REPENSER LE FUTUR POUR REINVENTER LE CAPITALISM

D’après ce que vous avez appris, à Davos les puissants du monde ont donné une réponse indéterminée en ce qui concerne l’avenir à cause de l’incertitude à la suite de la Tempête Parfaite (Covid & Crise & Guerre) qu’a modifié le cadre de référence. Ici, nous ne disons qu’avant la tempête les prévisions concernant l’avenir étaient faciles ; nous disons que les projetions avaient des écarts acceptables et physiologiques au système. De nos jours, il n’est plus faisable, pourquoi ? la réponse n’est pas simple car plusieurs variables rentrent dans l’équation avenir ; toutefois effectuer des remarques sur la méthodologie appliquée est une tâche à pratiquer.

Pour l’accomplissement de l’exercice dont au-dessus il est à considérer que le futur est la projection du présent fils du passé. Le fait est que la narrative socio-économique-financière a été basée sur le passé qu’a été raconté par les mêmes Acteurs qui ont causées les conséquences et donc la narration des événements a été homologuée.

Le premier pas à faire est de réécrire la narration des faits et des événements. Enfin, nous avons conclu que les effets négatives de la financiarisation de l’économie, ont produit une richesse virtuelle au lieu d’une prospérité solide.

En conséquence il faut dessiner un autre horizon en termes de vision, objectives et modalités d’interventions. Il faut se remettre en jeu, de recouvrer la capacité de projeter l’avenir tout en évitant les erreurs du passé. Dans un mot il faut reconsidérer la pauvreté en termes de croissance durable et transformation des économies.

Nous avons consacré quelques pages à cette question et ici nous disons que les interventions pour la croissance inclusive n’ont pas atteint le but en conséquence de :

  1. La faillite des gouvernements dans lutte à la pauvreté.
  2. Le rôle dominant de la finance au détriment de l’économie réelle.
  3. Le marché incontrôlé pour le manque d’un cadre de référence institutionnel.
  4. Le manque d’application des recommandations du Comité Basel III, en 2010.
  5. L’insuffisant réalisation jusqu’à présent des objectifs de l’Agenda ONU 2030.
  6. L’apparition sur un grand marché potentiel par des marchands sans scrupules. 

Toutes conclusions confondues, il est question de repenser le processus du développement en partant des requêtes venant de la base et d’ici l’importance d’une nouvelle approche méthodologique.

Nous avons proposé TO MOVE FROM CREDIT-BASED ECONOMY to COMMUNITY- BASED ECONOMY.

Le modèle dont à la page suivante vise à repenser l’ensemble de l’architecture de l’inclusion financière, afin d’atténuer la pauvreté par la création d’emplois et la promotion d’opportunités, en vue d’améliorer la vie des personnes et la viabilité des entreprises. Il n’est pas question de changer les règles du jeu de la finance, mais simplement de repenser le comportement des Acteurs du Développement en raison du fait qu’on ne peut pas changer la nature : “Homo homini lupus”, comme disaient les Latins (Plauto, II, 4, 88).

COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

° To have in place a country’s appropriate national economic policy along with a receptive environment for investments.

° To conjugate together financial and economic inclusion, countries’ inclusive growth being the goal, as per the 2030 UN Agenda for SDGs.

° To have Banks, Micro Banks, Investors, Development Agencies, and any suitable provider ready to partner with the Investment Fund and work as a driven belt between the Fund and Entrepreneurs for Start-up and Growth-up businesses.

° To have in place a suitable decision-credit model that has sustainability as a core business along with respect to eligibility criteria via correct and detailed market segmentation.

° To digitalize the services with a product that is sustainable for the providers, affordable for the clients, and market transparent: this can be reached with appropriate market segmentation.

° To have a clear and distinctive role among Lenders, Developers, and Philanthropists, having different sources of capital.

° To establish a National Investment Fund by financiers and entrepreneurs truly committed to the inclusive growth of their countries.

 Exemple pratique. BM-SFI pourrait mettre en place un fonds nationaux dans les vingt pays de la région MENA s’étendant de l’Iran au Maroc en utilisant une petite partie du budget de 2 milliards de dollars comme capital d’amorçage et encourageant les capitalistes nationaux d’être actionnaires véritablement engagés à financer à la fois le démarrage et la croissance des entreprises, qui sont l’épine dorsale des économies des pays.

La SFI, la BAfD, le PNUD et d’autres Agences de développement pourraient être facilitateur et conseiller, leur présence étant également une garantie de l’opération.

En Italie, la Cassa Depositi e Prestiti pourrait jouer un rôle décisif dans la mise en œuvre du PNNR en mettant à disposition des capitaux d’amorçage et en exhortant des capitaux privés pour la création de fonds dans le but d’investir localement aux fins de créer des emplois et de promouvoir des opportunités.

Pour en savoir plus :

FINANCIAL INCLUSION, Give people a job not a loan  https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ENJP37S?ref_=k4w_oembed_XABBfUDmCDeygV&tag=kpembed-20&linkCode=kpd

POVERTY – An Alternative Paradigm, https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/poverty-an-alternative-paradigm/isbn/978-613-8-45817-3

The Gateway to Africa Inclusive Growth – JAMBO FUND  https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/the-gateway-to-africa-inclusive-growth-jambo-fund/isbn/978-620-2-28375-5

REPENSER LE FUTUR  – MODELE DE REFERENCE. La troisième guerre mondiale est-elle prévisible ?

Ascanio Graziosi

La troisième guerre mondiale est-elle prévisible ?OUI et NON. Oui, si vous projetez le futur en référant au passé, notamment aux années trente. Non, si vous changez le paradigme en termes des objectives à attendre, qui ne sont plus l’annexion de territoires, mais la conquête de marchés. En d’autres termes, dans le passé, les territoires ont été conquis pour vendre les marchandises, aujourd’hui les marchés sont conquis pour dominer les territoires. Donc, à présent, l’annexion de la Crimée et l’Ukraine sont des objectives basés sur une vision dépassée. 
Toutefois, la réponse pourrait être positive en se basant sur la chute de l’Empire URSS, comme nous enseigne l’histoire (Empire Romaine).  Enfin, la guerre conventionnelle est déjà une réalité, si vous pensez aux dizaines de conflits en cours dans le Planet. Bien plus important est la guerre commerciale, elle aussi est combattue dans chaque région du Planet : crise économique, pauvreté, inégalité, … .  Toutes conclusions confondues…

View original post 158 altre parole

REPENSER LE FUTUR  – MODELE DE REFERENCE. La troisième guerre mondiale est-elle prévisible ?

