Podcasts about International development

China's presence in Africa is widely speculated upon (and wildly misunderstood). Joining us today to speak to the truth of the matter is Sinologist-Africanist Professor of International Development at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Deborah Brautigam. Deborah is also the Director of the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) and author of Will Africa Feed China? and, more famously, The Dragon's Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. In this episode, she shares her nuanced perspective on the Chinese development model and aid program in Africa and how the rise of NGOs has shifted the nature of aid, in general. We discuss the role of aid as a geopolitical instrument and the differences in the ways China and the West approach the funding of infrastructure in Africa. We learn about Chinese loans versus commoditized loans, the lessons China has learned through its various endeavors, and the lessons Deborah suspects it is yet to learn. Tune in to hear more about the balance of ensuring sustainability and respecting sovereignty, what's causing the decline in Chinese infrastructure lending, and where China's focus has turned since the pandemic. Key Points From This Episode: •   Deborah Brautigam's interest in the Chinese development model and aid program in Africa. •   The argument of her first book, Will Africa Feed China? •   The problems Western aid projects have faced. •   How the rise of NGOs has shifted the nature of aid. •   The accountability structure of China in Africa. •   Aid as a geopolitical instrument. •   The two primary sources of finance for infrastructure in Africa: China and the bond markets. •   The Japanese Goa formula and its impact on Chinese aid practices today. •   How Chinese commodity-backed aid differs from that of Western entities. •   Zambia's privatization of their copper mines. •   Why commoditized loans have a bad reputation. •   The advantage Chinese loans have over commoditized loans. •   Competitive bidding and external supervision of Chinese infrastructure in Angola. •   China's reasons for supporting the developing world in the 60s and 70s: to support socialism and wrest diplomatic recognition away from Taipei and towards Beijing. •   The lessons China took from undertaking the Tanzam railway project in the 70s. •   Tazara Syndrome: the pride of funding projects nobody else wants to fund. •   The art of project appraisal and how to minimize risk in demand projections. •   China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). •   The balance between ensuring the sustainability of aid projects and respecting sovereignty. •   How political interests undermine the ability of state-owned enterprises to be sustainable. •   The specialization and division of labor between China and the West. •   The Western profit model of new urban agglomerations. •   The misguided New Yorker report on debt-trap diplomacy in Sri Lanka. •   Reasons for the recent decline in Chinese infrastructure spending. •   China's plans to focus on local infrastructure. •   Various views on China's motives amongst policymakers. •   Deborah's book recommendations pertaining to Chinese issues.   Links Mentioned in Today's Episode: https://deborahbrautigam.com/ (Deborah Brautigam) https://twitter.com/d_brautigam (Deborah Brautigam on Twitter) https://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Gift-Story-China-Africa/dp/0199606293 (The Dragon's Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa) https://www.amazon.com/Will-Africa-Feed-China/dp/B017DNILOS (Will Africa Feed China?)...

I was honored to do a Time Management Master Training at the WILD Forum last week.  After the training, I found myself looking through the participants' comments for feedback.  And I quickly stopped myself. While receiving feedback is wonderful, we need to be careful when we find ourselves craving it.  In my case, I was craving the feedback to confirm that "this presentation is amazing" - or really "I am amazing."  Although I found the feedback to validate people felt it was good, I also found myself wanting more. This is the danger of feedback or external validation - if we find ourselves asking for it for the wrong reasons, it can actually be more harmful than helpful.  Why?  Because we are never satisfied when we are looking for other people's beliefs to make us believe more in ourselves.  It just doesn't happen that way. So what kind of validation are you seeking, and is it helping or hurting you?  You may not even be aware you're doing it. Find out how to become aware and when to stop yourself in this week's episode. Resources mentioned: - WILD Forum 2022 - The Success Factor: What Do High Achievers Have in Common?  by Dr Ruth Gotian

Introducing the Executive Director & Co-Founder of Girl Up Initiative Uganda, Monica Nyiraguhabwa. The non-profit organization Girl Up Initiative Uganda Challenges faced by Ugandan girls. The various programs offered by Girl Up Initiative Uganda Born in Uganda, Monica Nyiraguhabwa is the Executive Director & Co-Founder of Girl Up Initiative Uganda. She has over ten years of experience in the areas of girls' education and social empowerment. She holds an MA in Education, Gender and International Development from the University College of London, and a BA in Adult and Community Education from Makerere University. She is an Obama Africa Leader Fellow, Perennial Fellow, Cordes Fellow, and African Visionary Fellow. Monica believes that every girl's voice matters in advancing social transformation in the world. More information: www.girlupuganda.org Brought to you by J.C. Cooley Foundation  "Equipping the Youth of Today for the Challenges of Tomorrow". Support the show: http://www.cooleyfoundation.org/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Once, in every lifetime, you encounter a legend in their field.  Even rarer, you encounter a legend in multiple ones.  Even more anomalous, you encounter a podcast guest that Greg doesn't want jokes written about in the show description because of how LEGENDARY and IMPORTANT this person really is.  Dr. Stanley Krippner is that man.  Here's his bio, as written on the Institute of Noetic Sciences website: "Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., is the Alan Watts Professor of Psychology, Saybrook University, Pasadena, CA. and the former Director of the Dream Laboratory, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY. He has received lifetime achievement awards from the Parapsychological Association, the International Association for the Study of Dreams, and the Society for Humanistic Psychology. He is the past president of all three groups as well as the Society for Psychological Hypnosis which awarded him its 2002 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Professional Hypnosis. Krippner is a Fellow of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, and five divisions of the American Psychological Association, which granted him its 2002 Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Development of Psychology. He is co-author of the award-winning book Personal Mythology, and co-editor of the award-winning book Varieties of Anomalous Experience, and has authored or co-authored over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles."If you're curious about shamanism, hypnosis, extra-sensory perception, dreams, mythology, sexuality, altered states of consciousness, the human soul....Stanley has led research in it. He's been on the frontier of scientific investigation into the anomalous, as well as Consciousness, for decades and decades. He's carved the way for podcasts like this to even be possible. In this episode, Greg encounters The Legend.  Take a listen. It's worth it. Stanley's Website: https://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/Enjoy the show? Go to ratethispodcast.com/openloops to let Greg know.Subscribe to the Open Loops YouTube Channel to catch see Stanley on video! Go to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClAn8jOF8PDkCxZXhiL3lIg

Trade policymakers at the World Trade Organization and elsewhere have begun to think about trade as an instrument that can improve gender equality across the world. What do they need to know to design trade agreements and rules that can help women? Kate Francis, an independent consultant currently serving as a gender advisor at The Asia Foundation, explains the barriers that women face to economic empowerment, how they differ from place to place, and what kind of data we need to inform strategies that can make a difference. All views expressed by Francis in this podcast are her own. Opinions expressed on Trade Matters are solely those of the guest or host and not the Yeutter Institute or the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Show Notes No Silver Bullet for Women Entrepreneurs, Kate Francis Can fashion ever be fair? Bama Athreya The Rise and Decline of Patriarchal Systems: An Intersectional Political Economy, Nancy Folbre The World Bank's Gender Data Portal data2x

In this episode, I'll be chatting with Moe Ash, an IDOL Mentor, Freelance Consultant, and Owner/Founder of The Catalyst. He holds a BSC degree in Human Resources Management and a degree in Economics from Sadat Academy for Management Sciences, a master's degree in International Development from the American University in Cairo. An associate CIPD-HR, Certified Instructional Designer by HRCI, Certified performance & competency developer - Certified learning & development manager - Certified assessment center analyst by Middle Earth HR . Mohamed is currently looking into acquiring his CPTD & a degree in business psychology aiming to blend L&D, gamification, and performance management in a tight cohesive mold. Moe is the founder of The Catalyst, an instructional design consultancy focused on the sole purpose of creating an impeccable learning experience. Connect with Moe on LinkedIn here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/moeash7/ Learn more about the IDOL courses Academy here: www.idolcourses.com/academy  

Wouldn't it be great if we knew exactly what a community wanted without talking to them? If we knew what the community wanted, we could skip all the design meetings, all the planning and just get started with implementation. It would be great.  But it's not reality. Although we may want to rush, when we fix things quickly now we can make them harder in the long run. The same goes for supervising our teams. We may think we are fixing things when we quickly tell our teams what to do, but the reality is we may be making things worse. Learn the alternative to the Quick Fix which is better for you and your team in this episode.

This episode is for anyone interested in international development or the humanitarian sector. Rob Simmons works in Somalia for Committed to Good and was speaking to Kate from a shipping container at the airport in Mogadishu. Rob tells us what you need to get into this kind of work, the best bits and the worst bits. He also shares his advice on how students can approach people working in the sector. There's a full transcript and useful links on our blog. Rob's bio: Rob completed a master's degree in Post-war Recovery Studies at York and now works in Somalia as the Deputy Country Manager for Committed to Good, providing services to the United Nations to help them deliver their projects in high-risk areas. Before that he worked in Mine Action in Sri Lanka and Cambodia. Before studying at York, Rob spent 12 years in the British Army.

