IHP news 892: A new tax era of development ?
Dear Colleagues,
In case you missed our Monday morning ‘catch-up issue on the past 10 days’ (with focus on the AIDS2026 conference in Rio), see the IHP newsletter page (where you can find the ‘archive’). Today we continue with this week’s global health news. Still on the Rio conference, Mukesh Kapila’s HPW analysis is a must-read. After just three episodes, we’ve already become quite fond of his incisive take on the global health week ( in his weekly ‘Vital Signs’ column).
In this week’s issue, we also pay some attention to the start of the 5th round of negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (3-13 August, New York). In a Project Syndicate op-ed, “The Case for a Pay-Where-You-Play Tax System”, in which J Ghosh also refers to a new Global Tax Justice report, she doesn’t mince words on the stakes: “… it is worth remembering that democracy itself emerged from the struggle for fair taxation, reflected in the principle of “no taxation without representation.” For decades, multinational corporations have been shifting profits out of the countries where they are generated into accounting “nowhere” zones. This has led to widespread economic insecurity, creating fertile ground for billionaire-backed authoritarianism. The UN Tax Convention offers a different path, asserting that the shops, offices, factories, and workers that generate global profits matter. By restoring the link between where profits are made and where they are taxed, the Convention advances a modern form of taxation with representation and carries forward one of democracy’s oldest principles.”
That’s right. And so I’m not a big fan of CGD’s new blog series ‘Putting the AI Windfall to Work’. Rationale for the series: “ The AI boom could result in anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion in annual philanthropic spending over the next few years. The question is, how can this money be spent effectively?”. Together with many others, I doubt that’s “the (key) question” in this age, even if some CGD suggestions certainly make sense.
Zooming out a bit, it’s clear many Africans (and certainly young Africans) are ‘done with aid’, even if they acknowledge the current hardship of a way too abrupt transition. Maybe it’s time the “Global Health community” (including the ‘regulars’ at high-profile conferences and summits) shows equal courage, and joins the new ‘tax era of development’ unequivocally, with all that entails? I’m personally ‘done with philantropy’, at least of the indecent billion-dollar kind : ) While I agree Gates and other Bloombergs certainly aren’t part of “The Nerd Reich” (very much to their credit), the overall power (/ danger) of the billionaire class is now huge, and not just in the US (see also the quote from J Ghosh earlier). It’s time to ‘go beyond billionaires’, including in global health. There are many other good reasons for a gradual transition in the coming years away from billion-dollar philanthropy (as I sure admit many of their global health teams do valuable and great work), such as: philantropists’ outsized impact on global health’s Overton Window (clear during the pandemic eg, but which in my opinion also partly explains this relative reluctance to join the global tax justice movement more enthusiastically), their strong links with the relentless financialization of the global economy, the fact that many of them, together with other neoliberal Davos men & women, have helped to pave the way for the current billionaire-backed authoritarianism etc … But this is a personal view, as a concerned ‘global (health) citizen’ : )
I admit a lot of the ‘New Paradigm for Global Health Financing’ (by Kaberuka, Pate et al, Project Syndicate op-ed) goes in the right direction. Yet, global health big shots like them still leave making the case for the ‘new tax era’, and what it would really imply, too much to Tax Justice Network, Oxfam and other Zucmans. For example, in order to get to what they call ‘financing for GPGs, ” – their third focus in the op-ed. The fact that they label this ‘a long-term agenda’ doesn’t sound very promising either. I personally doubt we still have the luxury of a ‘long term agenda’ (see below – paragraph re planetary health)…
But let’s indeed assume that getting to global tax justice, broadly defined, at all levels will take some time (not wrong, if ever), and so, for the fun of it (still as a ‘concerned global health citizen’), while awaiting that tax nirvana, just brainstorm a bit on how the 200 billion dollar the Gates Foundation intends to spend in the coming decades already could be spent more in line with such a new ‘fit for purpose model’ in terms of inclusive governance, for example via a new Global Public Investment entity (with far more inclusive governance than currently Bill, Mark Suzman and whoever happens to be on the GF Board), plus a number of regional health entities (also with inclusive governance). My guess is that would help to tackle the current “mistrust” in the global health architecture considerably. Heck, it could be a ‘game-changer’ : ) Far greater minds can help work out the specifics of ‘how to spend 200 billion dollar by 2045 with more inclusive and transparent governance than just Bill, Mark & a few others’. And as you know I’m a generous man (on days with enough sleep, that is), in that set-up, Bill and Mark would still be allowed a few hundred million a year to play with themselves, as entrepreneurs trying to ensure ‘catalytic innovation’, ‘address market failures’ etc. : )
Enjoy your reading.
Kristof Decoster