La troisième guerre mondiale est-elle prévisible ?OUI et NON. Oui, si vous projetez le futur en référant au passé, notamment aux années trente. Non, si vous changez le paradigme en termes des objectives à attendre, qui ne sont plus l’annexion de territoires, mais la conquête de marchés. En d’autres termes, dans le passé, les territoires ont été conquis pour vendre les marchandises, aujourd’hui les marchés sont conquis pour dominer les territoires. Donc, à présent, l’annexion de la Crimée et l’Ukraine sont des objectives basés sur une vision dépassée. 
Toutefois, la réponse pourrait être positive en se basant sur la chute de l’Empire URSS, comme nous enseigne l’histoire (Empire Romaine).  Enfin, la guerre conventionnelle est déjà une réalité, si vous pensez aux dizaines de conflits en cours dans le Planet. Bien plus important est la guerre commerciale, elle aussi est combattue dans chaque région du Planet : crise économique, pauvreté, inégalité, … .  Toutes conclusions confondues, la guerre est déjà une réalité, mais elle est bataillée avec des modalités inédites. Les batailles en Ukraine sont contre l’histoire et donc perdues pour l’envahisseur. 

« Repenser le Futur ». D’accord, mais les contributions et les commentaires sont toujours basés sur le Passé: nous avons approfondi et conclu que dans la mesure où nous aimons vraiment dessiner un différent horizon en termes de vision, objectives et modalités d’interventions, il faut d’abord récrire la narrative des faits et des événements car la narration a été écrite par les mêmes Acteurs qui ont causé les conséquences.

Enfin, nous avons conclu que : (A) Le passé a été mal raconté ; (B) le rôle dominant de la finance dans l’économie devrait être réduit, à raison que la financiarisation n’a pas produit une vraie prospérité mais la richesse virtuelle ; (C) donc, il incombe à la nouvelle génération réécrire la dynamique des événements et projeter le futur. Le modèle est aussi dans le Post https://www.linkedin.com/in/ascanio-graziosi-968ba43/recent-activity/shares/

CHI PAGHERÀ IL DEBITO? Il nome del gioco 

Di seguito riproduciamo un capitolo della ricerca pubblicata con il titolo: THE RISE AND FALL OF UNSUSTAINABLE FINANCE: Does Sustainable Finance Exist? https://www.linkedin.com/in/ascanio-graziosi-968ba43/recent-activity/shares/

Viviamo in un periodo di domande inevase o solo parzialmente conclusive, in riferimento ad eventi che tormentano il quotidiano.

Nel frattempo, stiamo accumulando debiti da Covid-19, PNNR, Ucraina, per limitarci ai grandi fatti. Ci siamo quindi posto la domanda: Chi pagherà il debito? E l’occasione ci è stata data dalla recente dichiarazione di M. Draghi, Presidente del Consiglio: “Il debito è buono e cattivo”. Due aggettivi che ben sintetizzano il ruolo importante del debitore quale responsabile dell’uso dei soldi ricevuti in prestito: concetto che dovrebbe essere un promemoria per i Responsabili del PNRR in Italia e del NextGeneration EU nei paesi dell’Unione. Peraltro, la responsabilità dell’esito del prestito non è solo del debitore ma anche del creditore che ha il dovere e la responsabilità di verificare la sostenibilità del progetto finanziato ovvero che i soldi siano spesi bene e restituiti. 

La ricerca è stata inspirata dall’Agenda 2030 0NU: Obiettivo 1 (Povertà), Obiettivo 8 (Sviluppo inclusivo e sostenibile) e Obiettivo 7 (Partnership) e dalle raccomandazioni in materia di: Commissione Europea, Banca Mondiale, Banca Africana di Sviluppo e Agenzie finanziarie internazionali. L’investigazione ha inoltre beneficiato di un costante feedback con la nostra esperienza diretta sul terreno per il riscontro del link teoria- pratica. 

Dall’analisi è emerso il divario tra i cambiamenti introdotti – Agenda ONU – e la mancanza di volontà per la realizzazione degli obiettivi, che si è tradotto nella crescente finanziarizzazione dell’economia a danno della sostenibilità, che ha prodotto affluenza virtuale e non solida ricchezza.  

Abbiamo notato che i metodi d’indagine in uso non erano adeguati allo scopo dell’indagine. Di conseguenza, abbiamo applicato un metodo d’investigazione innovativo che, in pratica, ci ha fatto riscrivere la narrativa finanziaria dalla fine degli anni Settanta del secolo scorso, perché spesso omologata agli standard dell’Establishment e quindi inadatta a interpretare i fatti. Di più, l’analisi è stata condotta applicando la teoria del cambiamento per l’interpretazione della tendenza economica e finanziaria che, paradossalmente, non è stata sempre utilizzata, pur vivendo in un periodo turbolento. 

Abbiamo quindi disegnato un Modello di finanziamento dello sviluppo assumendo quanto proposto dalle citate fonti nel contesto della crescita muovendo dall’Economia-basata sul Credito all’ECONOMIA-BASATA SULLE COLLETTIVITÀ, che viene ampiamente illustrata nel testo. Inoltre, abbiamo concluso nell’urgenza del coinvolgimento di più attori nel processo decisionale, nella veste di membri dei Board delle organizzazioni preposte al finanziamento di programmi nazionali e regionali: Agenzie Europee di Sviluppo e della Banca Mondiale, Società di Finanziamento, etc..

Nelle condizioni sopra riportate, la ricerca conclude che non occorre introdurre nuove regole del gioco della finanza, ma un appropriato comportamento dei giocatori, che hanno operato irresponsabilmente. Pertanto, il successo nel perseguimento degli Obiettivi dell’agenda ONU sarà reso possibile nella misura in cui gli Attori dello sviluppo saranno disposti di accettare la sfida dello sviluppo inclusivo con un gioco equo.

