Since the COVID-19 pandemic and a revived racial justice movement around the world, more radical proposals for how to restructure global governance have been gaining traction in ways that seemed impossible just a few years ago.
One of those proposals is Global Public Investment – or GPI – and it boils down to three principles: All contribute, all decide, all benefit.
Once laughed off as a pie-in-the-sky idea, GPI is increasingly seen as a plausible paradigm shift for a traditional aid system beholden to the whims of wealthy countries and stuck in a failing donor-recipient binary.
If successfully implemented, proponents argue, GPI would be a more democratic financing system for global public goods – better capable of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals, tackling the climate crisis, and addressing the pandemics of the future.
But what is GPI really? Is it politically feasible? And what would it take to implement it?
In this episode of Rethinking Humanitarianism, host Heba Aly sits down with two people working to make GPI “technically sound” and “politically attractive”: Solange Baptiste, executive director of the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), and Jonathan Glennie, co-founder of the Global Nation think tank and author of “The Future of Aid: Global Public Investment”.
Source: The New Humanitarian