics that he is trying to do something about (The Cybernetic Cytoblast: management itself. Chairman's Address to the International Cybernetics Congress, September 1969)

What indeed constitutes a viable remedy in practice rather than in theory or principle -- and beyond any minimal token respone to enable adequacy of response to be publicly claimed in response to critics?

With respect to commercial solutions, however vigorously proposed, the problem is well-documened in the case of diseases for which the pharmaceutical industry offers remedies -- at a price (Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma, The Guardian, 4 June 2010; World Health Organization Scientists Linked to Swine Flu Vaccine Makers, ABC News, 5 June 2010; Report Criticizes WHO's Response to Swine Flu, The New York Times, 10 March 2011). More generally it could be asked whether remedial capacity is then constrained in a manner beyond the funding currently available. There is a sense of effective institutional response being held to ransom whenever possible -- as suggested by commercial aspirations to the discovery of a "killer-app", a panacea for which the world will be obliged to pay whatever is demanded.

This tendency is exacerbated when any remedy is more subtly constrained by proprietary metaphors by which application of any "new thinking" is inhibited (Future Coping Strategies: beyond the constraints of proprietary metaphors, 1992). The preoccupation with intellectual property tends to take precedence over the relevance of new thinking to remedial capacity. This may even extend to inhibiting mention and articulation of that new thinking without responding to copyright constraints -- whatever the cost. This recalls the curious legislation with regard to injunctions to prevent discussion of a controversial issue -- extending in some cases to so-called "super-injunctions" preventing discussion of the injunction itself. Arguably the constraints on discussion of overpopulation can be recognized in this light (Prohibition of Reference to Overpopulation of the Planet: draft proposal for an International Convention, 2018).

Beyond any sense of remedial response to a particular issue is the question of its efficacy in a systemic sense. This is recognized in the manner in which any remedial strategic response can be perceived (especially by critics) as a problem in its own right -- through engendering an array of other problems. Ironically many problems may themselves be perceived as "solutions" to others. This complex of interacting feedback loops has been a feature of the profiling in the data sets of the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential (Feedback Loop Analysis in the Encyclopedia Project, 2000).

What form might an indicator of remedial capacity take? In that light, is it possible that the remedial capacity of the current complex of institutions may be completely "unfit for purpose" -- despite vigorous claims to the contrary by optimists and those benefitting from "business-as-usual"?

The question is ironically highlighted in the case of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 -- readily recognized as the ultimate collective remedial response to the crises of the times. A target of one of the goals is Capacity-Building aiming to: Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation. Arguably missing is any measure of the remedial capacity of the SDGs as a strategic objective -- although the SDG Monitoring and Reporting Toolkit for UN Country Teams offers statistical tools relating to Capacity Building and Coordination.

Of relevance to the question is criticism of the SDG approach (Ranjula Bali Swain (A Critical Analysis of the Sustainable Development Goals, In: Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research, 2017; Thomas Block, Pitfalls of the SDGs, Centre for Sustainable Development Ghent, 21 June 2018). Given the adopted definition of capacity-buiding focusing on developing countries, and the arguments above with regard to creeping incapacity in developed countries, is there a possibility that the latter may call for similar medicine? Worse, is the focus on developing countries an exercise in displacemet by the developed countries to avoid confronting a challenge too close to home?

Despite claims, assumptions and wishful thinking, is there any "concrete proof" of the remedial capacity implied by the SDGs? The current lack of such remedial capacity is indicated at the time of writing, as clarified by Thalif Deen (UN Turns to Global Investors for Billions Needed for its 2030 Development Agenda, Other News, 29 October 2019). As noted:

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres thanked member states for their pledges and commitments at three high-level summit meetings: on Climate Action, on SDGs and on Financing for Development (FfD). But to make serious progress, he told the ministers, we need to fill the financing gap for SDGs -- some $1.5 trillion dollars per annum. According to the 2014 World Investment Report by the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the financing gap to achieve the SDGs in developing countries is even higher -- and estimated to be around $2.5â--$3.0 trillion per year.... At the same time, Guterres has said there is a need to replenish the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to meet the commitment to mobilize $100 billion per year for climate action, including mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, by next year. But at the GCF Pledging Conference in Paris October 24-25, 27 rich nations pledged only $9.8 billion to the Fund... In his annual report for 2019, the secretary-general was unequivocally clear that at the current pace, we will not reach our targets -- unless there is much greater urgency and ambition, including enhanced international cooperation, private-public partnerships, adequate financing and innovative solutions. [emphasis added]

This recognition is confirmed in a joint statement (16 October 2019) launching the Global Investors for Sustainable Development Alliance (GISD):

The necessary transformation of business and finance to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is not happening at the required scale or speed. While investment into sustainable development has become increasingly important, there is more work to be done to bring this long-term and inclusive approach into the mainstream

As noted by Damian Carrington (Most countries' climate plans 'totally inadequate' â-- experts, The Guardian, 5 November 2019):

The world is on a path to climate disaster, with three-quarters of the commitments made by countries under the Paris agreement "totally inadequate", according to a comprehensive expert analysis... The current pledges made under the Paris agreement are totally inadequate to put us on a pathway to meet either the 1.5C or the 2C goal... Of the 184 national Paris pledges made, 136 are judged insufficient in the report, published by the Universal Ecological Fund.

Potentially more problematic, is there any "concrete proof" that the "trillions of dollars" sought -- once marshalled -- can be applied effectively, given the widespread recognition of the questionably efficacy of development aid with its dubious levels of uncontrollable corruption (F. Niyonkuru, Failure of Foreign Aid in Developing Countries: A Quest for Alternatives. Business and Economics Journal, 7, 2016; Karl Thompson, Criticisms of Official Development Aid, ReviseSociology, 22 February 2017; Viktor Jakupec, A Critique of the Development Aid Discourse, In: Development Aid: Populism and the End of the Neoliberal Agenda. Springer, 2017).

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]