UK Foreign Aid & The UN SDG’s

The turn of the decade marked the beginning of the ‘Decade for Action’ – the ten-year push to achieve the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These 17 goals are a collection of interlinked goals, agreed by all 193 UN territories, that are a “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all“. These goals address the global challenges that we all face, such as poverty, inequality, gender equality, climate change, environmental degradation and peace and justice (Figure 1).

Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) y la salud global The  Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Global Health - Project - ISGLOBAL

Figure 1: The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The COVID19 pandemic has had a detrimental impact globally, wreaking havoc not just on global health, but on inequality, poverty, climate change, gender equality, education and economic development. At the recent turn of the decade, the SDGs were looking less likely to be achieved – with projections suggesting that 6% of the global population would still be living in extreme poverty by the end goal of 2030. However, following the COVD19 pandemic, this looks to be even higher, and it’s not just global poverty seeing a backwards slide in light of the pandemic. During the crisis, at least 70 countries have halted childhood vaccination programmes, and in the UK itself, health services for cancer screening, non-COVID19 infectious diseases and family planning have been severely interrupted or neglected, potentially reversing decades of improvement in public health. The impact that COVID has had, and will continue to have, on the achievement of the SDGs is astronomical, and whilst as a global community, we have tools to combat this, our response to this global challenge stems down to whether achieving a ‘sustainable future’ is in the policy agenda of our countries politicians. For the UK, the situation looks bleak.

One of the main ways in which the SDGs can be achieved within this next decade is a concentration on development aid – which is “financial aid given by governments to support the economic, environmental, social and political development of developing countries”. Development aid differs from humanitarian aid, in the sense that development aid focuses on long-term poverty alleviation, rather than short-term responses. The UK has long been one of the worlds biggest foreign aid donors, consistently being one of the only countries to commit to and achieve the UN’s target of committing 0.7% of the annual budget to expenditure on foreign aid. However, 2020 has been the year in which the UK has backtracked on its commitment to “promote sustainable development and eliminate world poverty”, with both the DFID merger with the Foreign Office back in June and now the reduction of our commitment of 0.7% of our annual budget to 0.5%. This has come in parallel to proposals to increase national defence spending, and restrict employment in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to just British nationals – limiting the talent pool in which FCDO will recruit from and drastically reducing the diverse talent pool to recruit from which is essential for a effective, impactful foreign aid strategy. This year has not only revealed our governments commitment to upholding and increasing economic inequality within the UK, but the DFID merger and cut to the foreign aid budget demonstrates a governmental commitment to increasing inequality and poverty within the global sphere. Whilst the COVID19 pandemic has had a huge impact on the reversal of some of the developments made globally towards achieving the SDGs, the cutting of the aid budget and the DFID-FCO merger will further snowball this regression in global development.

Many critics of the UK’s historic commitment to the 0.7% expenditure on foreign aid argue that we need to focus on ‘protecting our own first’, inciting nationalistic ideologies and focusing developing on a British identity rather than a global identity. However, to what extent can we say that our government is even protecting its own in light of this pandemic, when we have prioritised the protection of the middle and upper classes to the expense of the working class. Poorer areas of the UK have experienced some of the highest COVID-19 death rates and have faced higher levels of financial hardship, have experienced a disproportionate share of the COVID19 burden (which has had an even higher effect on those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds). If we were protecting our own first, disabled people would have been better protected (not just physically, but in terms of financial security too), yet disabled peoples death rates are 2-3 times higher than those of non-disabled people due to this troubling fixation with brushing this off as “well, they had underlying health conditions anyway”. If we were truly protecting our own first, we would have protected young peoples livelihoods, however, 1 in 3 young people (age 18-24) have been furloughed or lost their job (twice that of working adults overall), and many young people have been messed around by their universities, and left more vulnerable to the long-term scarring effects of early career instability and unemployment.

Part of the modern British identity, as argued by former PM David Cameron back in 2011, has also been in our commitment to help the worlds poorest, spending aid money transparently and efficiently. A vast amount of the UK’s economic growth and development has been off the back of exploitation of poorer countries – through colonialism, slavery, and the continued extraction of natural resources in poorer countries to protect our own biodiversity. So why, as a nation, are we so happy to exploit these poorer countries and their resources for our own economics needs, yet so angry at the idea of redistributing a small portion of our GDP (our military spending is 2.1% of GDP, for comparison) to foreign aid? Surely, in pursuit of ‘building back better’, as our politicians keep reminding us is the priority, we should focus on not just building ourselves back to our pre-COVID days (if that’s even a desirable end point), but the countries around the world that we have benefited from the exploitation and underdevelopment of. Whilst the COVID19 recovery is inevitably going to be an economically challenging time for the UK, especially considering the end of the Brexit transition period by the end of 2020, now is the time to strengthen our international commitments, rather than isolate ourselves even further.

