Funding the fight against global poverty

Development Centre

Taxes, philanthropy and financial markets could all become new sources of funding to help finance development and meet the Millennium Development Goals. But donors should be aware of their pitfalls too.

On 20 September, several world leaders met in New York in response to an invitation from President Lula of Brazil to discuss possible new ways of financing the fight against world hunger. The meeting was part of the drive to meet the so-called Millennium Development Goals adopted just four years earlier, but which are now in danger of being missed.

Not that anyone has ever objected to the goals; on the contrary, experts, aid activists and the general public alike, as well as political leaders the world over, hailed them as a breakthrough, with clear targets for fighting poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women. But how time flies.

Can we make up ground and meet the agreed deadline of 2015? Yes, though as those at the New York meeting would agree, more funding may be needed. How much is not clear, yet many say as much as $50 billion per year, which is roughly the total of aid spent by rich-country donors now.

Sure enough, recent pledges by donor countries, in Monterrey and elsewhere, have improved prospects for higher aid flows, but still leave the annual target to achieve the MDGs underfinanced by some $25 billion. The simplest solution is to raise aid further. However, budgets are tightening, which means new sources of development finance must be found if governments are to be sure of keeping their pledge to the world’s poor.

What are the options? Broadly, there are three: global taxes; private-sector contributions; and financial engineering.

Take global taxes first of all. These have widespread public support, notably among civil society groups, in part because they seek to finance a global public “good” (development) by imposing a tax on a global “bad”, such as speculative international finance, pollution or the arms trade. Any new tax would, of course, have to be easy to collect and hard to evade, but if it generates spin-off benefits other than revenues, such as a cleaner environment, then a tax would not only be worth it, proponents say, but may even be a better way to finance development than traditional aid.

Already today, “green” taxes yield on average 2.5% of GDP in OECD countries. However, a global environmental tax seems too distant a prospect to help us fund the MDGs in time. Nor are rich countries showing much sign of eagerness to pencil in proceeds from their new carbonrelated tax for aid purposes.

Another possibility is to tax currency transactions. Such a tax was originally proposed in 1927 by James Tobin, a Nobel Prize winning economist. Although Mr Tobin’s idea was to combat exchange-rate volatility, the tax now appeals to NGOs and some governments as a way to generate funds for development. After all, even a very small rate on such a large tax base as the foreign exchange market would yield large returns; indeed, a rate of just 0.01% applied on a global scale would generate an estimated $17-19 billion in revenue.

There are downsides though. First, the tax would have to cover multiple transactions, including hedging activities. Each transaction would be taxed, but the overall size of the tax base of daily foreign exchange transactions would shrink. In any case, the tax base for global financial capital may simply be too mobile to be relied on for financing the MDGs.

As for taxing arms dealing, even if the legal and documented trade in arms (worth around $50 billion per year) was unaffected by taxation, a 5% tax would not yield more than $2.5 billion annually. Also, the tax could backfire, so to speak, since higher taxation could stimulate more illicit arms dealing.

If a tax alone might not help meet the MDGs, what about encouraging more private funding? The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) coversaround a third of its income from NGO and private-sector contributions, according to its 2003 annual report. Programmes like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, the Vaccine Fund and the Global Environment Facility are administered and financed by coalitions of governments, international organisations, private enterprise and civil society. The trouble is, though they might serve to finance specific urgent problems, they may lead to a less coherent response to global development by duplicating existing structures and substituting official aid, and so not actually adding much extra. Private sector contributions would probably not be enough to make up the financing shortfall of the millennium goals, and even if a huge pool of donors were built up via firms and charities, it would take years to make an impression.

Financial engineering, which is what the UK government’s International Finance Facility (IFF) idea effectively is, would stand a better chance of providing the additional funds needed to reach the development goals. The finance facility would be built on a series of pledges by donors (each lasting 15 years). On the back of these pledges (its assets) the IFF would issue bonds in its own name (its own liabilities). The UK plan could be improved, though: real liquid public assets would bolster the credibility of the facility, and lower prospective spreads on the bonds it would issue, making them less risky. The demand for these bonds issues might also be enhanced if they were in the form of a lottery ticket, perhaps modelled on low-risk schemes currently in operation in Ireland and the UK.

