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 gaps. they may it be institutional gaps. there might be information matching gaps, but with policies that might want you to try 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 stages 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 incentives 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 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 to 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 village 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 please 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've just touched the surface. what we can learn from civil society groups, the information, the ideas, the delivery, 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. er. >> more now on the conference with a representative from the imf amnesty international and the bill and melinda gates foundation. this is about an hour and ten minutes. >> 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 question 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 nemat shafik. 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 developed 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 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 25 biggest financial sectors

in the world. 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 vulnerabilities including for low income countries of developments in the world economy and much more work in the imf. we 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 the austerity imf. we're the adaptable imf, and we allow 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 historically over represented in the imf to emerging markets who were underrepresented. now the bric 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 governance 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 terms of global distribution of power on the one hand and authority structures that are currently existing. unfortunately, what we have had 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. in 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 capitalism 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, for example, 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 when the united states steps up the lead that it can do it. now what happens if we don't get to get to the last part of your question.

you court competition from other formats and forums so there's a greater use of regional institutions, there's a greater use of ad hoc. we're just going to create our own bric development bank and then ultimately if legitimacy totally collapses, you court some significant challenges to the existing order. a major political challenge starting to become road blocks within those institutions in a sense holding them hostage to those sorts of changes. there have been some major changes made, i think sometimes people sell the g-20 too short even though it's having trouble moving from a crisis committee to a global steering group for the world economy. but it's held the line on protectionism, it's advanced some global financial

regulation, and it's constrained if you will the degree of divergence. but it has a lot of ways to go. >> the managing director for public policy of the bill and melinda gates foundation. jeff, you lead the gates foundation and international institutions. you have a substantial world bank. and development is now -- businesses ngos as well as traditional actors as multilateral institutions. how do they need to adapt to this new environment? >> let me answer that by a little bit of an angle.

the gate foundation and most of the people who work there are unashamed boosters of multilateralism. and what we would like to see actually is more engagement in a multilaterally effective world we would like to see greater efficiency and focus for these institutions. we'd like to see greater citizen and civil society support. and as said, some of the political trends in many major countries are in the opposite direction right now. and we think that's a problem. so i think what we would try in our modest way to do is to connect up some of the partners that we work with in the private sector in civil society among governments to say can we find partnerships with some of the key multilaterallies to leverage

effectiveness and get the multilaterals where they're comfortable in their own space to be a bit sharper edge and results focused. now, you could say that's a focused. you could say that's a kind of arrogant thing on our part but what we would like to do is 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. and, you know, to take one example, i think bob referred to it in passing. huge rates in a generation, how many come we've only halved it? what do we need to sharpen international efforts to bring that down further and we regard multilateral institutions as very much a point of their arrow at the global level working with civil society and governments in the country. so i think what we worry about is the political kind of spirit

of the times is, yeah, that u.n. stuff, black helicopters or it's ineffective and a world bank type of institutions and so we'll have these brave new solutions. the gates' foundation or civil society, and we don't believe that can you do that, that there is a substitute like that. so we think engagement is the way we've got to go and that's way to revitalize these institutions as well. >> wonderful. suzanne nossel, until a few months ago, served as deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations affairs at the state department and is currently head of the u.s. office of international. suzanne, you have 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 in that? >> yes. thank you very much. we think about the 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 multilateral, they've had a huge impact. if you think of the international covenant on civil political rights, the universal declaration of human rights, these foundational 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 daily lives around the world, you know, year in and year out. so there's a long and proud history here.

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 human rights arena, and it really is i think a product of two different pieces, two different factors. one is lack of political will and the difficulty, 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 of moammar al ga gadh, i think, was regarded as a similar bomb by many of the united nations security council coming together to refer to situations to the international criminal court and later authorized 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 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 u.n. human rights council in geneva. this historically was a very dysfunctional body, used to be called the u.n.'s commission on human rights. it was known for paralysis in the face of human rights crises, polarization between western delegations and delegations from the global south, one-sided focus on certain situations, particularly israel to the exclusion of many others. and we've seen substantial progress in that form over the last few years. that form has been very active

in responding to the arab spring, has issued a whole series of resolutions on syria, building greater and greater consensus with each one, has taken on iran, has passed the u.n.'s first-ever resolution on the rights of lgbt persons. so a lot of progress in that forum. but of course powers are less than the security council. they cannot authorize the use of force so there are limitations there as well. >> thank you. let's shift the conversation slightly on a subject that i'm sure is at the heart of a lot of people sitting in this room, international ngos. we've heard a lot this week about how the ground is shifting, things are changing. there's a lot of focus on partnership, a lot of conversations on country ownership. there's a lot in our mind, i think we could say, collectively here.

what role do you think these multilateral institutions can play with international ngos? let me start with the minister, because i know you've got some time pressure. >> sure. i mean, i think for the imf, the international ngos have been increasingly important partners for us in many ways. one, in terms of being people we consult with on many of our policy issues. we've got some current policy issues, say, on how countries manage natural resources well or debt ceilings or how do you tax the financial sector are ones where we're having conversations with international ngos so to get their views so we can incorporate that into our own policymaking. i think the other important area is, part of what the imf does when we work with other countries is to help them

improve the transparency of their own policymaking particularly around budgets and fiscal transparency, and there the partnership is a little more indirect, but part of our object is, is to increase the scope of genuine public debate about fiscal policy and budgets. and i guess the third area we've been doing a lot more work on recently relating to the earlier question on jobs is work with trade unions, and we now have as a sort of normal part of our business, in fact, about 80% of imf missions who go to countries now to consult with trade unions in that country about labor policies and the impact of the macroeconomic policies we're discussing on jobs and the job market. and i think that's been a very productive, sometimes contentious but very important set of relationships. >> let me get -- geoff, you want to -- >>