Chi pagherà i debiti? Ognuno potrà dare la risposta che noi non forniamo, il vero obiettivo della ricerca essendo quello di valutare una possibile Exit Strategy. Oltre al sopra citato modello, abbiamo raccomandato due Azioni Pratiche: (A) Investitori e Capitalisti nazionali chiamati nei Board delle Agenzie di Sviluppo, che si impegnano nel finanziamento delle economie locali e indicato come riferimento pratico l’IFC-Banca Mondiale che opera in circa venti paesi dal Medio Oriente al Marocco. (B) Capitalisti/Investitori danno vita a Fondi di sviluppo locali gestiti da loro stessi. L’ipotesi (A) non pare realizzabile nel breve termine perché la condivisione del processo decisionale significa condividere il potere che non tutti possono essere disposti a cedere. Non rimane pertanto che l’impegno diretto di chi detiene le risorse finanziarie e in proposito abbiamo fatto riferimento alla creazione di Fondi di Sviluppo gestiti da Investitori/Capitalisti Africani che potrebbero (dovrebbero) impegnarsi di più nella promozione delle opportunità presenti nei Paesi/Regioni del Continente. Vedi:  https://ascaniograziosi.net/2020/10/08/letter-to-african-capitalists/ .

Tornando al quesito iniziale, è stato detto (Del Vecchio, HoffPost) “Buono o cattivo la pacchia del debito è finita”. Per farla breve: dopo Draghi chi e come saranno rimborsati ii debiti del PNNR? Intanto occorre ricordare che quando il Nostro era presidente della BCE inaugurò una politica economica basata sull’offerta di moneta. In quella circostanza i critici (tra tutti il M. Tremonti) dissero che era stata creata una bolla che prima o poi sarebbe scoppiata, come il pensiero economico ortodosso insegna. Il fatto è che oggigiorno di ortodosso non c’è più niente. Come se ne esce? Intanto, è stato notato (C. Fusi) “… rispetto degli impegni presi con la Ue riguardo il Recovery impongono una tabella di marcia che Mario Draghi non solo ha in gran parte contribuito a fissare e continua a farlo con i partner europei, ma soprattutto intende rispettare al millimetro”. Pero’è stato stato anche affermato che (U. Magri): “Il governo vuol far credere all’UE di aver intrapreso una riforma seria, Salvini&Co vogliono far credere ai piccoli proprietari che saranno tartassati. Due bugie, ma la doppia sceneggiata può trasformarsi in dramma”.

Per capire Draghi e, probabilmente, dare una risposta al quesito, occorre aver letto l’economista F. Caffè la cui scomparsa resta ancora un mistero, come abbiamo scritto lo scorso anno: https://ascaniograziosi.net/2021/02/06/federico-caffe-i-pesi-truccati-della-bilancia-dei-pagamenti/. In buona sostanza, è necessario che gli Enti Territoriali preposti all’attuazione del PNRR facciano un uso rigoroso e sostenibile delle risorse: facile a dirsi ma difficile a realizzare, per i ben noti motivi che impediscono all’Italia lo sviluppo equo.

Ad ogni buon conto, il modello di finanziamento proposto contiene anche la risposta di cui al gioco iniziale perché quanto raccomandato consentirà la produzione di vera ricchezza e perciò più reddito imponibile che permetterà di pagare il debito. Concetto ribadito da M. Draghi.

Sono graditi commenti come pure suggerimenti per la sponsorizzazione da parte di Enti e Organismi Finanziari della pubblicazione nella versione originale inglese: quaranta pagine di cui tre riferimenti bibliografici.

THE NEED TO RE-SET THE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM

Forwards – The financial capitalism is broken

Nowadays each one and everybody have been thinking about tomorrow, hoping that something will change for better. It is hard to think that it will happen. The future is the projection of the present that is son of the past past: in the history there have been periods traumatised by calamities: from wars, to epidemics, earthquakes, floods and so on.

The day after any event, people tried to apply the lessons learned, but the intents have not been put into practice because, as it has been said, the road to hell is paved by good intentions.

It should be considered that the health crisis blew up in the middle of an ongoing crisis of the financial capitalism meaning that there are two crises to face at the same time. Currently, with the Ucraina invasion everything should be re-settled. 

This could be a good opportunity for digging new fundamentals of economics. Despite any scepticism there isn’t a choice, but to look forward and re-set the development’s paradigm.

It seems that the proposals worked out for Post Coronavirus have assumed the situation before Covid-19 as normal and acceptable, but this isn’t the case. In fact, when we measure the progress achieved in getting the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs, the related evaluations have shown poor results that have anticipated the non-accomplishment of the goals.

The extent to which this context is shared, when we are going to project the future, we should assume that the financial capitalism is broken.

Before the health crisis, the people have witnessed the crisis of the capitalism, which has been highlighted by the everyday reality by the exploitation of natural and human resources, no longer accepted by both ordinary people and professionals & entrepreneurs involved and engaged in the system.

Not to mention the situations in the developing regions facing massive migrations and an ever-increasing inequality among people.

The Covid-19 along with Ucraina’s war have worsened the people’s living conditions: the poor have become poorer and those already integrated in the system have experienced a reduced income of an already constrained access.

  • Under the circumstances, what to do? There isn’t a need to make a revolution or to issue new rules of the game because it is possible to project a possible future, operating in the context in which we live. There is a need to review and revise the approach to market and the environment as well.
  • It is up to the Establishment along with the Big Financial Players to change behaviour when it comes to deal with development finance issues.

Everyone can find references in their own sector of work or interest; here we will refer to the financial component of the economy, we have been dealing with since the mid-60s the last century [1].

Over the past decades Finance has continued to dominate the world of the business and this is quite understandable bearing in mind that the financial leverage is important and sometimes essential for the development of whatsoever activity.

But the problem is: which finance? Financialization with unsustainable interventions that instead of creating real wealth produced virtual affluence?

Currently, Finance although having a dominant position, it is not a constant but a variable of the development’s equation and therefore can be re-formed with appropriate revisions to achieve the objectives.