Written for Kairos Europe

Jobs Are No Longer for Life; Just for Now

This isn’t another article berating Millennials or Gen Z’ers for killing capitalism by whatever means, but rather, a love letter to two generations making choices that defy the choices of the generations preceding them. There are many things that millennials and Gen Z do not have in common, such as our taste in fashion, style, music, entertainment, or pretty much, our taste in everything. I sit somewhere between the two, born in 1995, a big fan of avocado toast and coffee, but not so much a fan of Facebook.

There have been countless occasions in which the Millennial and Gen Z generations have come at a head-on collision in recent years. Many articles, vlogs, and Twitter threads outline contention points between the two generations. However, there is one thing that we do have in common: our propensity to job hop. That is, when the going gets tough (or inconvenient, or boring, or no longer interesting), we get going.

Millennials and Gen Z are spoilt for choice. Whether it comes to our love lives and our toxic relationship with dating apps, or our relationship with our careers and the professions we chose, we are always shopping for the next best thing. We have a world of knowledge at our fingertips. In contrast, our predecessors would have to go out on foot with a CV to find a new job. One quick google can tell us that the company next door is hiring for our exact same role but offering us a nice shiny pay-rise. If we want to switch industry, there is a world of free or cheap courses that can be done from the comfort of our own beds providing us with the knowledge and skills needed to enter a new industry. If the entire world is at our fingertips and all these opportunities are out there waiting for us, why would we not grab them?

With all these opportunities awaiting us, theirs been a growing concentration on developing multiple sources of income, or as it’s otherwise nicknamed on the internet, ‘hustle culture’. This hustle culture, particularly throughout the pandemic, has placed more emphasis on an individual’s economic value and productivity rather than their human value and work-life balance. Because of this, millennials and Gen Z are much more likely to have ‘side hustles’, according to a recent survey by SunTrust bank.

Millennials are both more likely to have side hustles than previous generations, and more likely to have multiple side hustles, which leads to a more significant proportion of our income coming from these side hustles. Many young people aren’t staying put because they’re juggling multiple plates, rather than depending on one income source. This defies what our parents have taught us that loyalty is rewarded in the workplace and that you need to stick at one thing and do it well.

Whilst there are many downsides to this hustle culture, such as burn out and toxic productivity, it does provide young people with the opportunity to try on multiple hats and see which one fits. Suppose my full-time job gives me the flexibility to pursue these side interests. In that case, it becomes a balancing act I can afford to pursue, allowing me both security and the opportunity to appease my curiosity of ventures anew. However, with any balancing act, there often comes a need for a shift – one side hustle takes off and demands more of your time, another becomes less profitable or interesting anymore, or you find a

Amongst the younger generations, there is also a rising demand for flexibility, with 92% of millennials identifying flexibility as a top priority whilst job hunting. Disillusioned with the idea of the restrictive 9-5 job, we want more for ourselves, and we are more switched on to how and when we are at our most productive. This could be due to the changing role of technology in our lives. With the invention and hyper-usage of smartphones, we are always switched on and available to work. If everyone is easily contactable, 24 hours a day, what is the need to be sat in the office 9-5 when a Zoom call will suffice? The pandemic’s WFH push has further highlighted how remote and flexible working is the future. This also links to our lives’ changing nature – with more women entering the workforce. Yet, the demands in home life are barely changing, women particularly need more flexibility to ‘have it all’.

However, it’s not just us that is the ‘problem’. Employers are increasingly recruiting for more short-term, temporary working arrangements, to provide them with increased flexibility that the current uncertain economic climate requires, reducing the liability on their side to provide company benefits, statutory sick pay or annual leave. This can be seen across a range of sectors, from hospitality and retail all the way to academia and consultancy.

As the world becomes more globalised, and the needs of businesses become more complex and quickly changing, there is less loyalty on the employer’s side to provide a conducive environment that warrants a younger employee to commit their life to the organisation. Simply put, Millennials and Gen Z want more than what many businesses are currently offering, and they aren’t afraid to shop around until they find it.

Commissioned for The Everyday Magazine

COVID-19 and Youth Labour Market Transitions in the UK

Whilst COVID-19 may not be perceived as a direct threat to the health of the majority of young people in the UK, it poses a direct economic impact on young people’s livelihoods; namely, their transition from school to work and the early stages of their careers. The pandemic to-date has already infected close to one million people across the world, claimed more than 2,000 deaths in the UK alone, sent stock markets crashing and sparked vast warnings that economies and businesses are heading for a deep slump. Young people in the UK are set to be the hardest hit demographic in terms of long-term economic impact, due to the impact on education systems, job loss and the consequential long-term unemployment. Sangheon Lee, head of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) argues that “Young people tend to be more affected by these crises than other age groups, so that is why we very much worry about the impact of the COVID-19[1]. Young people are disproportionately more affected by economic shock, as they’re more likely to be engaged in precarious and insecure employment, usually in the services or hospitality sector, and are more likely to be considered as disposable in the corporate chain. They are less likely to have a safety net of savings to fall back on and are neglected in government policies such as universal credit, universal basic income or unemployment benefit.

