public administration in our societies. can we work with you to help develop the capacity of our governments to deal with these issues. as you know, sometimes in latin america and others the private sector said we'll stay as far as away from the government as we can. you know, it's corrupt, it takes our money. we'll build walls, and i think the lesson that i've bean in colombia or mexico or others is that will kill your society. so i thought it was a good sign that the private sector business community said we've got to get into this fight. we've got to get in. so part of what i was trying to do was to show how we could also work and support. it's part of the larger aspect we've talked about about you know, private sector is not only the profit making private sector obviously. it's the non-profit too. >> one more question right up here. yeah. >> thank you. thank you, president zoellick for the work you've done at the world bank. i work for the fao and i happen to be from tanzania. my question to you is on youth unemployment. this week, about 90,000 students will graduate in tanzania from

six about 20% of them might go to college. the rest will probably have no employment or no alternative ways to find jobs. what is the bank doing advise countries or to advise governments and what can you tell your successor to do when he comes in to deal with the problem of youth unemployment? >> thank you. >> well, let me start by saying around the world, so not only in tanzania or in africa but in countries, developing countries an developed countries, what i find is a huge area of interest is the inner connectivity between education, skills, and workforce. you know, and we're working with a variety of partners to look at this issue. i mean this is an intriguing one. we started with the islamic development bank, part of our broader partners to do research on education and youth unemployment and we came up with

an e for e initiative education for employment including how you can doing public private partnerships and sometimes private sector performance, which by the way it turns out in malaysia and others there's a much larger sector of this done by the private sector to help interconnect people. it also talks about the education and having the feedback for the schools what employers are looking for without making it sort of a narrow training. but the bigger issue i think is this. our next world development report, so we've done -- these are sort of the landmark reports we try to do to push the agenda. one we did on food and agriculture and then gender and conflict states. the next one is on jobs. and it's basically so this come out later this year. and just to give you kind of a short form perspective of this, some of the questions it's asking is, i don't want to reduce this too far, but many of the economics profession would

simply say jobs is an unemployment issue and it's simply a derivative of growth. you get certain growth, you create the jobs, okay? we're twisting the prism a little bit and trying to say let's understand the value of jobs from different dimensions. for example, individual self-worth. social cohesion. broader productivity in the society. okay? so some of these are what economists would call extern analogies, right? then the question is as you start to look at the problems from that, what are the gaps? they may be discrimination gasp, they may it be institutional gasp, there might be information matching gasp, but what with policies might you want to try to do to address those. and then when you think about jobs, it obviously varies by country and so if you're a country that has large informal sector, if you've got a big agriculture sector, if you're urbanizing and post conflict and one of them is youth. and i think one of the things

that one -- an that the study i hope will come out is to recognize there's a loss for society as well as the individuals if you don't make special efforts for people at early is takens to get engaged in the workforce to feel that they are learning skills, but also a sense of social you know worth and other aspects and there are lessons that this is the nice thing about development solutions we've seen from various countries things you can do that are consistent with markets and insentives but to encourage them. it may it be entrepreneurship. in some countries it may be public works programs. it may it be different things that allow people to get that transition but from school to work to jobs in a way that is good for them and good for the society as a whole. so when you ask what will i do to my successor, i'll say well you inherited a good world development report. >> i think i agree to wrap up

how we tend to look at the world of sort of the glass half full or the problems there you know, economics are often kind of termed as the dismal science but perhaps looking at the other way from this. you know, if you had to conclude what, are the bright spots out there? where are the places that we can build on and look at that you think might be the shining spots of both a p prosperity in the years to come? >> well, at the big level, i then think about what we talked about in development. think about the fact that countries that used to be considered as charity cases are now driving the world's growth. this is a huge opportunity. i mean, you know, and it's not only in terms of gdp statistics but it's in terms of the individual fulfillment of each of those people so you know, the scientists, the engineers, the potential creative entrepreneurs you know, this is an enormous thing and people if not given an opportunity so rather than be negative about this, i see huge