The main advantage of the finance facility is that it could boost aid to as much as $100 billion per year during the crucial 2010-2015 period. And it emphasises grant finance rather than loans to the recipient countries, so relieving some pressure on poor country governments. Also, because donor co-ordination would take place through existing aid delivery channels, poor countries would not have to face myriad donors and regulations.

Global taxes, private charities and financial markets all have their advantages, so rather than choosing a single one, governments will probably want to pursue a combination of innovative funding approaches. This could well bring the Millennium Development Goals within reach, since more choice should stimulate the supply of more reliable funding.

©OECD Observer No 244, September 2004

Economic data

GDP growth: +0.6% Q1 2019 year-on-year
Consumer price inflation: 2.3% May 2019 annual
Trade: +0.4% exp, -1.2% imp, Q1 2019
Unemployment: 5.2% July 2019
Last update: 8 July 2019


Stay up-to-date with the latest news from the OECD by signing up for our e-newsletter :

Twitter feed

Subscribe now

<b>Subscribe now!</b>

To receive your exclusive paper editions delivered to you directly

Online edition
Previous editions

Don't miss

  • MCM logo
  • The following communiqué and Chair’s statement were issued at the close of the OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial level, this year presided by the Slovak Republic.
  • Food production will suffer some of the most immediate and brutal effects of climate change, with some regions of the world suffering far more than others. Only through unhindered global trade can we ensure that high-quality, nutritious food reaches those who need it most, Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD, and José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, write in their latest Project Syndicate article. Read the article here.
  • Globalisation will continue and get stronger, and how to harness it is the great challenge, says OECD Secretary-General Gurría on Bloomberg TV. Watch the interview here.
  • OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría with UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly, in New York City.
  • The new OECD Observer Crossword, with Myles Mellor. Try it online!
  • Listen to the "Robots are coming for our jobs" episode of The Guardian's "Chips with Everything podcast", in which The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliott, and Jeremy Wyatt, a professor of robotics and artificial intelligence at the University of Birmingham, and Jordan Erica Webber, freelance journalist, discuss the findings of the new OECD report "Automation, skills use and training". Listen here.
  • Do we really know the difference between right and wrong? Alison Taylor of BSR and Susan Hawley of Corruption Watch tell us why it matters to play by the rules. Watch the recording of our Facebook live interview here.
  • Has public decision-making been hijacked by a privileged few? Watch the recording of our Facebook live interview with Stav Shaffir, MK (Zionist Union) Chair of the Knesset Committee on Transparency here.
  • Can a nudge help us make more ethical decisions? Watch the recording of our Facebook live interview with Saugatto Datta, managing director at ideas42 here.
  • The fight against tax evasion is gaining further momentum as Barbados, Côte d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Malaysia, Panama and Tunisia signed the BEPS Multilateral Convention on 24 January, bringing the total number of signatories to 78. The Convention strengthens existing tax treaties and reduces opportunities for tax avoidance by multinational enterprises.
  • Globalisation’s many benefits have been unequally shared, and public policy has struggled to keep up with a rapidly-shifting world. The OECD is working alongside governments and international organisations to help improve and harness the gains while tackling the root causes of inequality, and ensuring a level playing field globally. Please watch.
  • Checking out the job situation with the OECD scoreboard of labour market performances: do you want to know how your country compares with neighbours and competitors on income levels or employment?
  • Trade is an important point of focus in today’s international economy. This video presents facts and statistics from OECD’s most recent publications on this topic.
  • The OECD Gender Initiative examines existing barriers to gender equality in education, employment, and entrepreneurship. The gender portal monitors the progress made by governments to promote gender equality in both OECD and non-OECD countries and provides good practices based on analytical tools and reliable data.
  • Interested in a career in Paris at the OECD? The OECD is a major international organisation, with a mission to build better policies for better lives. With our hub based in one of the world's global cities and offices across continents, find out more at .
  • Visit the OECD Gender Data Portal. Selected indicators shedding light on gender inequalities in education, employment and entrepreneurship.

Most Popular Articles

OECD Insights Blog

NOTE: All signed articles in the OECD Observer express the opinions of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official views of OECD member countries.

All rights reserved. OECD 2019