The unemployment rate in the UK for 18-24 year olds sat at 10.4% last year, compared to an overall UK unemployment rate of 3.4%. On the surface, these figures aren’t too shocking – however, employment on a zero hour contract with zero hours of work scheduled still classifies a young person as being ‘employed’, which is the situation for many young people. Young people in further and higher education are also classified as being in ‘employed’, with those engaged in some form of formal education taken out of the unemployment measurement. The working experiences of young people across the UK are shaped by diverse and complex circumstances which are inextricably interconnected, such as family background and connections, ethnicity, religion, gender and education.  We can safely assume that youth unemployment will see a drastic rise in the next six months, but current policies and protocols in place have the potential to hinder the labour market transitions of young people for years to come, particularly those from economically disadvantaged or socially marginalized backgrounds.

Whilst the cancellation of GCSEs and A Level exams was initially met with a breathe of relief from many young people across the UK, this quickly shifted to disappointment following the announcement that awards will be given off of existing predicted grades. For young people from working class or BAME backgrounds, many find they often overachieve their predicted grades due to unconscious bias. Being awarded a grade that is one or two below what you could have achieved has a serious long-term impact on young people, hindering their ability to take certain A Levels, enter into apprenticeship schemes or university of choice. In the longer-term, this hinder their chance to enter elite graduate schemes that not only base acceptance off degree classification, but A Level and GCSE achievements. Not only does this restrict upward social in certain industries, but it widens the already growing inequality between state and private educated students across the UK.

The recent announcements of the capping of university places for the 2020/2021 admission cycle was initially outlined to prevent universities recuperating financial losses by increasing student numbers[2]. However, the capping of university places and the awarding of predicted grades locks out many highly-able but underestimated students from lower income and marginalized backgrounds from entering university. The two options available to young people at this point is to either retake the following exams – at a cost they may be unable to afford, or to give up on ambitions of university and enter employment. However, with the economic recovery following this pandemic looking to go on for years to come, how will a shrinking labour market absorb the growing group of non-university entrants when they’ll be competing with graduates and well-connected young people in similar positions, seeking entry-level roles? The impact of COVID-19 will shake up the entire global economy, make us rethink about globalization and hopefully rethink our current approach to public health in the UK. It will also highlight the glaring inequalities we see not only in the poorest of countries, but in our own country here, the UK. COVID-19 is set to shift the way we think about the future of work, the nature of the workplace and what essential work means, but it will also have a deep, scarring effects on young people graduating from schools, colleges and universities into the current economic crisis, which will take years, if not decades, to fade.

Published by Kairos Europe

Fighting for Foreign Aid

The UK is one of the worlds biggest foreign aid donors, having the third largest aid budget in the world and being one of only a few countries consistently achieving the UN’s target of spending 0.7% of the annual budget (the countries gross national income) on foreign aid.

However, with the recent election of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the UK, the UK’s position as a ‘development superpower’ is at great risk. In the running of, and since the announcement of his election, there have been numerous whispers and rumours about the ways in which the UK’s foreign aid spending will be reformed.

Currently, approximately 70% of the UK’s £14 billion a year (0.7% of national income) foreign aid budget is spent by the Department for International Development (DfID), with the rest spent by various other departments, most prominently, the Department for International Trade (DIT) and the Foreign Office. On the 22nd July 2019, the now former Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox stated that the DIT will use increasing amounts of the aid budget to “help promote investment in developing countries and promote British interests”.

So, what comes of the countries who are in dire need of foreign aid, but can’t offer as desirable a return on investment as British interests would seek? What becomes of foreign aid to low-income countries such as Nepal, Tajikistan and Rwanda, who are both land-locked and resource scarce?

Nepal is an excellent example of the threat that shifting foreign aid to be more trade-focused rather than poverty focused poses.

Out of the 33 active projects funded by the UK aid budget in Nepal, only one of them has the Department of Trade (BEIS) funding it – and the project has one of the smallest budgets out of all aid-funded projects in Nepal.

For a country with little now to offer us, what hope is there for UK aid to Nepal once the new aid reforms come in, especially considering our history of scarcely rewarding the Nepalese Ghurkha for all their loyalty and support in our armed forces. Following the proposed reforms of the Department of Trade controlling even more of the aid budget, how hard will Nepal now have to fight for aid when we’ve taken all the resources we could get?