Episode 2: On Food Insecruity and the World Food Programme (WFP): Interning with WFP at a Regional Bureau vs. Headquarters This episode brings together two of UNA-Canada's International Youth Internship Programme's (IYIP) recent alumni. Nobel Aka, who interned with WFP Senegal as their Regional Partnerships intern, and Li Feng Xie, who interned with WFP Rome as their Climate Action intern. With facilitation from the IYIP Project Officer Megan McGeough, the speakers explore the work of WFP from their different perspectives, comparing Nobel's work with the Regional Bureau in Dakar, and Li Feng's experience working with Headquarters in Rome. The guest speakers delve into matters of food insecurity and security in the Sahel region, and the impacts of climate change on food insecurity, as well as reflecting on episode 1's query of the westernized nature of aid, and the need for an increased focus on regional, south-south partnerships in international development. ****** Episode 2 : L'insécurité alimentaire et le Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM) : Stage au PAM dans un bureau régional ou au siège de l'organisation Cet épisode réunit deux anciens stagiaires du Programme international de stages pour les jeunes (PISJ) de l'ACNU. Nobel Aka, qui a fait un stage au PAM Sénégal dans le cadre des partenariats régionaux, et Li Feng Xie, qui a fait un stage au PAM Rome dans le cadre de l'action climatique. Avec l'aide de Megan McGeough, responsable de projet de PSIJ, les intervenants explorent le travail du PAM de leurs différentes perspectives, comparant le travail de Nobel avec le bureau régional de Dakar et l'expérience de Li Feng avec le siège à Rome. Les intervenants se penchent sur les questions d'insécurité alimentaire et de sécurité dans la région du Sahel, ainsi que sur les impacts du changement climatique sur l'insécurité alimentaire. Ils réfléchissent également à la question de l'épisode 1 concernant la nature occidentalisée de l'aide et la nécessité de mettre davantage l'accent sur les partenariats régionaux et sud-sud dans le développement international.

Today on “Post Reports,” the head of global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development, Atul Gawande, on the state of the pandemic and why global vaccination efforts are at risk. Read more:Today on the show, we hear from national health reporter Dan Diamond about his interview with Atul Gawande, who leads global health at USAID and co-chairs the Biden administration's covid-19 task force. He is also an endocrine surgeon, health-care researcher and writer. Gawande explains his efforts as a Biden administration official to slow the pandemic through global vaccination — and how funding for those efforts are at risk. “It isn't enough to just bring a bunch of vaccines on the tarmac and say, ‘Go,'” Gawande says. “We need to support their ability to maintain the cold chain, to have workers who can move out into the rural areas.” Gawande also talks about the state of public health abroad as the war in Ukraine continues.

Episode 5 – Marsiyay Provoked power incontinence. Hornbuzzards scavenged. The fluffy, fist-sized marsiyay. Pebbles. Rocks. Sparking shards and feathers floated. The most lightning storms. SportsAid. https://thegreattitisabird.com/

Today, we're looking at the topic of environmental standards for different industries in China, and in particular talking to Prof. Yixian Sun of the University of Bath in the U.K. about the findings of his new book published by MIT Press: Certifying China: The Rise and Limits of Transnational Sustainability Governance in Emerging Economies The book explores the potential and limits of transnational eco-certification in moving the world's most populous country toward sustainable consumption and production. Dr Sun identifies the forces that drive companies from three sectors—seafood, palm oil, and tea—to embrace eco-certification. The success of eco-certification, Dr Sun writes, will depend on the extent to which it wins the support of domestic actors in fast-growing emerging economies. Yixian Sun is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in International Development at the University of Bath, UK. He has a Ph.D. and Master's degree in International Relations / Political Science, from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva. He's a Research Fellow of the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project and a co-convener of the ESG taskforce on SDGs. He studies transnational governance, environmental politics, and sustainable consumption, and his research seeks to explain the changing role of China in global environmental governance, including sustainability transitions within China as well as sustainability impacts of China's overseas engagement.   For further reading: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/certifying-china https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5271/Certifying-ChinaThe-Rise-and-Limits-of

Welcome to the Harvard Center for International Development's Beyond COVID podcast. This podcast is a series of conversations with CID faculty experts on various key dimensions of COVID response and recovery. Our goal with these conversations, and with CID's Beyond COVID research initiative, is to make use of lessons learned and capitalize on emergent innovations sparked by the pandemic in order to address losses and reimagine global development in the post-COVID era. On April 20, 2022, we were joined by David Deming, Professor of Education and Economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Professor of Political Economy at the Harvard Kennedy School. CID Student Ambassador Nicah Santos sat down with David to discuss education, job preparedness, and the future of work.

Maika Sondarjee, assistant professor, International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lockdowns, freedoms, Christian faith, Communist history, family, life, breaking rank, and praying with world leaders... An insightful interview with Senator the Hon Zed Seselja, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific in Australia's federal government.Only interested in certain topics? Skip forward to the following times.0:01 - Introduction and Zed's background3:43 - Zed's role as Australian Minister for International Development and the Pacific6:08 - Being a Christian in politics8:28 - Zed's children are his motivation for going into politics10:35 - Holding onto his seat as a conservative in secular ACT12:47 - Outspoken backbenchers and crossbenchers 16:23 - Freedom of speech and religion20:48 - Modern view that freedom of speech is harmful24:33 - Religious Discrimination Bill 27:57 - Christian schools35:00 - Euthanasia and abortion36:23 - COVID restrictions and vaccine mandates40:36 - Housing affordability crisis43:47 - Zed's passion for pro-adoption policies47:05 - Why should people vote for Zed over an independent or minor candidate?Support the show (https://www.acl.org.au/donate)

6:07 | The Titan of Talk, Canadian media legend Charles Adler, joins for his bi-weekly appearance on Real Talk. He chimes in on "Woodstock for the Witless," the rally in Ottawa over the weekend, along with Canada lifting its blood ban, the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent apology for residential schools, and Jean Charest's CPC leadership campaign.  37:31 | Canada must do more to ensure people in developing nations have access to COVID-19 vaccines. That's the message Dr. Madhu Pai intended to deliver to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development last week. The McGill University professor and Canada Research Chair in Epidemiology and Global Health explains why his message was interrupted, why he thinks Canada hasn't taken international obligations seriously, and what he hopes human beings learn from the past two-plus years.  Read Dr. Pai's blog post here: https://microbiologycommunity.nature.com/posts/canada-should-support-vaccine-self-sufficiency 1:02:55 | In a special edition of Positive Reflections presented by Kuby Energy, Ryan checks in with Kaleo Collective founder Layna Haley. Demand is way up for resources for single moms, including their annual "Love You Mama" Mothers Day event.  Donate to Kaleo Collective here: https://kaleocollective.ca/

In this episode, I discuss a way to think about effectiveness in development projects & programs that could allow international development to deliver on its original promises of development effectiveness.  I discuss Albert Hirschman’s ‘hiding hand’ that veils difficulties as well as the creativity available to solve problems as planners engage in the design process. … Continue reading 130 – Project effectiveness in international development →

How often do you tell yourself or hear your team say "I Don't Know"? "I don't know how to do a donor presentation." "I don't know how to write a strategic plan." "I don't know how to manage my time." It sounds like a reasonable thing. To not know how. But often times, we use it as an excuse. An excuse to not take action. And so we are stuck and stay the same. And nothing happens. It's important to know when we are using the "I Don't Know" excuse, and how we can overcome it. So you can move forward and achieve the impact you're seeking. And become the leader you admire. Find out more in this episode.

This week on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” we'll have the latest on Ukraine with Samantha Power, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine. Then we'll hear from Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger; Dr. Paul Burton, the chief medical officer at Moderna; Plus Dr. Deborah Birx, the COVID-19 response coordinator during the Trump administration.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Government officials have assured Filipinos that the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war will be minimal given the Philippines' limited trade and banking exposure with either country. Remittances from the conflict zones are also small compared to inflows from the rest of Europe and the world. Still, the fact remains that Russia is a major exporter of oil and metals, while Ukraine is among the biggest sources of wheat. Amid faster inflation, jeepney drivers have called for transport fare hikes; labor groups, for higher wages. In this B-Side episode, Chester B. Cabalza, International Development and Security Cooperation president and founder, tells BusinessWorld reporter Luz Wendy T. Noble why Filipinos should care about what happens to Russia and Ukraine, and examines the fallout from three angles: energy, warfare, and diplomatic impact. He compares and contrasts the hybrid war in Europe to what's happening in the Asia-Pacific, with China flexing its muscles. Closer to home, Mr. Cabalza, who is also a security anthropologist at the University of the Philippines, draws parallels between the hybrid war waged by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the conflict in Marawi. Recorded remotely on April 27, 2022. Produced by Earl R. Lagundino and Sam L. Marcelo.

In Episode 20 of Ellected, host Sarah Elder-Chamanara sits down with Canada's Minister of Children, Families and Social Development and MP for Burlington, Karina Gould. They get really personal, really fast sharing birth stories, getting into the details of the multi-billion dollar child care agreements signed with every province and territory, and chat about being a woman in politics - including Gould describing the moment she told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau she was pregnant after being appointed to cabinet. The Honourable Karina Gould was first elected as the Member of Parliament for Burlington in 2015. She has previously served as Minister of International Development and Minister of Democratic Institutions. With the birth of her son Oliver, Gould became the first woman federal cabinet minister to give birth while holding office.