potential but you need 0 keep trying to find win win solutions. now, and the most individual level i'll tell you what i always find motivating and i'm sure many of you do. when i work with the very poorest and i remember i've had the good fortune of working with a group called the self-employed women's association in india and it works in south asia. i think over two million women. a lot of these women are poor and have been given no chance in life. you start to see what a little opportunity makes and a little difference makes and the empowerment of them in terms of whether one of the things we help finance and create credit for was a solar lamp and kind of how they helped design it so this can be reading, it can be general lighting, it can help with a cell phone. within the first week, they make it, they manufacture it, it's gone out -- they had over 10,000 sales of this which again we tried to help create the basis of financing. when i talk to, i remember one

woman, this the poorest of the poor, these are people that would spend eight months a year in salt flats trying to gather salt and this one woman told me she said now because she has a sense of making it different for her children you know, they leave the children in a vil with you know, grandparents or others so they can start to get an education opposed to spending eight months at this. then you start to -- this is very interesting because i was talking with them about a water and sanitation project that i was trying to work with the government of india on this. and some of the women started to cry because you know this is so fundamental. they don't have proper sanitation, they're not going to drink and not going to eat properly. so things that are at the core of their lives and with a little bit of support you can make a difference. and so, what i find to be honest going back to your question about the u.s., sometimes i see people in the united states and you know, to be honest, they've got a lot of advantages they don't take advantage of. i see people in poor countries

that just give them a little chance, a little chance and they'll trial to use it. and that's inspiring for people. >> well, i'd like to really thank you both for your comments now. but also for the leadership role that you've played at the bank. your openness to civil society and the vision that you have, and really pleased join me in thanking bob zoellick for his leadership and his time. >> let me close because i know our time sup and that you've had a long three days but i want to thank you for all of you what you do because what you can see, and we just touchdown the surface. what we can learn everyone civil society groups, the information, the ideas, the delivery, and as you know, is enormous. i know that many of the people in this room make their own sacrifices to do this and you're very committed. and so i want to thank you but

also thank sam for doing such a great job of pulling such an important group together. >> thank you. >> more now from the interaction conference on international development and relief. this panel includes representatives from the imf and the bill and ma lynn za gates foundation. it's a little more than an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. i know we have the daunting task of doing this while you're eating so but we thank you for your attention. our session today is entitled the evolution of multilateral institutions in a globalizing world. the brent more institutions like the united nations, the international monetary fund, and

the world bank are clearly evolving to become more inclusive of new stakeholders from new donor countries to societies and individual citizens. other global bodies such as the g-8 and the increasingly the g-20 have filled leadership gaps and they are increasingly shaping the direction of global development. now, the quep that we ask is there an argument to be made that this global -- that this global architecture needs to further evolve to advance a more equitable and sustainable world? how should these institutions be reformed to better advance human well-being and development?

in what way can these institutions become more relevant to the 21st century and are they up to the task? on behalf of all of us, i'd like to welcome the distinguished panelists who will engage with us on this topic this afternoon. i'm going to start with minush shafiq. you are currently the deputy managing director at the imf. and you just heard what bob zoellick had to say about changes and reform at the world bank. . are reform efforts under way at the imf as well, and can you tell us about them.

>> okay i'd be happy to do that. i think since the crisis in 2008, we've had a sort of renaissance of reforms at the if as a result of it, and those have been around increasing lending, changing the way we do surveillance and monitor countries. adapting our policies, we've vipped new products and we've also transformed the governments and the institutions. i'll just say a little bit about each of those. on lending, the imf has committed over $300 billion since the crisis of to of fund countries going through the jock that resulted. and that will.includes a fourfold increase to low income countries in 2009 to enable them to cushion the adjustment that they had to make after the collapse of lehman's and the resulting financial crisis. and we did that financing to low income countries as the zero interest rates because we were able to mobilize subsidies from our membership so they were able to cushion that shock at

virtually no cost. then in terms of our work on surveillance, as you know, the imf does kind of annual assessments of how countries are doing around the world and we clearly missed the ball on the financial interconnections between countries and the fact that the subprime mortgage crisis in the u.s. would have these massive ripple effects across the world economy. so now we have mandatory financial sector assessments for the 2579 biggest financial sectors in the world and he'll say to those countries we're going to look at your financial sectors regularly and not just can you assess the impact on your financial stability but also your wider impact. we've also done much more work on ribs and vulnerabilities including for low income countries of developments in the world economy and much more work in the imf. we lewised to look at every country as a country by country issue. we're now very focused on spillovers and interconnections between countries and analyzing what those mean.