The data emerging from everyday reality has shown that the capitalist algorithm is no longer accepted by both the ordinary people and professionals & entrepreneurs involved and engaged in the system; not to mention the situations in the developing regions facing massive migrations and an ever-increasing inequality among people

Solidarity has been perceived as a response to the accumulation, but the related algorithm has not yet been proposed[2].

Under the circumstances whatsoever proposal should emerge from going through a new financial narrative financial, namely not homologated to the Establishment standards; we did it using a toolbox updated to the changes to measure whether the targeted goals listed in the 2030 UN Agenda have been achieved:

POVERTY – An Alternative Paradigm: MOVING FROM CREDIT-BASED ECONOMY to COMMUNITY BASED ECONOMY https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/poverty-an-alternative-paradigm/isbn/978-613-8-45817-3

[1]  https://ascaniograziosi.net/my-journey

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-capitalism-broken-ascanio-graziosi/

“The debt is good and bad”: M. Draghi, Italian Prime Minister

“The debt is good and bad”: just two adjectives to phase out the unsustainable finance and indeed the way the borrowers do use the money makes the difference. The concept should be a reminder for each one and everybody responsible for the implementation of Next Generation EU. Let see the issue in the context of development financing.

Late 70s last century, the Populists proposed Microfinance to integrate the poor into the system. At that time circulated a story (it isn’t important whether it was true) of a lady who repaid a small number of Rupees; since then, the Populists fabricated on the episode a credit model, which had a worldwide echo. The model was supported by a slogan “everybody deserves a loan”, which found a good reception at the international level, on the grounds that: A) in the emerging economies the GVTs failed their duty to fight poverty; in other words, the Public Authorities made strong the Populism; B) the proposal was in line with the dominant role of finance in the economy, microfinance being a product of it.

The Populists succeeded because they intercepted the emerging demand from the discontent of three big segments of the population: 1) the emarginated people asking the freedom from the poverty trap, 2) the ordinary people demanding to be an equal part of the communities and 3) the people (professionals, entrepreneurs) already committed in the system but not yet have full access to the financial resources.

However, their Slogans couldn’t have a future and indeed, both field evidence and desk research dismantled the appealing and dangerous approach to tackle poverty. Why the idea has been successful? Besides the above points A) and B) there is a third one:  C) the opportunities for unscrupulous lenders.

In our opinion there are two ways of interpretation of the above Populist’s verdict: (*) they did believe in what they said because voluminous literature – documents/papers – on financial inclusion and inclusive growth have been just words, that’s to say the changes have been made to change nothing; (**) they did elude the evidence with arrogance using the same way of communication, namely via a buzzword: “sustainable finance doesn’t exist”.

Nowadays there is a movement – digitalization -, which aims at meeting the demand for discontented people making the financial resources available via an electronic device and the Technologists are the new Populists [2]. In the new picture, the establishment changed the methods and continued controlling the system, digitalization of the financial services being the new horse to ride.

So, is sustainable finance a buzzword? Try to answer this question: when a lender lends out the money, does he expect to be paid back? So, giving a loan to ineligible people and being sure that it wouldn’t be repaid, does generate a market distortion that is paid by the taxpayers, besides wasting resources.

In this understanding, how to deal with the market? The above three segments can be tackled with a well-defined approach focusing on the related market segments: enterprise development, income-generating activities and food aid, Poverty being a government duty and not a lender task, as we proposed since 1998, as Coordinator of a Finance Group with the UN-FAO Program Food into Cities [3] and again in 2011: Suggestions for designing a credit model [4].

Beginning this year, we worked out a Feasibility Study on poverty matter, taking from the Documents/Papers issued by the international financial establishment, basically there four sources: Documents/Papers to read on development finance issues: Basel III Committee [5], CGAP [6], UN 2030 Agenda on SDGs http://www.un.org.) and CSFI Banana Skins [7]

We didn’t fabricate anything but just elaborated on what the system has recommended, to mean, among other things, that poverty can be mitigated without changing the finance rules of the game but moving from a Credit-based economy to a Community-based economy.

Conclusions: The behavior of Investors/Capitalists has made finance unsustainable over the past four decades and not the rules. In 2008 they ignored the lessons of the financial crisis, in 2010 disregarded the development model proposed by Basel III Committee and in 2016 didn’t follow the UN 2030 Agenda recommendations focused on sustainable interventions. The paradox is the fact that the pandemic crisis and not the financial crisis forced to review the development’s paradigm.


[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-mdgs-sdgs-technologists-new-populists-ascanio-graziosi/

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-mdgs-sdgs-technologists-new-populists-ascanio-graziosi/.

[3] http://www.fao.org/fcit/fcit-home/fr/

[4] http://www.microfinancegateway.org/p/site/m/template.rc/1.9.51017/.

[5] http://www.bis.org

[6] http://www.cgap.org/publications/new-funder-guidelines-market-systems-approach-financial-inclusion

[7] http://www.aboutmicrofinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Banana+Skins_07-16_v8.pdf

RE-SETTING THE FINANCIAL MODEL

Forwards: The financial capitalism is broken

Nowadays each one and everybody have been thinking about tomorrow, hoping that something will change for better. It is hard to think that it will happen. The future is the projection of the past: in the history there have been periods shocked by calamities from wars, to epidemies, earthquakes, floods and so on.

The day after any event, people tried to apply the lessons learned, but the intents have not been put into practice because, as it has been said, the road to hell is paved by good intentions; moreover, it should be considered that the pandemic crisis blew up in the middle of an ongoing crisis of the financial capitalism meaning that there are two crises to face at the same time.

Paradoxically, this could be a good opportunity for digging new fundamentals of economics. Despite any scepticism there isn’t a choice, but to look forward and re-set the development’s paradigm.

It seems that the proposals worked out for Post Coronavirus have assumed the situation before Covid-19 as normal and acceptable, but this isn’t the case. In fact, when we measure the progress achieved in getting the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs, the related evaluations have shown poor results that have anticipated the non-accomplishment of the goals.

The extent to which this context is shared, – and the speakers of the Establishment confirmed the validity – when we are going to project the future, we should assume that the financial capitalism is broken.  