Learn more about our Implementing Public Policy executive course and apply to be part of our next cohort.To learn more about Building State Capability (BSC), visit the website, access the PDIA toolkit, read BSC blog posts, and listen to the podcasts.

Sebastian Payne of the Financial Times is joined by the chair of the Privileges Committee, Chris Bryant MP and cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg MP to discuss the partygate scandal The government's plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is debated by former shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott MP and Nick Timothy, who was the chief of staff to Theresa May when she was prime minister and also worked with her in the Home Office. Conservative peer and former chief of staff to Boris Johnson, Edward Lister and shadow International Development minister Preet Kaur Gill MP assess the Prme Minister's trip to India. And former Liberal Democrat leader and Lake District MP, Tim Farron discusses how to tackle sewage in Britain's rivers, lakes and seas with Jo Bradley from Stormwater Shepherds, a not-for-profit initiative targeting pollution in water environments.

Nicholas P. Sullivan is my guest on Episode 158 of Inside Ideas with Marc Buckley. Nicholas is a writer and editor focusing on the impact of business and technology on international development. The Blue Revolution is his fourth book. It follows Money, Real Quick: Kenya's Disruptive Mobile Money Innovation; You Can Hear Me Now: How Microloans and Cell Phones Are Connecting the World's Poor to the Global Economy; and Computer Power for Your Small Business. He has been codirector of The Fletcher School's Leadership Program for Financial Inclusion (Tufts University), a consultant to central banks in developing countries, and a visiting scholar at MIT's Legatum Center for International Development. In the publishing world, he was publisher of Innovations: Technology/Governance/Globalization (MIT Press); editor-in-chief of Inc.com; and editor-in-chief of Home Office Computing. Sullivan is currently a Senior Fellow at The Fletcher School's Council on Emerging Market Enterprises and a Senior Research Fellow at its Maritime Studies Program. Sullivan has twice been a Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center Resident Fellow. A graduate of Harvard University and The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, he lives in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. https://islandpress.org/books/blue-revolution

Michelle Bekkering is the National Engagement Director for the US Global Leadership Coalition. Prior to joining the Coalition, she was nominated by the president and unanimously confirmed by the senate as Assistant Administrator of the US Agency for International Development. Michelle is a passionate advocate for women's empowerment and equality, and she was the leading architect of the White House-led Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, a US government initiative whose goal is to economically empower 50 million women by 2025. She served 12 years at the IRI (International Republican Institute). During her tenure there, she provided leadership on democracy, rights, and governance initiatives in DC and abroad, including serving as the IRI's country director based in Indonesia. She also served on the Congressional Advisory Council of the US House of Representatives, House Democracy partnership program. Michelle is a native of Iowa, and she lives with her husband and their daughter in Washington, DC. Today, Michelle joins me to talk about her journey of finding her field in the world of politics. She notes that all politics is local and shares the story of how her mother and grandmother taught her about the importance of politics. She explains why women need to be involved in peace negotiations, discusses voter turnout, and shares stories of women around the world. We also discuss the need to get women talking about politics. “When you have nothing else to lose, you have everything to gain.” - Michelle Bekkering This Week on Political Contessa: Getting women talking about policy How the women before her taught Michelle the importance of politics Why women need to be involved in peace negotiations Why empowering women means empowering the community The experiences of different women across the world Voter turnout Resources Mentioned: pocketbookproject.org Jennifer Nassour on Twitter team@pocketbookproject.org Welcome to Political Contessa. I'm Jennifer Nassour, and this show is here to support your interest in center-right politics, policy, and breaking news. Listen in and discover how to awaken your inner ideal candidate and, if you're ready, learn how you can jump in and change the world as a runner or a supporter. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the show and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. Spotify I Stitcher I Apple Podcasts I iHeart Radio I TuneIn I Google Podcasts Don't Forget to Pick Up My Quick Guide! If you've ever considered running, or you know a woman who should, I've got something just for you: my quick guide called Secrets from the Campaign Trail. It will show you five signs to tell you you're ready to enter the political arena. To get these tips and learn about all new podcast episodes and ways to get involved, head over to politicalcontessa.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learn more about our Implementing Public Policy executive course and apply to be part of our next cohort.To learn more about Building State Capability (BSC), visit the website, access the PDIA toolkit, read BSC blog posts, and listen to the podcasts.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has started up a new office called diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. And it's hired someone to run that new office. Neneh Diallo joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin to share more.

According to the most recent statistics, under 400,000 people live in Orleans Parish. In a regular year, around 19 million people come to visit us. These tourists spend a total of close to $10B. This reportedly contributes a massive 40% of the city's annual tax revenue. Is having a tourist-dependent economy good for us? Or bad for us? Well, that depends who you ask. Many people who work in hospitality point out that their jobs are poorly-paid, with few if any benefits. There's no job security. And they claim that a tourist-based economy traps them - and the city - in a cycle of poverty that does nothing but perpetuate a glaring wealth gap. On the other hand, people in organizations that promote New Orleans tourism – whose incomes are typically substantially larger than hospitality workers - claim tourism is vital. They say that without tourism our individual taxes would have to increase by thousands of dollars a year, and our entire city economy would be strained to the point of collapse. Which side of this argument is true? Petr Ricchiuti puts that question to Dr. Andrew Ward. Dr. Ward is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Development at Tulane University, and he specializes in a branch of practical study called Sustainable Tourism. In 2018 we introduced you to Allison Albert Ward. At that time, Allison had quit her job as an accountant and founded a company called Pet Krewe, making costumes for pets. That has turned out to be a good move. Today, Pet Krewe's costumes are sold in 600 independent stores and several mass retailers in the United States. They're also sold internationally. Outside of China, Pet Krewe is the biggest pet costume company in the world. But, even after achieving world domination, Pet Krewe is not slowing down. They've formed partnerships with Hasbro, Sesame Street, and others, and their business continues to grow by hundreds of percent a year. If you're a regular listener to Out to Lunch you might have noticed that on each show we usually invite guests who have something in common. So, you might be wondering what the link could possibly be between sustainable tourism and pet costumes. Well, there is one. Marriage. Andrew Ward and Allison Albert Ward are married. To each other. Unless you happen to be friends with them and hang out with Andrew and Allison Albert Ward, it's unlikely you've heard a discussion about pet costumes and sustainable tourism anywhere else recently. Or ever.  In the days before social media, traditional media outlets bolstered their reputation as information sources by scooping each other – getting a story first and owning it. These stories were billed as “exclusive,” meaning it was content you could get from one place and one place only. Today, information spreads around the world in moments. We're all instantly reading and hearing versions of the same content. Except, that is, for this conversation. You won't hear anything like this conversation, anywhere. Out to Lunch is recorded live over lunch at NOLA Pizza in the NOLA Brewing Taproom. You can see photos from this show by Jill Lafleur. at our website itsneworleans.com. And check out Allison's Albert Ward's first appearance on Out to Lunch. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the most vexed questions in development studies is why the poor often receive such poor government services. The development literature is littered with hundreds—if not thousands—of examples of elite capture, weak state capacity, corruption, and subversion. But a focus on the failures obscures the fact that, every once in a while, the state does get it right and the top-down and the bottom-up meet in a place that produces positive benefits for ordinary citizens.How exactly this happens is the subject of a new book by Georgetown University professor Rajesh Veeraraghavan, Patching Development: Information Politics and Social Change in India. Milan and Rajesh discuss how bureaucrats and civil society forged an unlikely partnership in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh to implement the world's largest workfare program at scale. Plus, the two talk about the the role of technology in government, the political economy of India's National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), and the limits of transparency.  “Information Politics and Social Change,” Ideas of India (podcast) with Shruti Rajagopalan and Rajesh Veeraraghavan, March 3, 2022.Philip Keefer and Stuti Khemani, “Why Do the Poor Receive Poor Services?” Economic and Political Weekly 39, no. 9 (2004): 935-943.Diego Maiorano, “The Politics of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Andhra Pradesh,” World Development 58 (2014): 95-105.

In last week's episode, Chen Kadungure and I talked about how to create focus and eliminate distractions so you can do more focused or deep work. Once again deep work is focused, uninterrupted, undistracted work on a task that pushes your cognitive abilities to their limit. Examples of this include——writing or reviewing a donor report, proposal writing, strategic planning, or creating a new way of doing something. So that's all well and good, but how do we actually CREATE time for focused work?? What I see happen to my coachees is they have the focused work on their calendar but then they struggle with protecting that time and following through with their plan. In this episode, Chen Kadungure and I will share ways you can overcome these challenges which if you follow you will be able to create and protect time for more focused, important work.