i think the crisis is really an important lesson for us on that agenda. in terms of policies i think i guess we're no longer just account austerity imf. we're the adaptable imf and we allowed countries to run up much bigger fiscal deficits post crisis to allow them to in some cases have a bit of stimulus to avoid the risks of stagnation, and also to protect social safety nets. so if you look in sub-saharan africa, for example, fiscal deficit went up by about 2% in the wake of the crisis and the imf helped finance that more gradual adjustment. in terms of product, we've got a whole new suite of instruments. some of them are precautionary so countries that have very good economic situations but are at risk of being bystanders of the crisis and being hit by shocks that they were unintended recipients of are now able to have kind of credit lines in the imf. they don't have to draw the money but it's there if they need it, countries like mexico,

poland, colombia drew on that and have the flexible credit lines still in place which they use when they need it and we also increases the scope of our sort of rapid ability to respond to crises and now have the rapid financing instrument which can help countries with financing when they will face a commodity crisis but also post conflict situations and natural disasters and we recently used that for the first time in yemen when they had the big political transition and needed immediate cash. finally we too have been involved in governance reforms. we've doubled our quotas after the crisis, increased the resources of the imf to roughly over $700 billion. we shifted the share holdings toward the emerging markets so that will 6% of the share holding is now shifting from countries historicallyover represented in the imf to emerging markets who were underrepresented. now the brick countries are now

in the top ten shareholders of the imf and we did that while protecting the voice of the low income countries so their share holdings didn't get cut and they maintained their voice in the institution while allowing us to let our own governs more accurately reflect the world economy. >> thank you. stewart patrick is a senior fellow and director of international institutions and global governance program at the council on foreign relations. in doing a little bit of research, i saw that stewart is an expert in multilateral corporations, international institutions, global governance, the u.n., weak stays, foreign assistance and post conflict. so i think he's very well placed

being a recognized expert on multilateral corporation and international institutions and global governance to answer this question. in what ways must these institutions change and what happens if they don't? >> that's a great question. pape, there's no question that there is an enormous demand and the demand for multilateral institutions is far outstripping it the supply of effective international institutions. we see this across the board of global issues. the reason the demand is rising is that the agenda of world politics of international relations is shifting from the management of great power balances and sort of traditional issues much more to the management of mutual risks and vulnerabilities and i think bob zoellick touched on a number of those. in addition, these institutions face a huge problem of actually

integrating emerging powers into the existing authority structures so we have a growing imbalance between trajectories in determines of the terms of global distribution of power on the one hand and authority structures that are currently existing. unfortunately, what we haved difficulty doing is actually reforming institutions. there have been in the wake of the global financial crisis and after all, most major institutional innovations occur only in the wake of a crisis, there have been some institutional reforms within the imf and brought back from the dead. the creation of the g-20 is the premier forum for global economic management, creation of the financial stability board, some still lagging shares reforms within the international financial institutions but in other places there has been much less progress than one might have expected. the reasons for this are several. global institutional reform is incredibly tough.

there are disagreements over how big to make the table. you see this in questions about how big the g-20 should be, whether or not it's actually too big and going for representation, you sacrifice a certain amount of efficiency. there are questions about as you integrate rising powers as to whose norms are actually going to govern. we will have norms within is the international development community on good donorship but we also have a lot of pursuit of resource america can tealism by china and other countries. there's also questions about who pays and about the relative of scope of burden sharing amongst different countries and then finally, what we find increasingly is this the domestic preconditions for effective multilateral cooperation and global institutional reform are lacking. in our own highly charged partisan environment in the united states this is particularly the case where there's a reluctance of republicans on capitol hill to invest in international institutions like the united nations. but that is something that is not just apparent in the united