Before the pandemic explosion, the people have witnessed the crisis of the capitalism, which has been highlighted by the exploitation of natural and human resources; not to mention the situations in the developing regions facing massive migrations and an ever-increasing inequality within the communities.

The Covid-19 has worsened the people’s living conditions: the poor have become poorer and those already integrated in the system have experienced a reduced income of an already constrained access.

Under the circumstances, what to do? There isn’t a need to make either a revolution or to issue new rules of the game because it is possible to project a possible future, operating in the context in which we live, on condition to review and revise the approach to market and the environment as well.

It is up to the Establishment along with the Big Financial Players to change behaviour when it comes to deal with development finance issues.

Everyone can find references in their own sector of work; here we will refer to the financial component of the economy, we have been dealing with since the mid-60s the last century [1].

Over the past decades Finance has continued to dominate the world of the business and this is quite understandable because the financial leverage is important and sometimes essential for the development of whatsoever activity. But the problem is: which finance? Financialization with unsustainable interventions that instead of creating real wealth produced virtual affluence?

Currently, Finance although having a dominant position, it is no more a constant but a variable of the development’s equation and therefore can be re-shaped with appropriate revisions to achieve the objectives.

Solidarity has been perceived as a response to the accumulation, but the related algorithm has not yet been proposed (2)

The data emerging from everyday reality has shown that the capitalist algorithm is no longer accepted by both the ordinary people and professionals & entrepreneurs involved and engaged in the system.

Under the circumstances whatsoever proposal should emerge from going through the financial narrative; we did it using a toolbox updated to the changes to measure whether the targeted goals listed in the 2030 UN Agenda have been achieved.


[1]  https://ascaniograziosi.net/my-journey

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-capitalism-broken-ascanio-graziosi/

PAUVRETÉ : UN DÉFI COLOSSAL INCORRECTMENT APPROCHÉ

Fin du siècle passé, nous avons écrit : « La Mission Pauvreté est possible mais il faut changer the règles du jeu de la finance ». Les lignes ont été extraites du Document (Étude de faisabilité pour des interventions en faveur de la petite entreprise commerciale alimentaire dans la ville de Addis Abéba ) que nous avons préparé en 1997 dans le cadre du Programme UN-FAO « Aliments dans les villes », http://www.fao.org/fcit/fcit-home/fr/,  en tant que Coordinateur du Groupe de Travail Finance.

Récemment nous avons écrit : il n’est pas question des règles, plutôt du comportement des Grandes Acteurs de la Finance : POVERTY – An Alternative Paradigm: MOVING FROM CREDI-BASED ECONOMY to COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMY https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/poverty-an-alternative-paradigm/isbn/978-613-8-45817-3.

Enfin, nous n’avons pas changé d’idée, le fait est que finalement les règles du jeu de la finance ont été changées, même s’il a fallu d’attendre le nouveau siècle. Toutefois les Acteurs n’ont pas donné la suite aux règles proposées par eux-mêmes, voir ci-dessus :  

In 2010 Basel III Committee released a document on microfinance activities filling the gap: https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs175.pdf. Since then, the central banks in the emerging economies started regulating and monitoring the uncontrolled micro credit market. Taking inspiration from the document we worked out “Designing a credit model” that CGAP rated among the first three Papers consulted document in 2011: déchargé gratuitement  https://www.findevgateway.org/paper/2011/01/suggestions-designing-microcredit-model .

In 2015 the WB-CGAP: https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/new-funder-guidelines- market-systems-approach-financial-inclusion phased out the old-fashioned microfinance idea and Basel III Committee released a document on financial inclusion introducing the concept of Unserved and Underserved Customers: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d351.pdf.

A further and comprehensive step has been made with the release of UN 2030 Agenda with 17 goals and related targets: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E  Taking from above sources, we published FINANCEINCLUSION with subtitle “Give people a job, not a loan” https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ENJP37S?ref_=k4w_oembed_XABBfUDmCDeygV&tag=kpembed-%2020&linkCode=kpd   and proposed a new approach in favour of poor people, who aren’t only those living for less the $ 2/d but also those who although integrated in the system asked a wider access to the financial resources.

Dans le nouveau contexte le mot clé est « Soutenabilité » que dans le passé a été complétement négligé, au bénéfice du rôle dominant de la finance jusqu’à la financiarisation de l’économie qu’a produit l’affluence virtuelle au lieu d’une vraie richesse.

Le mouvement populiste

Le mouvement populiste apparu dans les années soixante-dix dans le Sous-Continent de l’Asie a promu l’idée « crédit pour tout le monde » aux fins d’éradiquer la pauvreté, avec l’étiquette nouveauté, qui a été autant fasciné que risquée. Il y a eu des rares situations notables, mais quel a été coût ? Qui a payé le compte ? Tous et chacun, institutions et citoyens, comme il a été démontré par l’implosion financière des organisations de la micro finance dans plusieurs Pays : Bangladesh, Bosnie, Cambodge, Inde, Maroc, Pakistan, Nicaragua.

On se demande pourquoi des Pays, particulièrement en Afrique, ont importé cette idée et négliger les traditions et les coutumes déjà expérimentés dans le domaine du petit crédit. Au contraire, ces Pays ont donné le bienvenu à un modèle fondé sur les coutumes des communautés (Bangladesh) basés sur une organisation de groupes de crédit hiérarchique et presque militaire (voir : Porter & Kramer).

Bien sûr, les populistes ont agi pour raison humanitaires, mais ils ont abandonné le processus de la prise de décision de crédit et n’ont pas élaboré une approche méthodologique compréhensive. De cette manière le concept de crédit a été dénaturé, tout en banalisant une profession qui demande plus d’une compétence ; enfin, crédit signifie confiance et il est approuvé à la discrétion du fournisseur qui peut le refuser même en présence d’une garantie totale.

Heureusement, à présent le secteur de la microfinance comprend centaines des réalités qui travaillent à côté des communautés et encadrées dans le coiffe législative et organisationnel des pays, à la suite des recommandations contenues dans le document Basel III publié en 2010 « Microfinance activities and the Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision”, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs175.pdf. A partir de cette année les banques centrales des Pays ont commencé à mettre ordre dans le secteur de la microfinance auparavant incontrôlé et donc l’an 2010 trace la ligne de démarcation pour une nouvelle action sur le terrain.

Pour projeter la future il faut connaitre le passé

Il est question de se remettre en jeu, de recouvrer la capacité de projeter le future tout en évitant les erreurs du passé. Dans un mot il faut reconsidérer la pauvreté en termes de croissance durable et transformation des économies.

On peut se demander le pourquoi et comment il a été possible d’accepter l’idée populiste dont nous avons dit tantôt sans se poser des questions et, en plus, en donnant un soutien de propagande, qui a été élargi et gonflé avant les résultats.

Nous avons consacré quelques pages à cette question de base dans : FINANCIAL INCLUSION https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ENJP37S?ref_=k4w_oembed_XABBfUDmCDeygV&tag=kpembed-20&linkCode=kpd. Ici, nous disons que la situation a été la conséquence de :

1) la faillite des gouvernements dans lutte à la pauvreté,

2) le rôle dominant de la finance dans l’économie au détriment de l’économie réelle ;

3) l’apparition sur le marché du crédit des nouveaux venus qui, en générale, n’avez pas d’expérience dans la nouvelle profession ;

4) un marché incontrôlé pour le manque d’un cadre de référence institutionnel au niveau de Pays.

5) un grand marché potentiel retenu profitable pour des marchands sans scrupules.

Vers un nouveau paradigme

Une toute première réflexion. Dans le contexte décrit au-dessus, il est question de réviser l’architecture des interventions en faveur des pauvres et des petits entrepreneurs, et remplacer le paradigme des approches couramment basées sur l’économie surendettée au niveau micro et macro avec des interventions soutenables et orientées vers la création d’emploi et la promotion des opportunités (voir Figure).

Dans tous les Pays le processus de développement est construit sur la dette. La lève financière est une composante importante et même nécessaire de l’équation investissement, à condition d’être bien balancée par les autres variables de l’équation et surtout, visée aux activités de l’économie réelle.

Le défi est colossal car il ne s’agit pas seulement d’aider ceux qui n’ont rien mais ceux qui nécessite de plus. Dans un mot c’est la lutte à la pauvreté : les pauvres n’étant pas seulement ceux qui vivent dans l’émergence (laissez pour compte) mais aussi ceux qui ont davantage besoin d’être mieux intégrés dans leurs communautés. La question est donc celle de dessiner un nouveau modèle de financement pour encadrer les actions de terrain dans un cadre logique.

Finally, going back to the above Figure, a question may be raised: what about the Unserved People?  We do think that we should think the other way around and agree with Mr. Elumelu – Nigerian tycoon and banker –, who in an interview (6 Jan. 2014) spelt out his vision on what to do and promote African entrepreneurial spirit: “There are some areas — flood disasters, for instance — where you must give charity. But I think the charity approach to solving other issues must be reassessed. It’s all about sustainability; it’s all about self-reliance. It’s catalytic philanthropy”. (http//www.devex.com/news/tony-elumelu-s-new-africapitalism-82590).

THE 20 CONTRADICTIONS OF THE FINANCIAL CAPITALISM

To understand what has been going on in the development finance’s trend, we have filled the dots of the related narrative and pieced them together (see previous blog: Filling the dots of the financial narrative:  https://ascaniograziosi.net/2021/01/24/filling-the-dots-of-the-financial-narrative/). It emerged the dominant role of the finance over the economy, called financialization that produced virtual affluence instead of real wealth and therefore the inability of being a suitable leverage of the sustainable growth.

From the gap between the changes and the impact emerged the following contradictions and failures:

  1. According to the World Bank estimates for 2017 the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), that’s to say the market value of all final goods and services produced by 188 nations has been about US $ MM 80,683,787 ([1]). Also, and in contrast with above, it has been estimated that the liquid assets, namely the money floating around in search of suitable offshores, should be much more (some 10 times?) of above-mentioned amount. Whatsoever the percentage, we do think that even a small slice of $ 80,7 trillion could make it the difference, if invested in the real economy. It has been valued that over the past ten years US $ 3 Billion (three thousand million) have been reinvested in financial activities; in other words, this has been done to maximize the market value of the shareholders’ worth.
  2. After Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy in 2008, significant changes have been made but the financiers didn’t change the conduct in business and the related narrative didn’t mention any tangible result. In a recent interview, Christine Lagarde, former MD of International Monetary Fund and now Boss of the ECB said: “After ten years from Lehman Brothers default the finance system changed a little bit”.
  3. The dissatisfaction on above situations has found echo with the Big Finance Players and concrete discussions are ongoing. On the matter we may refer to the World Bank annual meetings (October 2018): “The World Bank Group  faces the difficult task of positioning itself at the forefront of the world’s most urgent challenges, while also navigating politically charged issues that could divide its largest shareholders” [2].
  4. The EC in order to respond to the challenges – ranging from poverty, conflicts, migration, climate-change and demographic challenges – of the world proposed that “the development finance needs to rely on a combination of funding sources [3]
  5. In a very recent book, an Indian physician and economist defined “catastrophic” the concentration of wealth: in 2010 there were 388 billionaires controlled a patrimony equal to that of the poorest half of humanity; in 2017 they were reduced to 8, and in 2020 there will be a single holder for all that wealth.  With creativity, imagination, solidarity and interconnection, according to Shiva, we can “create a planetary movement with which to break the chains and defeat the money machine and the mere simulacrum of democracy”. Utopia or real possibility? In fact, according to the author of the book “Il pianeta di tutti”, we suffer from three serious separations: between man and nature, between humans and humans, and between the I and OUR integral and interconnected being.
  6. From a World Bank survey came out that “African investors remain risk-averse”  [4] and …. the funding requests lack “speaking the language required for investment”, as the expert panels concluded when last year addressed on how to leverage growth opportunities to support global connectivity.
  7. From a letter sent to OECD, “Politically-motivated” approach, “guided by finance ministries,” risked eroding the whole system [5].
  8. In August 2018 McKinley shared the results of a research on the international financial trend and straightforward said that after 2008 crises, the world economy has recently returned to robust growth. But some familiar risks are creeping back, and new ones have emerged at country and institutional level: global debt continues to grow, fuelled by new borrowers; corporate borrowing; households are financially unwell; banks – thanks to regulations – are safe but less profitable; non-performing loans in the emerging economies; digital disruptions. Foreign direct investment is now a larger share of capital flows, a trend that promotes stability and global imbalances between nations have declined. Some new risks have emerged: corporate debt-dangers, real estate bubbles, China’s growth in debt and some others.
  9. In a recent conference the U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed said: “If national and international financial systems don’t change, the Sustainable Development Goals will not be achieved”. According to the UN Report [6]“ “Achieving sustainable development requires multilateral action to address global challenges; revisiting the global institutional architecture; and strengthened regional and national action, including adjusting policies to the changing global landscape”.
  10. However, the problem isn’t in the hands of the Big Stakeholders but also of the Executives of the banks; there is the paradox of the European banks have huge amount of liquid asset deposited with the ECB and pay 0,5% (since Sept 2019, 0,4%), instead of investing it in the real economy.
  11. The financial capitalism is under siege as admitted by their prominent representatives: “I see many, many low-income countries and emerging-market economies spend millions of dollars commissioning consultants to build their strategic plan; in another interview, she said: “After ten years from Lehman Brothers default the finance system changed a little bit”.[7]
  12. “Only around 15% of the money flowing from financial institutions actually makes its way into business investment. “The rest gets moved around a closed financial loop, via the buying and selling of existing assets, like real estate, stocks, and bonds”.[8]
  13. The interview released by a finance’s insider informs us about the microfinance idea: The Past, Present and Future of Financial Inclusion [9]
  14. The article Countdown to 2030: A race against time to end extreme poverty [10]
  15. In the annual World Bank meeting held in the spring 2018 [11], it has been said that “African investors remain risk-averse” and …. the funding requests lack speaking the language required for investment “. But no intervention has been formulated to face the situation.
  16. The World Bank published a study showing 7.5 percent of aid payments may leak out of needy countries into offshore accounts, which flow to tax havens [12]
  17. The World Bank updated the data on the fight against poverty with the publication of the document “Piecing together the Poverty puzzle”, which discounted the missed target at the end of the period (2030) and wrote that he will continue to monitor the situation while anticipating that the update will include progress “At the two higher poverty lines of US $ 3.20 and US $ 5.50 and on the new societal poverty line” [13].
  18. COVID-19 Is Crushing Small Business: Can Banks Move Fast Enough? [14]
  19. The banking industry was much stronger before COVID-19 than before the financial crisis of 2008. However, the need for different strategies around marketing, innovation and digital banking was clear well before the pandemic hit. The question becomes whether financial institutions will remain committed to new banking models post-crisis? [15]
  20. It is worthwhile to note that in September 2019, the Africa Development Bank reported on the results of a Survey that quantified the following global market gaps:
  1. The estimated global trade finance gap is large but stable at $1.5 trillion.
  2. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals is at risk if the persistently large trade finance gap continues to hamper international trade.
  3. More than 70% of surveyed banks see a shortage in servicing the trade finance needs of the global market.

The conclusions have indicated that there isn’t need to issue new rules of the finance game, but a functional approach of the players (Stakeholders) in the context of a development model moving from CREDIT-BASED ECONOMY a COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMY. In the new logic framework we have elaborated two operational proposals referring to the programmes of the World Bank-IFC in MENA Countries. For more: THE THEORY OF CHANGE APPLIED TO FINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT http://reader.ilmiolibro.kataweb.it/v/1252660/the-theory-of-change-applied-to-finance-for-development_1268103


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal).

[2] (https://www.devex.com/news/world-bank-s-jim-yong-kim-weighs-in-on-africa-s-industrialization-92820)

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-investment-outside-eu-communication-644_en_0.pdf)

[4] https://lnkd.in/gu2V2Gw)

[5] https://www.devex.com/news/donors-in-the-dark-on-unprecedented-private-sector-critique-94295

[6] https://www.devex.com/news/un-report-financial-systems-must-change-or-sdgs-will-fail-94605

[7] When we acted as Economist with the Central Bank of Somalia, we do recall the meetings with IMF and WB Staff coming for either a Stand-by Agreement or a Development Programme: we have witnessed their influence on how to design and implement development strategies.

[8] https://evonomics.com/rewrite-the-rules-of-the-economy-tim-oreilly/

[9] https://impactmoney.net/impact-investing/interview-with-elisabeth-rhyne-the-past-present-and-future-of-financial-inclusion/

[10] https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/countdown-2030-race-against-time-end-extreme-poverty#comment-175441

[11] https://www.devex.com/news/world-bank-s-jim-yong-kim-weighs-in-on-africa-s-industrialization-92820

[12] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/world-bank-aid-leakage-may-flow-tax-havens-224500266.html.

[13] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30418.

[14] https://thefinancialbrand.com/94173/covid-19-coronavirus-small-business-banks-lending-credit-fees/?edigest.

[15] https://thefinancialbrand.com/94256/reimagining-digital-banking-transformed-covid-19-coronavirus-trends/?edigest

FEDERICO CAFFÈ: I pesi truccati della bilancia dei pagamenti

Nel profilo del presidente incaricato M. Draghi viene ricordato allievo del prof. Federico Caffè e la circostanza ha prodotto vari contributi in memoria dell’Economista che è giusto e doveroso ricordare e la cui scomparsa resta ancora un mistero. È stato un accademico impegnato e tra le ipotesi della sua sparizione non mancò un riferimento all destra estremista. Frequentai le sue lezioni e poi discussi la tesi di laurea: a quell’epoca la Facoltà di Economia era a Piazzetta Borghese: ci suggeriva di leggere gli economisti anglosassoni e, tra gli altri, Samuelson, Hicks e il molto citato Keynes.