Episode 2 – DiGIANT A research group called DiGIANT. Menial recruitment labor. Experimental helmets called IRUS-STIM. Post-SCAARS rashes. Scales. Valdemour Casino. It's been too long, right? https://thegreattitisabird.com/

Anne C. Richard, distinguished fellow and Afghanistan coordination lead at Freedom House, will lead a conversation on refugees and global migration. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the final session of the Winter/Spring 2022 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Anne Richard with us today to talk about refugees and global migration. Ms. Richard is a distinguished fellow and Afghanistan coordination lead at Freedom House. She has taught at several universities including Georgetown, University of Virginia, Hamilton College, and the University of Pennsylvania. From 2012 to 2017, Ms. Richard served as an assistant secretary of state for population, refugees, and migration, and before joining the Obama administration she served as vice president of government relations and advocacy for the International Rescue Committee. She has also worked at the Peace Corps headquarters and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and is a member of CFR. So, Anne, thank you very much for being with us today. With your background and experience, it would be great if you could talk from your vantage point—give us an overview of the current refugee trends you are—we are seeing around the world, especially vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, et cetera. RICHARD: Thank you so much, Irina, for inviting me today and for always welcoming me back to the Council. And thank you to your team for putting this together. I'm very happy to speak about the global refugee situation, which, unfortunately, has, once again, grown yet larger in a way that is sort of stumping the international community in terms of what can well-meaning governments do, what can foundations and charitable efforts and the United Nations (UN) do to help displaced people. I thought we could start off talking a little bit about definitions and data, and the idea is that I only speak about ten minutes at this beginning part so that we can get to your questions all the more quickly. But for all of us to be on the same wavelength, let's recall that refugees, as a group, have an organization that is supposed to look out for them. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees is the title of the number-one person in the organization, but the entire organization is known by that name, UNHCR, or the UN Refugee Agency. It also has a convention—the 1951 Refugee Convention—that came about after World War II and was very focused on not allowing to happen again what had happened during World War II where victims of the Nazis and, as time went on, people fleeing fascism, people fleeing communism, couldn't get out of their countries and were persecuted because of this. And there's a legal definition that comes out of the convention that different countries have, and the U.S. legal definition matches very much the convention's, which is that refugees have crossed an international border—they're not in their home country anymore—and once they've crossed an international border the sense is that they are depending on the international community to help them and that they're fleeing for specific purposes—their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their membership in a particular social group such as being LGBTQ, or political thought. And if you think back to the Cold War, these were some of the refugees coming out of the former Soviet Union, coming out of Eastern Europe, were people who had spoken out and were in trouble and so had to flee their home countries. So what are the numbers then? And I'm going to refer you to a very useful page on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees website, which is their “Figures at a Glance” presentation, and we're going to reference some of the numbers that are up there now. But those numbers change every year. They change on June 20, which is World Refugee Day. And so every year it hits the headlines that the numbers have gone up, unfortunately, and you can anticipate this if you think in terms of the summer solstice, the longest day of the year. It's usually June 20, 21, 22. So June 20, that first possible day, is every year World Refugee Day. So if you're working on behalf of refugees it's good sometimes to schedule events or anticipate newspaper articles and conversations about refugees ticking up in—at the end of June. So if you were paying attention last June for World Refugee Day, UNHCR would have unveiled a number of 82.4 million refugees around the world, and so this upcoming June what do we anticipate? Well, we anticipate the numbers will go up again and, in fact, yesterday the high commissioner was in Washington, met with Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and they met the press and Filippo Grandi, the current high commissioner, said that he thinks the number is closer to ninety-five to ninety-six million refugees. So, clearly, a couple things have happened since last June. One is that so many people are trying to flee Afghanistan and another is so many people have fled Ukraine. So if we went back to that $82.4 million figure that we know we have details on, we would find that this is the figure of people who are displaced because of conflict or persecution around the world. The ones that count as refugees who have actually crossed an international border is a smaller number. It's 20.7 million people that UNHCR is concerned about and then another close to six million people who are Palestinians in the Middle East whose displacement goes back to 1948, the creation of the statehood of Israel, and upheaval in the Middle East region as Palestinians were shifted to live elsewhere. And so—and they are provided assistance by a different UN agency, UNRWA—UN Relief Works Administration in the Near East—and so if you see a number or you see two sets of numbers for refugees and they're off by about five or six million people, the difference is the Palestinian, that number—whether it's being counted in, which is for worldwide numbers, or out because UNHCR cares for most refugees on Earth but did not have the responsibility for the Palestinians since UNRWA was set up with that specific responsibility. So what's the big difference then between the eighty-two million, now growing to ninety-five million, and this smaller number of refugees? It's internally displaced persons (IDPs). These are people who are displaced by conflict or are displaced by persecution, are running for their lives, but they haven't left their own countries yet. So think of Syrians who, perhaps, are displaced by war and they have crossed their own countries and gone to a safer place within their own country but they haven't crossed that border yet. Others who have crossed into Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan or Iraq or have gone further afield to Egypt, those would be considered refugees. Who's responsible for the IDPs then? Well, legally, their own countries are supposed to take care of them. But in my Syria example, the problem is Syria was bombing its own people in certain areas of the country, and so they were not protecting their own people as they should be. People can be displaced by things other than war and conflict and persecution, of course. More and more we talk about climate displacement, and this is a hot issue that we can talk about later. But who's responsible then when people are displaced by changing climactic conditions and it's their own governments who are supposed to help them? But more and more questions have been raised about, well, should the international community come together and do more for this group of people—for internally displaced persons—especially when their own governments are unwilling or unable to do so? What about migrants? Who are the migrants? Migrants is a much broader term. Everyone I've talked about so far who's crossed a border counts as a migrant. Migrants are just people on the go, and the International Organization for Migration estimates there's about 281 million migrants on Earth today—about 3.6 percent of the world population—and one of the big issues I've pushed is to not see migrants as a dirty word. Unfortunately, it often is described that way—that migratory flows are bad, when, in fact, lots of people are migrants. Students who travel to the U.S. to take classes are migrants to our country. The secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, who was himself for eleven years the high commissioner for refugees, he says, I am a migrant, because he's a Portuguese person working in New York City. People hired by Silicon Valley from around the world to work in high-paid jobs, legally in the United States, they are migrants. More concerning are vulnerable migrants, people who are displaced and don't have the wherewithal to, necessarily, protect themselves, take care of themselves, on the march or where they end up, or also if they're seen as traveling without papers, not welcome in the places where they're going, that can be a very, very dangerous situation for them. So be aware that migrants is a really broad all-encompassing term that can include travelers, businesspeople, as well as vulnerable and very poor people who are economic migrants. Finally, immigrants are people who set out and migrate because they intend to live somewhere else, and when we were talking about the Trump administration's policies to reduce the number of refugees coming to the U.S. we also see that immigration to the U.S. also was decreased during that administration as well. So both the refugee program and a lot of the immigration pathways to the U.S. are now being examined and trying to be not just fixed, because a lot of them have needed care for quite some time, but also put back on a growth trajectory. And then asylum seekers are people who get to a country on their own, either they have traveled to a border or they pop up inside a country because they have gotten in legally through some other means such as a visitor visa or business visa, and then they say, I can't go home again. It's too dangerous for me to go home again. Please, may I have asylum? May I be allowed to stay here and be protected in your country? So that's a lot of different terminology. But the more you work on it, the more these terms—you get more familiar using them and understand the differences between them that experts or legal experts use. So ninety-five to ninety-six million people, as we see another eleven million people fleeing Ukraine and of that four million, at least, have crossed the borders into neighboring countries and another seven million are internally displaced, still inside Ukraine but they've gone someplace that they feel is safer than where they were before. When we looked at the eighty million refugees and displaced people, we knew that two-thirds of that number came from just five countries, and one of the important points about that is it shows you what could happen, the good that could be done, if we were able to push through peace negotiations or resolutions of conflict and persecution, if we could just convince good governance and protection of people—minorities, people with different political thought, different religious backgrounds—inside countries. So the number-one country still remains Syria that has lost 6.7 million people to neighboring countries, primarily. Secondly was Venezuela, four million. Third was Afghanistan. The old number from before last August was 2.6 million and some hundreds of thousands have fled since. And the only reason there aren't more fleeing is that they have a really hard time getting out of their country, and we can talk more about that in a moment. The fourth are Rohingya refugees fleeing from Burma, or Myanmar. That's 1.1 million, and the fifth was Southern Sudanese, 2.2 million, who have fled unrest and violence in that country. So we know that we have not enough peace, not enough solutions, and we have too much poverty, too, and dangers. In addition to the Venezuelans, another group that has approached the U.S. from the southern border that were in the paper, especially around election times, is from the Northern Triangle of Central America, so El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. These are people who could be fleeing because of economic situations and could also be fleeing from criminal violence, gangs, warfare, narcotraffickers. And so if they are fleeing for their lives and approaching our southern border, we are supposed to give them a hearing and consider whether they have a case for asylum, and the—unfortunately, that is not well understood, especially not by folks working at our borders. The Customs and Border Protection folks are more and more focused on, since 9/11, ensuring that bad guys don't come across, that terrorists don't come across, that criminals don't come across. And we heard in the Trump administration conversations about Mexicans as rapists, gang warfare being imported into the U.S. from Central America when, in fact, some of it had been originally exported, and this sense that people from the Middle East were terrorists. And so really harsh language about the types of people who were trying to make it to the U.S. and to get in. Some final thoughts so that we can get to the question and answer. The U.S. government has traditionally been the top donor to refugee and humanitarian efforts around the world. The bureau at the State Department I used to run, the Population, Refugees, and Migration Bureau, was a major donor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees—UNRWA—the International Committee of the Red Cross, and also the International Organization for Migration, which used to be an independent organization and is now part of the UN since 2016. We were also the number-one resettlement location, the formal program for bringing refugees to the United States, and when I was assistant secretary we brought seventy thousand refugees per year to the United States, invited them to come through a program that took eighteen months to twenty-four months, on average, to get them in because they had to be vetted for security reasons. They had to pass medical tests. Their backgrounds had to be investigated to see that they were who they said they were. And that number went higher in the last year of the Obama administration to eighty-five thousand refugees and, in fact, the Obama administration proposed some very strong additional measures to help refugees. But the Trump administration threw that all into reverse with a completely different set of policies. So the numbers then became reduced every year—fifty-three thousand in the first year of the Trump administration, 22,500 the next year, thirty thousand in 2019, 11,814 in 2020, a similar number in 2021, and slow numbers coming today, this despite bringing so many Afghans through an evacuation exercise last summer. Many of the people who were evacuated were American citizens or green card holders. Afghans who had worked for the U.S. but did not have their formal paperwork yet were brought in under what's called humanitarian parole, and the problem with that program is that it's no guarantee for a longer-term stay in the United States. So there's a bill in Congress right now to address that. A lot of the people who worked on that, especially within the U.S. government, are proud that they've scrambled and brought so many people so quickly—120,000 people brought from Afghanistan. At the same time, those of us who are advocates for refugees would say too many people were left behind and the evacuation should continue, and that's a real concern. In terms of resettlement in the U.S., it's a program run—public-private partnership—and we've never seen so many volunteers and people helping as there are right now, and initiatives to help welcome people to the United States, which is fantastic. I would say the program should be one of humanity, efficiency, and generosity, and that generosity part has been tough to achieve because the government piece of it is kind of stingy. It's kind of a tough love welcome to the United States where the refugees are expected to get jobs and the kids to go to school and the families to support themselves. So let me stop there because I've been just talking too long, I know, and take questions. FASKIANOS: It's fantastic, and thank you for really clarifying the definitions and the numbers. Just a quick question. You said the U.S. government is the top donor. What is the percentage of DVP? I mean, it's pretty— RICHARD: Tiny. Yeah. FASKIANOS: —tiny, right? I think there's this lack of understanding that it may seem like a big number but in our overall budget it's minuscule. So if you could just give us a— RICHARD: Yeah. It's grown in the last few years because of all these crises around the world to ten to twelve million—I mean, ten billion dollars to twelve billion (dollars) between the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department, which was bigger. It was around seven or eight billion (dollars) when I was the assistant secretary five, six years ago. But the important part of it was it provided the whole backbone to the international humanitarian system. Governments, some of them, saw Americans sometimes as headaches in terms of we, Americans, telling them what to do or we, Americans, having our own ideas of how to do things or we, Americans, demanding always budget cuts and efficiencies. But the fact is the whole humanitarian enterprise around the world is based on American generosity, especially the big operating agencies like World Food Programme, UNHCR, UNICEF, UN Development Program. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So now we're going to go to all you for your questions. Hands are already up and Q&A written questions. So I'll try to get to everybody as much as I can. I'm going to go—the first question from Rey Koslowski, and if you can unmute yourself and give us your institution that would be fantastic. RICHARD: Hi, Rey. Q: All right. Rey Koslowski, University at Albany. Hi, Anne. Good to see you. I'd like to pick up on the use of humanitarian parole. So, as I understand it, it's being utilized for Afghan evacuees, Afghans, who you mentioned, who didn't—weren't able to get on the flights and were left behind, but also for Ukrainians. You know, President Biden announced a hundred thousand Ukrainians. I mean, a very—we're using other channels but we've had, I believe, three thousand at the U.S.-Mexican border and, I believe, they're being paroled for the most part, right. As I understand it, we're—one DHS letter that I saw said that there were forty-one thousand requests for humanitarian parole for Afghan nationals. But I'm wondering about capacity of the USCIS to handle this, to process this, because, you know, normally, I think, maybe two thousand or so, a couple thousand, are processed, maybe a couple of people who do this, and also in conjunction with the challenges for processing all of the asylum applications. So, as I understand it, back in the fall there was some discussion of hiring a thousand asylum officers—additional asylum officers. I was wondering, what are your thoughts about our capacity to process all of the—the U.S. government's capacity to process the humanitarian parole applications and the asylum applications, and if you have any insights on new hires and how many— RICHARD: Well, you know, Rey, at Freedom House now I'm working on a project to help Afghan human rights defenders and— Q: Right. RICHARD: —the idea is that they can restart their work if we can find a way for them to be safe inside Afghanistan, which is very hard with the Taliban in charge right now, or if in exile they can restart their work. And so we're watching to see where Afghans are allowed to go in the world as they seek sanctuary and the answer is they don't get very far. It's very hard to get out of the country. If they get to Pakistan or Iran, they don't feel safe. They have short-term visas to stay there, and the programs that might bring them further along like resettlement of refugees are—take a much longer time to qualify for and then to spring into action, and so they're stuck. You know, they're afraid of being pushed back into Afghanistan. They're afraid of becoming undocumented and running out of money wherever they are, and so they're in great need of help. The humanitarian parole program sort of—for bringing Afghans into the U.S. sort of understood that our eighteen- to twenty-four-month refugee resettlement program was a life-saving program but it wasn't an emergency program. It didn't work on an urgent basis. It didn't scoop people up and move them overnight, and that's, really, what was called for last August was getting people—large numbers of people—out of harm's way. And so when I was assistant secretary, if we knew someone was in imminent danger we might work with another government. I remember that the Scandinavians were seen as people who were more—who were less risk averse and would take people who hadn't had this vast vetting done but would take small numbers and bring them to safety, whereas the U.S. did things in very large numbers but very slowly. And so this lack of emergency program has really been what's held us back in providing the kind of assistance, I think, people were looking for the Afghans. I was surprised we even brought them into the United States. I thought after 9/11 we'd never see that kind of program of bringing people in with so little time spent on checking. But what they did was they moved up them to the front of the line and checked them very quickly while they were on the move. So it was safe to do but it was unusual, and I think part of that was because the military—the U.S. military—was so supportive of it and U.S. veterans were so supportive of it and we had, for the first time in a while, both the right and the left of the political spectrum supporting this. So the problem with humanitarian parole is I remember it being used, for example, for Haitians who had been injured in the Haitian earthquake and they needed specialized health care—let's say, all their bones were crushed in their legs or something. They could be paroled into the U.S., get that health care that they needed, and then sent home again. So we've not used it for large numbers of people coming in at once. So what refugee advocates are seeking right now from Congress is the passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would give people a more permanent legal status. They would be treated as if they were—had come through the refugee resettlement program and they'd get to stay. So you're right that the numbers being granted humanitarian parole at one time is just not the normal way of doing things. You're also right that the—this is a lot of extra work on people who weren't anticipating it, and more can continue with the hundred thousand Ukrainians who the president has said we will take in. And so the thing is when we have these kind of challenges in the United States one way to deal with it is to spend more money and do a better job, and that seems to be an option for certain challenges we face but not for all challenges we face. With these more humanitarian things, we tend to have tried to do it on the cheap and to also use the charity and partner with charities and churches more than if this were sort of a more business-oriented program. So we need all of the above. We need more government funding for the people who are working the borders and are welcoming people in or are reviewing their backgrounds. We need more assistance from the public, from the private sector, from foundations, because the times demand it. And it's very interesting to me to see Welcome US created last year with three former U.S. presidents—President Bush, President Clinton, President Obama—speaking up about it, saying, please support this, and people from across the political aisle supporting it. I wish that had existed in 2015 when we were grappling with these issues at the time of candidate Trump. So the needs are greater. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we have to just suffer through and struggle through and have long backups like we do right now. We could be trying to put more resources behind it. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next written question from Haley Manigold, who's an IR undergrad student at University of North Florida. We know that the war in Ukraine is going to affect grain and food supplies for the MENA countries. Is there any way you would recommend for Europe and other neighboring regions to manage the refugee flows? RICHARD: The first part of that was about the food issue but then you said— FASKIANOS: Correct, and then this is a pivot to manage the refugee flows. So— RICHARD: Well, the Europeans are treating the Ukrainians unlike any other flow of people that we've seen lately. It goes a little bit back and reminiscent to people fleeing the Balkans during the 1990s. But we saw that with a million people in 2015 walking into Europe from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan—mix of economic migrants and real refugees—that Europe, at first, under Angela Merkel's leadership were welcoming to these folks showing up, and then there was a backlash and the walls came up on that route from the Balkans to Germany and to Sweden. And so in the last few years, Europeans have not been seen as champions in allowing—rescuing people who are trying to get to Europe on their own. You know, especially the Mediterranean has been a pretty dismal place where we see Africans from sub-Saharan Africa working their way up to North Africa and trying to get from Libya across the Mediterranean to Europe. These are mostly economic migrants but not solely economic migrants, and they deserve to have a hearing and, instead, they have been terribly mistreated. They get stopped by the Libyan coast guard, the Europeans push boats back, and they are offloaded back into Libya and they are practically imprisoned and mistreated in North Africa. So that's a terribly inhumane way to treat people who are trying to rescue themselves, their families, and find a better life. And another point to the Europeans has been, couldn't you use these young people taking initiative trying to have a better life and work hard and get on with their lives, and the answer is yes. Europe has this sort of aging demographic and could definitely use an infusion of younger workers and talented people coming in. But, instead, they have really pushed to keep people out. So what's happened with Ukrainians? They're seen as a different category. They're seen as neighbors. There's a part of it that is positive, which is a sense that the countries right next door have to help them. Poland, Moldova, other countries, are taking in the Ukrainians. The borders are open. If they get to Poland they can get free train fare to Germany. Germany will take them in, and that's a beautiful thing. And the upsetting thing is the sense that there is undertones of racism, also anti-Islam, where darker-skinned people were not at all welcome and people who are not Christian were not welcome. And so it's probably a mix of all the above, the good and the bad, and it's potentially an opportunity to teach more people about “refugeehood” and why we care and why it affects all of us and what we should do about it and that we should do more. FASKIANOS: Thank you. All right, I'm going to take the next question from Kazi Sazid, who has also raised their hand, so if you could just ask your question yourself and identify yourself. Q: Hello. So I'm Kazi. I'm a student at CUNY Hunter College and I happen to be writing a research paper on Central American and Iraq war refugee crises and how international law hasn't changed the behavior of a state helping them. So my question is, how does confusion and ignorance of migration and refugee terminology by state leaders and the general populace impact the legally ordained rights of refugees such as having identity documents, having the right to education, refoulement, which is not being sent back to a country where they are danger? One example is like Central Americans are termed as illegal immigrants by the right wing but the reality is they are asylum seekers who are worthy of refugee status because gang violence and corruption has destabilized their country and the judicial systems. I think femicide in El Salvador and Honduras is among the highest and—so yeah. RICHARD: Yeah. Thank you for asking the question, and I have a soft spot in my heart for Hunter College. Only one of my grandparents went to college and it was my mother's mother who went to Hunter College and graduated in the late 1920s, and as we know, it's right down the street from the Harold Pratt House, the home of the Council on Foreign Relations. So I think a lot of what you—I agree with a lot of what you've said about—for me it's describing these people who offer so much potential as threats, just because they are trying to help themselves. And instead of feeling that we should support these folks, there's a sense of—even if we don't allow them in our country we could still do things to ease their way and help them find better solutions, but they're described as these waves of people coming this way, headed this way, scary, scary. And if you follow the debates in the United States, I was very alarmed before and during the Trump administration that journalists did not establish that they had a right to make a claim for asylum at the border. Instead, they talked about it as if it were two political policies duking it out, where some people felt we should take more and some people felt we should take less. Well, the issue that was missed, I felt, in a lot of the coverage of the Southern border was the right to asylum, that they had a right to make a claim, that we had signed onto this as the United States and that there was a very good reason that we had signed onto that and it was to make sure people fleeing for their lives get an opportunity to be saved if they're innocent people and not criminals, but innocent people who are threatened, that we'd give them a place of safety. So I agree with you that the lack of understanding about these basic principles, agreements, conventions is something that is not well understood by our society, and certainly the society was not being informed of that by a lot of the messengers describing the situation over the past few years. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So I'm going to take the next question from Lindsey McCormack who is an undergrad at Baruch—oh, sorry, a graduate student at Baruch College. My apologies. Do you see any possibility of the U.S. adopting a protocol for vetting and accepting climate refugees? Have other countries moved in that direction? And maybe you can give us the definition of a climate refugee and what we will in fact be seeing as we see climate change affecting all of us. RICHARD: I don't have a lot to say on this, so I hate to disappoint you, but I will say a couple things because, one, I was on a task force at Refugees International, which is a very good NGO that writes about and reports on refugee situations around the world and shines a light on them. I was part of a task force that came out with a report for the Biden administration on the need to do more for climate migrants, and so that report is available at the Refugees International site and it was being submitted to the Biden administration because the Biden administration had put out an executive order on refugees that included a piece that said we want to do a better job, we want to come up with new, fresh ideas on climate migrants. So I don't know where that stands right now, but I think the other piece of information that I often give out while doing public speaking, especially to students, about this issue is that I feel not enough work has been done on it, and so if a student is very interested in staying in academia and studying deeper into some of these issues, I think climate migration is a field that is ripe for further work. It's timely, it's urgent, and it hasn't been over-covered in the past. I admire several people, several friends who are working on these issues; one is Professor Beth Ferris at Georgetown University who was, in fact, on the secretary general's High Level Panel on Internal Displacement and she made sure that some of these climate issues are raised in very high-level meetings. She was also part of this task force from Refugees International. Another smart person working on this is Amali Tower, a former International Rescue Committee colleague who started a group called Climate Refugees and she's also trying to bring more attention to this; she's kind of very entrepreneurial in trying to do more on that. Not everybody would agree that the term should be climate refugees since “refugees” has so much legal definitions attached to it and the people displaced by climate don't have those kind of protections or understandings built around them yet. But I think it's an area that there definitely needs to be more work done. So I think the basic question was, did I think something good was going to happen anytime soon related to this, and I can't tell because these crazy situations around the world, the war in Ukraine and Taliban in charge in Afghanistan—I mean, that just completely derails the types of exercises that the world needs of thinking through very logically good governance, people coming together making decisions, building something constructive instead of reacting to bad things. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from raised hand Ali Tarokh. And unmute your—thank you. Q: Yes. OK, I am Ali Tarokh from Northeastern University. I came here in the United States ten years ago as a refugee. And I was in Turkey—I flew Iran to Turkey. I stayed there fourteen, sixteen months. So this is part of—my question is part of my lived experience in Turkey. So one part is humanitarian services, helping refugees move into the third country, OK? The one issue I—it's my personal experience is the UNHCR system, there is many corruptions. This corruption makes lines, OK, produce refugees—because some countries such as Iran and Turkey, they are producing refugees and there is no solution for it, or sometimes they use it as—they use refugees as a weapon. They say, OK, if you don't work with me—Turkey sent a message to EU: If you don't work with me, I open the borders. I open the borders and send the flow of refugees to EU. Even some—even Iran's government. So my question is, how can we in the very base on the ground—the level of the ground—how can we prevent all these corruption or how can we work out with this kind of government, countries that are—I named them the refugee producers. And by the time there is two sides of the refugees—one is just humanitarian services, which is our responsibility, United States playing globally there; and other side it seems refugees issue became like industry. In Turkey, the UNHCR staff, some lawyers/attorneys, they take money from people, they make fake cases for them. Even they ask them: Hey, what country—which country would you like to go, United States, Canada, Scandinavian countries? So what is our strategy? What is our solution to help real refugees or prevent produce refugees? RICHARD: Well, there's several things that are raised by your question. Turkey and, now we see, Russia have both been countries where we have seen instances where they can turn on the flow of refugees and turn it off. And Turkey was watching people walk through Turkey, cross the Mediterranean is very scary, dangerous trip between Turkey and Greece in these rubber boats in 2015, 2016, and then they would make their way onward, and then, because of this big EU-Turkey deal that involved 3 billion euros at the time, all of a sudden, the flow stopped. And then in further negotiations going on and on, Turkey would say things that seemed like it came right from a Godfather movie, like, gee, I'd hate to see that flow start up again; that would be a real shame. And so it was clear it was sort of a threat that if you didn't cooperate it could play this very disruptive role on the edges of Europe and deploying people, as you said, which is so cruel not just to the people who are receiving them but to the individuals themselves that they're not being seen as people who need care but instead as a problem to be deployed in different directions. And we saw that also with Belarus and Poland and now also it may have been part of the thinking of Vladimir Putin that by attacking Ukraine, by going to war with Ukraine that there would be exactly what is happening now, people scattering from Ukraine into Europe and that that would be a way to drive a wedge between European countries and cause a lot of not just heartache but also animosity between these countries. So what the Russians didn't seem to appreciate this time was that there would be so much solidarity to help the Ukrainians, and that has been a bit of a surprise. So you've also talked about corruption, though, and corruption is a problem all over the world for lots of different reasons, in business and it's embedded in some societies in a way that sometimes people make cultural excuses for, but in reality we know it doesn't have to be that way. But it is very hard to uproot and get rid of. So I find this work, the anti-corruption work going on around the world, really interesting and groups like Transparency International are just sort of fascinating as they try to really change the standards and the expectations from—the degree to which corruption is part of societies around the world. So UNHCR has to take great care to not hire people who are going to shake down and victimize refugees, and it's not—there's never a perfect situation, but I know that a lot of work is done to keep an eye on these kinds of programs so that the aid goes to the people who need it and it's not sidetracked to go to bad guys. And the way I've seen it is, for example, if I travel overseas and I go to someplace where refugees are being resettled to the U.S. or they're being interviewed for that, or I go to UNHCR office, there will be big signs up that will say the resettlement program does not cost money. If someone asks you for money, don't pay it; you know, report this. And from time to time, there are mini scandals, but overall, it's remarkable how much corruption is kept out of some of these programs. But it's a never-ending fight. I agree with you in your analysis that this is a problem and in some countries more than others. FASKIANOS: So I'm going to take the next question from Pamela Waldron-Moore, who's the chair of the political science department at Xavier University in New Orleans. There are reports in some news feeds that African refugees from Ukraine are being disallowed entry to some states accepting refugees. I think you did allude to this. Is there evidence of this, and if so, can the UN stop it or alleviate that situation? RICHARD: We saw before the Taliban took over in Afghanistan that some European countries were saying it was time for Afghans to go home again, and the idea that during this war it was safe for Afghans to go back—and especially for Afghans who are discriminated against even in the best of times in Afghanistan, like the Hazara minority. It's just—I found that sort of unbelievable that some countries thought this was the right time to send people back to Afghanistan. And so at the moment there's a weird situation in Afghanistan because it's safer in some ways for the bulk of the people because the active fighting has—in large parts of the country—stopped. But it's deadly dangerous for human rights defenders, women leaders, LBGTQ folks—anyone who tries to stand up to the Taliban—you know, scholars, thinkers, journalists. And so those are the folks that, in smaller numbers, we need to find some kind of way to rescue them and get them to safety while they are still inside Afghanistan or if that's outside Afghanistan and in the region. The borders—the border situations change from time to time. For a while they were saying only people with passports could come out, and for most Afghan families, nobody had a passport or, if they did, it was a head of household had a passport for business or trade. But you wouldn't have had passports for the spouse and the children. And so this has been a real dilemma. We also see a whole series of barriers to people getting out; so first you need a passport, then you need a visa to where you're going, and then you might need a transit visa for a country that you are crossing. And what has come to pass is that people who are trying to help evacuate people from Afghanistan—a smaller and smaller number as the months go on; people are trying to make this happen because it's so hard—that they will only take people out of the country if they feel that their onward travel is already figured out and that they have their visas for their final-destination country. So the actual number that's getting out are tiny. And the people who have gotten out who are in either Pakistan or Iraq are very worried. And they're afraid to be pushed back. They're afraid they will run out of money. They are afraid—I think said this during my talk before—they're afraid that there are people in Pakistan who will turn them in to the Taliban. And so it's always hard to be a refugee, but right now it's really frightening for people who are just trying to get to a safe place. FASKIANOS: And in terms of the discrimination that you referenced for refugees leaving the Ukraine, I mean, there have been some reports of EU—discrimination in European countries not accepting— RICHARD: Well, like African students who are studying in Ukraine— FASKIANOS: Yes. RICHARD: —who were not treated as if they were fleeing a country at war— FASKIANOS: Correct. RICHARD: —but instead were put in a different category and said, you know, go back, go home. FASKIANOS: Yes. RICHARD: Yeah, that's—that is quite blatant— FASKIANOS: And there's— RICHARD: And that was happening at the borders. FASKIANOS: Is there anything the UN can do about that, or is that really at the discretion of the countries—the accepting countries? RICHARD: Well, the—yeah, the UNHCR has these reception centers that they've set up, including between the border of Poland and Ukraine, and I think the other neighboring countries. And so if one can get to the reception center, one could potentially get additional help or be screened into—for special attention for needing some help that maybe a white Christian Ukrainian who spoke more than one language of the region would not need. FASKIANOS: Great. So let's go to Susan Knott, who also wrote her question, but has raised her hand. So Susan, why don't you just ask your question? And please unmute and identify yourself. KNOTT: OK, am I unmuted? FASKIANOS: Yes. KNOTT: OK. I am Susan Knott, University of Utah, Educational Policy and Leadership doctoral program. I am also a practicum intern at ASU, and I'm also a refugee services collaborator. And I'm engaged in a research project creating college and university pathways for refugees to resettle. I'm just wondering what your feel is about the current administration efforts in seeking to establish the pathway model similar to ASU's Education for Humanity Initiative with Bard, and is there helping lead the Refugee Higher Education Access program that serves learners who require additional university-level preparation in order to transition into certificate and degree programs. And I just—I'm not just—and all of this buzz that's going on since all of terrible crises are occurring, I'm not seeing a whole lot that—based on my own experience working with refugee education and training centers at colleges—on the college level, and learning about the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Ed and Immigration. I'm just wondering—and they're saying let's have this be more of a privately funded or partnerships with the university scholarships and private entities. What about a federally-funded university sponsorship program for refugee students given that the numbers or the data is showing that that age group is the largest number of just about every refugee population? RICHARD: That's a really fascinating set of issues. I'm not the expert on them, so I'm going to disappoint you. but I appreciate that you took a little extra time in how you stated your intervention to add a lot of information for this group, which should very much care about this. I get a lot of questions every week about university programs that Afghan students could take advantage of. I don't have a good handle on it, and I'm trying to do that with—I'm overdue for a conversation with Scholars at Risk in New York. Robert Quinn is the executive director of that, I believe. And so I'm glad you raised this and I'm not going to have a lot of extra to say about it. FASKIANOS: Anne, are there—is there—there's a question in the chat in the Q&A about sources for data on U.S. initiatives toward refugees. Where would you direct people to go to get updates on the latest programs, et cetera? RICHARD: Sometimes I'm embarrassed to say the best summaries are done by not-for-profits outside the government than by the government. The best source for data on resettlement of refugees to the U.S. is a website that is funded by the U.S. government called WRAPSNET.org—WRAPS spelled W-R-A-P-S-N-E-T dot-O-R-G. And in double-checking some of the things last summer, I felt that DHS had better descriptions of some of the programs than the State Department did, and that's my bureau that I used to—run, so—but they are responsible for determining who is in and who is out of these different programs, so maybe that's why they do. So there's a lot on the DHS website that's interesting if you are looking for more information. And one of the things the Council does, it has done a number of these special web presentations: one on refugees that I got to help on a couple of years ago, and I think there's one up now on Ukrainians. And this is the type of public education function that the Council does so well I think because they fact-check everything, and so it's very reliable. FASKIANOS: Thank you for that plug. You can find it all on CFR.org—lots of backgrounders, and timelines, and things like that. So we don't have that much time left, so I'm going to roll up two questions—one in the Q&A box and one because of your vast experience. So what role do NGOs play in refugee crises and migration initiatives, particularly in resettlement? And just from your perspective, Anne, you have been in academia, you've worked in the government, you worked at IRC, and now are at Freedom House. And so just—again, what would you share with the group about pursuing a career in this—government, non-government perspectives and, what students should be thinking about as they launch to their next phase in life. RICHARD: Yeah, that we could have a whole ‘nother hour on, right? That's—(laughs)— FASKIANOS: I know, I know. It's unfair to, right, do this at the very end, but— RICHARD: NGOs play really important roles in both the delivery of humanitarian assistance overseas and the help for resettlement in the United States. In the U.S. there are nine national networks of different groups; six are faith-based, three are not. They are non-sectarian, and they do amazing work on shoe-string budgets to—everything from meeting refugees at the airport, taking them to an apartment, showing them how the lights work and the toilet flushes, and coming back the next day, making sure they have an appropriate meal to have, and that the kids get in school, that people who need health care get it, and that adults who are able-bodied get jobs so they can support themselves. The other type of NGO are the human rights NGOs that now I'm doing more with, and I guess if you are thinking about careers in these, you have to ask yourself, you know, are you more of a pragmatic person where the most important thing is to save a life, or are you an idealist where you want to put out standards that are very high and push people to live up to them. Both types of organizations definitely help, but they just have very different ways of working. Another question for students is do you want high job security of a career in the U.S. government—say, as a Foreign Service Officer or as a civil servant where maybe you won't move up very quickly, but you might have great sense of satisfaction that the things you were working on were making a difference because they were being decisively carried out by the U.S. or another government. Or do you prefer the relatively lean, flatter organizations of the NGO world where, as a young person, you can still have a lot of authority, and your views can be seen—can be heard by top layers because you're not that far away from them. And so, NGOs are seen as more nimble, more fast moving, less job security. Having done both I think it really depends on your personality. Working in the government, you have to figure out a way to keep going even when people tell you no. You have figure out—or that it's hard, or that it's too complicated. You have to figure out ways to find the people who are creative, and can make thing happen, and can open doors, and can cut through red tape. In NGOs you can have a lot of influence. I was so surprised first time I was out of the State Department working for the International Rescue Committee one of my colleagues was telling me she just picks up the phone and calls the key guy on Capitol Hill and tells him what the law should be. That would never happen with a junior person in the U.S. government. You have to go through so many layers of bureaucracy, and approvals, and clearances. So, really, it depends on the type of person you are, and how you like to work, and the atmosphere in which you like to work. I can tell you you won't get rich doing this type of work, unfortunately. But you might be able to make a decent living. I certainly have, and so I encourage students to either do this as a career or find ways to volunteer part-time, even if it's tutoring a refugee kid down the block and not in some glamorous overseas location. I think you can get real sense of purpose out of doing this type of work. Thank you, Irina. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. And I have to say that your careful definitions of the different categories—and really, I think we all need to be more intentional about how we explain, talk about these issues because they are so complex, and there are so many dimensions, and it's easy to make gross generalizations. But the way you laid this out was really, really important for deepening the understanding of this really—the challenge and the—what we're seeing today. So thank you very much. RICHARD: Thank you. Thanks, everybody. FASKIANOS: So thanks to all—yeah, thanks to everybody for your great questions. Again, I apologize; we're three minutes over. I couldn't get to all your questions, so we will just have to continue looking at this issue. We will be announcing the fall Academic Webinar lineup in a month or so in our Academic Bulletin, so you can look for it there. Good luck with your end of the year, closing out your semester. And again, I encourage you to go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research analysis on global issues. And you can follow us on Twitter at @CFR_Academic. So again, thank you, Anne Richard. Good luck to you all with finals, and have a good summer. (END)

