pg. 13: an international initiative to strengthen the quality and broaden the application of benchmarking metrics and other evidence-based policy-making tools [bold in original] as a means of improving the demand for and accountability of performance against economic reform objectives.


Readers' Guide Comment on “means of improving the demand for and accountability of performance against economic reform objectives”

GRI’s call for more science-based decision-making is a significant break from those in the international business community who routinely attack the research results published by the International Panel on Climate Change and other climate scientists. Calls for more evidence-based policy-making support efforts to create analogous bodies to the IPPC in other global health and environment matters.

The situation is slightly different for when it comes to development data. For at least 30 years, the UN system has been widely recognized for its technical competence in evaluating development indicators. Successive Secretaries-General, religious figures, academic researchers, and civil society leaders have cited these data in urgent calls to action made to governments and corporations. For effective action on development, the world does not need necessarily need more evidence of global inequality and under-development. It needs a willingness and an incentive system for governments and MNCs to act, even if it is not in alignment with their perceived short-term self-interests.

Related Ideas: Four Building Blocks; Fixing the UN system; Options for managing economic globalization; Effectiveness objective

The Readers' Guide welcomes comments with alternative examples or counter examples, supplemental assessments of the extracted GRI text or commentary – critical or otherwise – of the above interpretation of GRI’s perspective.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.