It is one of the world’s fastest-growing large economies, but now pays a quarter of the share it paid in 1950. To illustrate the difficulty, take India as an example. Decisions in the General Assembly on important matters require a two-thirds majority although decisions on the budget are, by tradition, made via consensus.Īs a result, very few changes have been made historically. The scale formula is in theory re-negotiated every three years, but because it’s a classic zero-sum game – if one country pays less, another country must pay more – countries are loath to open up the negotiations. The short answer is: Yes, but it isn’t easy. A voluntary funding scheme would be a violation of the letter and spirit of that treaty obligation. In addition, the treaty adopted by the United States to become a member of the UN requires that our regular budget dues to the organization be paid in full. Congress about UN funding – have documented this in their analysis. Relying on donors and taxpayers to choose their amount would undoubtedly lead to the underfunding of key priorities. Any large organization or governmental entity needs stability and predictability in its budget. government itself has an assessed funding scheme via the taxes we all pay. The programs funded through assessed budgets, such as those at the UN, tend to be more political in nature and therefore harder to quantify. Voluntarily funded organizations usually tend to have humanitarian, program-oriented missions that are more mechanical in terms of delivering products, and therefore have more quantifiable results (tons of food delivered, numbers of children vaccinated, etc.). It is inaccurate to say that voluntarily funded organizations are more effective than those that are not. Shouldn’t countries just pay whatever they want? Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective if it was all voluntary? Most countries receive additional discounts dependent on their levels of income – discounts that are made up for by the Permanent Members of the Security Council who pay a premium reflecting their privileged position of having de-facto control over creating the mandates of peacekeeping missions. It’s important to note that each country’s dues to the UN peacekeeping budget are determined through the formula for the regular budget, plus additional adjustments. That budget is known as the ‘regular budget.’” Quartz concisely summed it up, explaining: “In brief, the UN considers gross national income, population, and debt burden in determining the percentage of the total budget and each Member State must pay to fund general UN operations. A minimum floor is applied and a ceiling for Least Developed countries and the largest contributor (i.e. Then, adjustments are applied, taking account of where a country is relative to average global income per head and indebtedness. The formula starts by using a country’s share of global gross national income (GNI). It’s complicated, as processes can get when they involve nearly 200 participants at the negotiating table (see chart below).īreaking it down, each country’s contribution to the UN regular budget is based on a formula that, in theory, represents a country’s “capacity to pay.” The process, driven by Member States of the UN, is a complex, but an important one, so we’re taking a moment to answer nine common questions. Every three years, the 193 Member States of the United Nations collectively decide on a formula – known as the “scales of assessment” – that determines how much each country contributes to the UN regular budget and to peacekeeping operations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |