Date: Friday, October 11, 2013 Time: 2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m EDT approx. (18:30 – 20:00 GMT or convert time) Location: World Bank Headquarters and Online
Healthy and prosperous economies start with healthy children born to healthy women. Yet with fewer than 900 days left until the 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, the lives of millions of children and pregnant women remain in the balance. This World Bank forum will underscore the linkages between progress on maternal and child health and economic growth, with a focus on the importance of nutrition and family planning; showcase smart investments that countries are making; identify remaining gaps; and coordinate action around country and development partner commitments.
The agenda includes senior officials from the World Bank and the U.S. government; Hans Rosling, Founder of Gapminder Foundation; and two panel discussions with finance ministers and development partners. Join the conversation at @worldbankhealth or follow #WBLive.
This event has concluded. View the archive below.
Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank Group
Rajiv Shah, Administrator, USAID
Justine Greening, Secretary of State for International Development, UK Department for International Development
Hans Rosling, Director, Gapminder Foundation
Armida Alisjahbana, Minister of Economic Planning and Development, Indonesia
Sakhr Al-Wajeeh, Minister of Finance, Yemen
Ato Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development, Ethiopia
María Concepción Castro, Vice Minister, Ministry of Finance, Guatemala
Shanker Prasad Koirala, Minister of Finance, Nepal
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Minister of Finance, Nigeria
Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal, Minister of Finance, Afghanistan
8. Obviously each and every country should take MDG seriously to achieve this goal. Do you feel this is not happening? Another point is do you feel the same that MDG are related more to the masses than the classes? The reason to ask both of these questions is, many television news channels claim that health issues of masses are not taken seriously, but health issue of classes is taken seriously, by all the governments around the world, with the exception of Pulse Polio Vaccination in India. Thus, my final question is, are we not trying inclusive growth and health for all, then how will it reach the grass root level? What's the opinion of World Bank on whole this issue?
1. If a woman doesn't have to spend 4-6 hours a day hauling dirty water around on her head, how much more economically productive can she be? How much more economically productive will her country’s economy be?
2. Having single-gender sanitation facilities in schools allows girls to stay in school longer because they have the privacy they need. How much does good sanitation contribute to primary and secondary education efforts which produce more economically productive members of society?
Firstly huge thanks to Justine Greening for her £1bn commitment to the Global Fund, and to Rajiv Shah for the US pledge and commitment to host the upcoming replenishment. This matches the leadership shown by southern governments increasing their investment in the AIDS response. The three diseases place a huge strain on household incomes and economic development. And we know the interventions the Global Fund makes not only saves the lives of adults and children, but pay for themselves thanks to the economic return and averted future costs.
How will the Secretary for State for International Development and the Administrator of USAID be working together to ensure other donors make similarly ambitious and valuable investments in the health of children and economies through the Global Fund?
Has the World Bank looked into the effect, on child mortality, of healthy fathers who have good jobs to support the family? This discussion seems to be leaving out half of humanity and creating a dependence on aid money to try to fix the mess created by lack of incomes for families (women, men and children).
From the title it even appears that the World Bank sees a tradeoff between healthy children and healthy economies, that in some situations we can have more of one only if we have less of the other. Is this the case?