Negli anni Sessanta del secolo scorso, su segnalazione del prof. Caffè, ebbi un incarico presso la Banca Centrale della Somalia. Al rientro in Italia partecipai ad una conferenza in cui era Relatore, tra gli altri, il compianto professore. A proposito dei paesi emergenti, a quel tempo ancora classificati in via di via di sviluppo, si parlò anche della misurazione degli squilibri economici e, con riferimento alla bilancia dei pagamenti di quei paesi, il Relatore disse “il problema vero è nei pesi truccati della bilancia che ne falsano la misurazione”. Certamente, sono stati fatti progressi considerevoli, tuttavia è ancora legittima l’idea dell’inadeguatezza dello strumento della misurazione, essendo tuttora non sufficientemente chiara la definizione stessa di sviluppo, anche se ormai svincolato dalla crescita del PIL quale indicatore e finalmente includere altri fattori nella sfera del welfare.

Allo stato dei fatti, oggigiorno povero non è soltanto colui che vive con US $2/d. La povertà va riconsiderata in termini di crescita sostenibile e trasformazione delle economie. La sfida è enorme perché non si tratta solo di aiutare chi non ha, ma chi ha bisogno di più, entrambi non ancora ben integrati nelle comunità di cui fanno parte: i poveri non sono solo quelli che vivono in emergenza ma anche quelli (imprenditori e professionisti) che hanno bisogno di maggiore integrazione nel contesto sociale. La questione è quindi quella di disegnare un nuovo modello di finanziamento dello sviluppo per includere le azioni sul campo nel quadro logico già delineato dall’Establishment: lotta alla povertà, crescita sostenibile, sviluppo inclusivo. Non c’è dubbio che aspirazioni, obiettivi e interessi delle comunità locali, imprenditori e gruppi sociali, debbano essere incluse nel quadro logico di riferimento.

Contraddizioni e ambiguità sull’argomento in parola permangono e, a nostro avviso, il problema non è quello di nuovi cambiamenti, ma interrogarsi sul vero significato dell’inclusione finanziaria che non è il fine ma il mezzo per raggiungere lo sviluppo inclusivo, la sostenibilità degli investimenti essendo il core business. 

I Grandi Attori della Finanza hanno cambiato le Regole del Gioco ma non hanno aggiornato la Scatola degli Attrezzi. Pertanto, è un dovere dell’Establishment Finanziario dare l’esempio sul come comportarsi, cui dovrebbero allinearsi gli Executives delle banche e enti finanziari.

Nella misura in cui si è d’accordo qu quanto sopra, a nostro avviso, l’attenzione va sui punti seguenti:

  1. Rivedere la Cassetta degli Attrezzi per il conseguimento degli obiettivi concordati;
  2. Avere investitori nazionali veramente impegnati nello sviluppo delle comunità di cui fanno parte;
  3. Attenuare il ruolo dominante della finanza nell’economia e effettuare interventi sostenibili;
  4. Stabilire una vera partnership con il settore privato;
  5. Affrontare l’avversione al rischio dei capitalisti nelle attività produttive.

Per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi va aggiornato il comportamento e l’approccio basati sull’esperienza e competenza, che vanno aggiornate alla luce delle nuove condizioni del mercato e dell’ambiente. Se c’è avversione al rischio occorre conoscerne le cause e agire di conseguenza e anche condividere con gli investitori & capitalisti nazionali il processo decisionale (learning by doing): non è facile, ma le opzioni ci sono, come abbiamo scritto di recente: Inclusive Growth via Business Approach: https://ascaniograziosi.net/2019/05/05/inclusive-growth-via-business-approach-2/

Occorre passare dall’Economia basata sul credito all’Economia basata sulle collettività. Cosa significa Economia basata sulle Collettività?Di seguito alcuni punti:

1. Ridisegnare l’intera architettura a favore della povertà e delle piccole imprese e spostare il paradigma degli interventi finanziari dall’economia indebitata all’economia reale e sostenibile attraverso la creazione di posti di lavoro e promozione delle opportunità.

2. Coinvolgere realmente gli investitori privati ​​nel processo di sviluppo sia con la partecipazione al processo decisionale (Board Rooms delle agenzie di sviluppo), sia con l’istituzione di fondi di sviluppo regionali gestiti dai privati, non necessariamente con l’apporto pubblico del seed capital.

3. Utilizzare la leva finanziaria per interventi sostenibili con una revisione del processo decisionale e ripristinare i criteri della concessione del credito, riduzione della finanziarizzazione che ha prodotto affluenza virtuale e non vera ricchezza.

4. La digitalizzazione dei servizi finanziari va fatta con un prodotto sostenibile per il Fornitore, accettabile dal Consumatore e con prezzo trasparente.

5. Coniugare insieme tre obiettivi principali dell’agenda 2030 ONU, vale a dire obiettivo 1 (fine della povertà), obiettivo 8 (promuovere la crescita inclusiva e sostenibile) e obiettivo 17 (partnership). Il modello è stato descritto in altri Blogs.

Non è più accettabile che il valore delle liquidità fluttuanti in cerca di offshore sia dieci volte superiore al PIL prodotto da 188 paesi: anche una piccola percentuale di $ 80,7 trilioni (fonte Banca Mondiale) potrebbe fare la differenza se investiti nell’economia reale. È stato anche stimato che nei passati dieci anni US $ 3 trilioni sono stati reinvestiti in attività finanziarie; in altre parole, è stato massimizzato il valore di mercato delle azioni detenute dai vari stakeholders. Inoltre, secondo stime recenti il debito globale ha raggiunto 277 trilioni.

Quanto sopra sono soltanto alcune delle oltre venti contraddizioni dell’economia finanziaria che abbiamo elencato in precedenti occasioni anche in riferimento ai fatti italiani.

Recentemente abbiamo scritto: Il piano sarà approvato, ma parzialmente attuato; perché? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/il-piano-sar%25C3%25A0-approvato-ma-parzialmente-realizzato-perch%25C3%25A9-graziosi/?trackingId=l6v6v%2Bd7D5GKCnwkPtVwnw%3D%3D

Ci sia consentita una chiosa finale: abbiamo notato troppa unanimità di consensi sul nome ; siamo proprio sicuri che M. Draghi sciolga la riserva e accetti l’incarico?

(Aggiornamento). La riserva è stata sciolta ed è nato il nuovo Governo: A nostro avviso rimane l’interrogativo del perché sull’esito del Piano