Learn more about our Implementing Public Policy executive course and apply to be part of our next cohort.To learn more about Building State Capability (BSC), visit the website, access the PDIA toolkit, read BSC blog posts, and listen to the podcasts.

Rory Stewart provides an unconventional perspective on the US and the world, including the mistake of our all-in and all-out mentality, politics without detail and how politicians live in a perpetually paranoid universe and don't accomplish much in their lives.It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Afghanistan, climate change or populism in the US and Europe, Rory believes the fundamental problem is a problem of jargon and abstraction. Let's take Afghanistan. President Biden left Afghanistan, because instead of focusing on the fact that the US actually only had 2,500 soldiers on the ground, was doing very little fighting and had had no casualties for 18 months, he labeled it a "forever war". And by doing so, he convinced himself and 70% of the American people that we were still back in 2012 in this huge military operation which no longer existed. And the same basic problem underlies all our politics, which is that we are now in a world of politics without detail.Rory also shares an ally's perspective on the US, what Europeans see as a joke, and the 50% likelihood that China will make an aggressive move to reincorporate Taiwan.Rory Stewart is a British diplomat, politician, author and explorer who has walked solo across Afghanistan. He has served across the UK government as Secretary of State for International Development, Minister of the Environment, Minister of State for Justice, and as Chair of the House Commons Defense Select Committee.This podcast is available on all major podcast streaming platforms. Did you enjoy this episode? Consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts.Receive updates on upcoming guests and more in our weekly e-mail newsletter. Subscribe today at www.3takeaways.com.