states. it's a reluctance that is in effect global. so we're in this era in which we have no clear leader, no clear motor of global institutional reform and it's not clear even

we would like to see greater civil societies to assess, you

know, some political trends in many major countries. can we find partnerships with some of the multilaterals to lever effectiveness and at sometime get multilaterals where they're a little bit comfortable in their own space to be a bit sharper edged and a bit more results focused. now, you could say that's a kind of arrogant thing on our part, but i think what we would like to do in that is to pick the areas where we have some confidence that we've had direct experience of what works and what doesn't, what's important and what isn't, you know, to take one example, i think bob

referred to it in passing, the huge successes in global health, for example, in harboring the rate of mortality over a generation. we want to say how come we've only halved it. what do we need to do to sharpen international efforts to bring that down further? and we regard multilateral institutions as very much the point of their arrow at the global level working with civil society, governments in the country. so i think what we worry about is the political kind of spirit of the times is, yeah, well, there's that kind of u.n. stuff, you know, either black helicopters or it's ineffective and there's the sort of world bank and imf and tired old institutions. >> yes. >> and so we're going to have these brave new solutions, the gates foundation or magical civil society. and we don't believe that you can do that -- that there is a

substitute like that. so we think engagement is the way we've got to go, and that will revitalize these institutions as well. >> wonderful. wonderful. suzanne until a few months ago served in the state department and is currently head of the u.s. office of am necessary si international. suzanne nossel, you have a strong background in human rights. is there a role and what is the role for multilateral institutions in the protection of human rights? are these institutions structured to perform that role? >> sure. thanks very much. there is, there always has been an important role for multilateral institutions and the promotion of human rights. if you think about the foundational international human rights instruments, many of them were negotiated at the u.n. they're all multirat lal,

they've had a huge impact. if you think of the international covenant on civil political rights, the universal declaration of human rights, these foundation nal instruments, it's almost hard to imagine today how you could develop the kind of breadth of consensus that underlies these agreements. so those are real multilateral triumphs that have a huge impact on daly lives around the world, you know, year in and year out. so there's a long and proud history. at the same time, it's a very fraught history. and if you look at what's happened in the multilateral arena, the u.n. system has been probably the primary, the foremost global organization with a significant role to play on human rights and, you know, one of the original three pilars of the u.n. system alongside peace and security and development was human rights. but i would say the u.n. throughout most of its history

has underperformed in the height arena. and it really is i think a product of two different pieces, two different factors. one is lack of political will and the difficult di, the persistent difficulties that have been encountered mustering the political will to act particularly in response to human rights crises around the world so that the divisions, the political divisions we see in geopolitics and diplomatic relations played out at the u.n. and often causing paralysis in response to human rights crises. and then on the other side operational difficulties. so limitations in staffing, ability to mobilize quickly in response to crises and to really mount an effective investigative response that's commensurate with the range of human rights crises we face around the world. i also think there's been some progress in recent years, you know, and would point to a

number of things, the u.n. security council has become much more active, for example, in the aspect of women's rights, passing important resolutions on that top nick the past ten years. they have built human rights components into peacekeeping missions so that there are officials and staff that are charged with human rights monitoring, documentation and technical assistance as part of many of the peacekeeping operations around the world. there's also, you know, some progress on the political front. the libya authorization last year, for example, in response to the crackdown and abuses and onslaught by moammar gadhafi i think was regarded as a similar bomb by many of the united nations security council coming together to refer the situation to the international criminal court and later authorize use of all necessary measures in response to that crisis.

you know, there's also of course still many limitations, and we've seen most prominently in the last few months in the case of syria where the security council, you know, was paraly d paralyzed, exercises of a double veto by china and russia, rejecting efforts to condemn russia, al asad for the crackdown on the syrian population and the crisis that's led to nearly 10,000 deaths. in more recent weeks and months, you know, there has been an effort, of course, by former secretary-general kofi annan with another security council authorization to respond to the crisis, but very halting progress there and a cease-fire that does not seem to be able to holding and slow mobilization of u.n. monitors and i think overall a response that really is inadequate. also want to call attention to the developments we've seen over the last few years at the