Memo+28+Chapter+Summaries+(Dan+F)+2

Overarching argument: Despite reform over the last few decades, Development continues to be inefficient, ineffective, unfair, and unsustainable.

FOCUS: the proper (correct and how correctness is determined) and fair (moral) interaction between developed and significantly less developed countries in terms of sustainability, economics, and politics in the transfer of ideas (technology, governance, healthcare) and natural resources (any stock that has potential of depletion)

1. Positive impacts of Globalization and Development 2. Encompassing problems apparent in the current model
 * Introduction**
 * The system does function despite the gross inequality but it is nowhere near sustainable in the long run.
 * gdp, ppp, and income per capita are not adequate measures of poverty. Define poverty. All these previously unintergrated countries appear even poorer than they actually maybe because up until integration their goals were the not the same as the mainstream integrated groups
 * Once started with earlier forms of western market integration, namely colonialism and imperialism, globalization would be dangerous to stop. Those who have become dependent would be cut off and much worse off then the unfair system has already allowed them to begun. There is no going back at this point. For better or worse globalization has become the dominant model for interaction. Had another system propagated it is possible the world would be just as or more successful as it is now, but because the majority of the world is locked in we will likely never know, barring some global catastrophe tantamount to a reset.
 * Scale
 * Geography
 * Limits to growth
 * Resource dependency

3. Introduce stove movement and why it is a good case study for drawing more encompassing conclusions 4. Outline formatting of the rest of the book
 * Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
 * Reason for spreading more efficient stoves
 * Types of stoves
 * Why this is a good case study
 * Aiming for a list format in which the negative impacts of each type of approach are outlined (will include all views but conclusions are critical generally)

1. Global deregulation and lack of regulation causes inequality
 * Government Regulation**
 * Free trade
 * UN
 * IMF, World Bank
 * Failure of encompassing regulation or accord- not everyone is playing based on the same rulebook.

2. Large, powerful corporations get the better deal when interacting with developing countries and their products cannot reach the poorest populations.
 * For Profit**
 * fits modern global economic reasoning and models except for the fact that the inequality gap is still increasing
 * selling to fit current markets on various scales- entrepreneurship
 * untapped resources are really cheap and exported in exchange for goods. a depleted resource base means future is in jeopardy. some resources completely unique
 * cheap labor supply with less regulations- market is not efficiently working itself out, it is taking advantage of groups that do no have effective regulation that allows the economy to operate in a more beneficial way.

3. Nonprofits typically only provide short-term relief and long lasting damage
 * Non-profit**
 * What happens when a group of extremely poor countries fall so far behind that it seems little can be done. Should the other countries carry them? It is doubtful they will improve on their own, but helping them is tricky because charity does nothing for long-term sustainability.
 * NGO/INGO/ religious groups and charity often make the situation worse or don't really make a difference at all (with exceptions of course)
 * The ultimate feel-good feeling

4. Developing countries act as a testing ground for the developed world leaving developing countries not much better off then they started.
 * Academic**
 * students take part in aid projects that generally benefit them more then those who should be helped.
 * acts as just another thing for your resume
 * students cannot help but inadvertently passing along their ideas about the world and how it should function which damages the target groups culture
 * students do the work and then those left behind don't know how to continue or see no gain in doing so
 * cannot be very long term analysis because students leave academia fro mainstream jobs without following up always
 * projects that do bring students back every year are extremely inefficient because the new group spends half the time learning what the past group did and why they did it
 * provides perspective, but at what cost

5. Developed country experts offer intermediate solution despite not using the tech themselves. Targeted groups see rich countries lifestyles and don't see why they should take intermediate approach even if it is more immediately beneficial to them and more sustainable.
 * Appropriate Technology**
 * takes into account scale, cost, education, local, low skill, individualistic solution just like fair-trade and microfinance
 * small is beautiful

6. Fair trade and Microfinance- paradigm shift in response to failures in and lack of global regulation.
 * Individual**
 * Individualistic voting system brought about by the failures of more encompassing policy to get the job done.
 * Fair trade is not really fair because it interferes with the competition of the poor. Some of the poor get a leg up if they can get the certification, but those who can't get the certification for one reason or another are left at a disadvantage in some ways. The poor uncertified people may not get the benefits associated with fair trade, but it does make them the cheap alternative to fair-trade groups. Social significance of fair-trade is an extension of voting with pocketbooks; a more encompassing regulation at the country level would ensure much fairer treatment. More developed country citizens will only be able to participate as long as they don't have financial issues of there own. Global outsourcing is one exempt of people loosing income in developed countries that would focus there attention back inward.
 * Microfinance doesn't entirely address the issues either because it is to narrow and requires that every poor person learn how to be an entrepreneur, it's not sustainable as long as it still requires subsidies, loan creep still occurs, information is asymmetric, and people borrow from multiple firms at once.

1. Limits to growth 2. Need updated appropriate tech 3. Need regulation? 4. No place for religion 5. Locals need more of a say in process through education only approach 6. No silver bullet approaches 7. Order of development 8. Need to find an intermediate level of interdependency that is acceptable- isolation is not an option because of depleted resources stocks. Need to find a way to replenish these stocks 10. Address problems made by students somehow 11. Future of stove transfer
 * Conclusion**