“If you don't produce, you won't thrive—no matter how skilled or talented you are.”  Cal Newport, author of “Deep Work” Noisy generators.  Crowing roosters.  Loud music. Working in the aid world can be very distracting! Not to mention all the email, texts and other notifications. Sometimes it's hard to create an environment for focus. So you can do the IMPORTANT work.... concentrated work. The work that will make the most impact. But sometimes given all the challenges, creating a way to focus seems almost impossible! In this episode Chen Kadungure and myself discuss how you can create more focus in your work week--- whether you're working from home, or in an open plan office.   Resources mentioned: Deep Work by Cal Newport Lowfi Beats Dehydration and Lack of Focus Mark Huberman podcast on focus Ragdoll stretching pose

Episode 1 – Mayaaka The tropical city of Mayaaka, Feremya. A 20-hour flight home to Valdemour, Emperica. Renella, a 17-year-old. SCAARS, a disease. Audio messages for Mamay. Mwanamyé. Medina. thegreattitisabird.com

Learn more about our Implementing Public Policy executive course and apply to be part of our next cohort.To learn more about Building State Capability (BSC), visit the website, access the PDIA toolkit, read BSC blog posts, and listen to the podcasts.

Today is a bit different from our typical episode.   After publishing "The Power of Silence",which discusses how we can use silence for more meaningful communication, I received a question from a longtime listener. She asked "how do we use silence (or should we) during a difficult conversation?" This is a great question, and so I decided to do a follow up episode to answer it! How DO we use silence in a powerful conversation ---when should we and when is it not appropriate? Listen to find out. And if you have a question you'd like to ask, feel free to email me Torrey@aidforaidworkers.com and ask! A special thank you to Caroline Khalai Lunani for your question today!  

Welcome to the Harvard Center for International Development's Beyond COVID podcast. This podcast is a series of conversations with CID faculty experts on various key dimensions of COVID response and recovery. Our goal with these conversations, and with CID's Beyond COVID research initiative, is to make use of lessons learned and capitalize on emergent innovations sparked by the pandemic in order to address losses and reimagine global development in the post-COVID era. On March 11, 2022, we were joined by Aisha Yousafzai, Associate Professor of Global Health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. CID Student Ambassador Aqil Merchant sat down with Aisha to discuss early childhood development.

Meet Charlie. She's on a mission to prevent a lost generation. This founder, techie, photographer, and creative dreamer followed her heart and passion until it landed in Syria, and she's never looked back. Her organization, Hello Future, is transforming the refugee youth experience from alone, stuck and forgotten to connected and empowered

Australia's overall aid budget is set to increase modestly but international development advocates say temporary COVID-19 spending should be made permanent.

Igor Volzhanin Igor Volzhanin is the CEO of DataSine, a marketing business that helps businesses create personalized marketing based on the personality traits of their customers. He has some amazing insights and unusual ideas for how to build a business and a life that one enjoys with some great advice around taking risks. His background in international development is paired with his knowledge in psychology which provides some fascinating theories into happiness and problems facing the world that I think anyone will enjoy. He started DataSine to help businesses make meaningful relationships with their customers by getting greater insight into their personalities, believes, desires and needs. It is only through this understanding can businesses deliver the most value and ultimately fulfil their objectives. Connect with Igor Datasine (https://datasine.com/) LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivolzhanin/) Twitter (https://twitter.com/igor_volzhanin) Connect with Sam: LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharris48/) ReasonFM (https://reason.fm/user/Sam) Sam's newsletter on creativity and entrepreneurship - Explosive Thinking (https://explosivethinking.substack.com/) Sam's podcast on books - Wiser than Yesterday (https://www.wiserpod.com) Support the Show - Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/growthmindset) Subscribe! If you enjoyed the podcast please subscribe and rate it. And of course, share with your friends! Special Guest: Igor Volzhanin.

Welcome to the Harvard Center for International Development's Beyond COVID podcast. This podcast is a series of conversations with CID faculty experts on various key dimensions of COVID response and recovery. Our goal with these conversations, and with CID's Beyond COVID research initiative, is to make use of lessons learned and capitalize on emergent innovations sparked by the pandemic in order to address losses and reimagine global development in the post-COVID era. On March 3, 2022, we were joined by Walter Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. CID Student Ambassador Kerianne DiBattista sat down with Walter to discuss nutrition, climate change, and COVID-19.

If there's one thing we can count on in humanitarian work, it's CHANGE! We are constantly making transitions - and as leaders, even more so. Whether it's managing a new team, a new project or just wanting to become a better leader, being intentional about how we transition can make a big difference in how we show up. In this episode my guest and fellow coach Asel Ormonova provides ways you can make smoother and better transitions, even as a humanitarian leader. Resources and links: Asel's website and blog Complaint Free Life podcast  

In this podcast dedicated to the larger concepts of geopolitics, host Rodger Baker, Senior Vice President for Strategic analysis at RANE, explores the concept of Philippinedization. His guests are Dr. Chester B. Cabalza, Joshua Bernard B. Espeña, and Don McLain Gill. All three are with the Manila-based think tank International Development and Security Cooperation (IDSC). Their recent book is called The Rise of Philippinedization: Philippinedization is not Finlandization. The authors describe "Philippinedization" as "the process whereby a weaker state, backed by a powerful country, goes through great lengths in temporarily refraining from opposing a neighboring great power by resorting to economic and diplomatic rapprochements at the strategic level but strengthening its national security infrastructure on the operational level." Subscribe to RANE worldview. Right now, get 4 weeks for $1. Visit stratfor.com

Geographic information is crucial to agency missions almost everywhere. That's especially true for the U.S. Agency for International Development. The agency operates throughout the world. For how geo and geo information systems underlie development decisions, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with USAID's chief geographer, Carrie Stokes.

We all know the nightmares.  You go through a hiring process -- and think you've found the perfect candidate. They have tons of great experience.  And they have a great network. You can't wait for them to start working on your team! Until... their true character is shown.  Perhaps they are late to work repeatedly.  Or maybe they don't trust anyone on the team.  Or maybe they cause a lot of conflicts. Whatever the case, it can be said there's a lot of value in hiring people based on BEHAVIOR and not just experience.   In this episode Chenai Kadungure and I discuss some ways you can go beyond the traditional hiring process and ensure you find someone who will be a great fit for your team and organizational culture.

In this episode we explore when my guest while working in architecture and urban planning, wrestled with the perception of being a black woman with an attitude, navigated the protection of white fragility, and ultimately was faced with the most impactful situation of her early career, addressing when a colleague used the "N" word, the pain of this experience informed her next career move into operations and people & culture.  Pascale Joseph is a people ops, DEIB, and organizational culture professional who focuses on the personal and professional development of organizations and individuals. She leads and coaches by implementing practices of liberation psychology, trauma-informed organizational management, and intentional leadership framed through vulnerability, authenticity, and empathy. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Architectural Studies and a Master of International Development, Urban Affairs & Planning from the University of Pittsburgh and is currently pursuing a PhD in Instructional Management and Leadership.

Have you heard of the TV show Undercover Boss? It's where a senior manager for a large company disguises themselves and then works alongside their staff on the ground. What usually happens is they find out all the things going right, but also those going wrong. And what's interesting is the people on the ground know what's going wrong and know how to solve it - but don't have the power to change it. It makes me wonder how these senior managers could empower their teams more so they are able to resolve problems in the best way they see fit. After all - they are closest to the problem and understand it best! But what about in our work as humanitarian leaders? How can we do better at empowering our teams to solve problems and come up with innovative ways to do things? Find out in this episode.