Historically, the UK’s commitment to aid has been justified on two grounds – from a moral perspective, demonstrating the UK’s commitment to help alleviate world poverty, and from a policy perspective, helping support the achievement of development milestones such as the SDG’s. However, numerous charities and agencies have warned that aid is no longer as effective and efficient as before, and taxpayers are no longer getting maximum value for money.

In a letter to the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, 23 agencies suggested that aid spending is now diverted from the worlds poor in order to promote commercial and political interests, or as the Prime Minister calls it, British interests. With the UK’s legal obligation to commit 0.7% of GDP on aid, many of those working in the humanitarian sector have raised concerns that ministers are using aid as a form of bribery, by classing politically convenient projects as aid, and ensuring the strings attached lead to increased cooperation with British industry.

The ONE Campaigns UK Real Aid Index has shown that DfID’s expenditure of the aid budget was rated highly for its focus on poverty, its effectiveness and its transparency, but the same couldn’t be said for other departments, such as the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade.

Of the aid spent outside of DfID, over 1/3 is spent in upper middle-income countries, who have very little need for UK aid.

For context, examples of upper middle-income countries are China, Azerbaijan and Russia, who all appear to be thriving off their own industries. A key example of this diversion would be the concerns raised by a committee of MPs over aid delivered under the Prosperity Fund, managed by the Foreign Office. Projects supported by this fund include extensive investment to China, including projects development the film industry and improving museum infrastructure.

Considering that the Prosperity Fund “aims to remove the barriers to economic growth and promote the economic reform and development needed to reduce poverty in partner countries”, its an interesting to choice to invest in the film industry in a upper-middle income country rather than invest in projects working with youth, health, education and disaster management in low-income countries.

In a time in which the Conservative government austerity measures, essential government departments and public services must fight furiously against budget cuts, the commitment of 0.7% of national income may be infuriating to them.

Do I think that we should maintain our 0.7% commitment, in a time where the NHS and the state education system are fighting for every penny? Absolutely. However, should we commit money to a foreign aid budget that serves those most in need, rather than for countries which would “serve the political and commercial interests of the UK”? Absolutely.

The foreign aid budget needs reform, but as one of the strongest economies in the world with a bloody history of exploiting and colonising others, we need to own up to that past and make reparations through investing in projects which offer long-term sustainability, rather than serving political interests or offering short-term solutions to ongoing issues. With the UK already facing a turbulent time ahead with a no-deal Brexit on the cards, losing its status as a ‘world leader’ in development aid threatens to weaken the UK’s standing and power on global issues.

Inarguably, we need to reform the way we do aid. Aid-scepticism is rising, and before long, we’ll be fighting about sending across 10p to a humanitarian crisis because of a distrust in where it will end up. On leaving his role as Foreign Secretary, the now Prime Minister told the Financial Times that if ‘Global Britain’ wants to achieve its full potential, then DfID must be brought back in-house to the Foreign Office, rather than operating independently.

The proposed expansion of the definition of aid from poverty reduction to include the “nations overall strategic goals” runs the risk of perpetuating the existing idea that the aid budget is used to bribe countries to be our friend. Under our current government with a Brexiteer leader and cabinet, the expansion of aid and in-housing of the budget could mean a total reduction in aid effectiveness and transparency, and an even further decline in it reaching those who need it the most.

If we want to maintain our position as a development superpower, we need to seriously reconsider the reforms currently being delivered by our government. If we’re not investing our ODA in bottoms-up approaches to poverty reduction, we aren’t using the taxpayer’s money in the most effective or impactful ways.

Published by the Welsh Centre for International Affairs

Women’s Empowerment in Transition Economies: How Has the Role of Women Changed Since the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and Central Asia?

Last Friday, we celebrated the women in our lives for International Women’s Day and credited the women around us for both their role in our own personal development and global economic development. The growth in global celebrations of this day is a fantastic testament to the steps we are making towards SDG #5: Gender Equality, and our process towards a more equal world. Women are the backbone of society, building communities, and raising the next generation of world changers leaders. Women are also multi-faceted beings, whose empowerment is pivotal in poverty reduction, community development and alleviating worldwide social and economic disparities. However, across the world still, women are systematically denied their human rights based upon their gender, giving them less decision-making power, restricted access to resources and basic services, such as money, protection from violence, healthcare and education. Women in transition economies, such as former-Yugoslav states and former-USSR states, are still disadvantaged in their day-to-day life based upon their gender, with very little relief funding aiding empowerment projects due to differing global priorities.

Following the collapse of the communist regimes in the 1990s, women’s empowerment programmes began to spring up everywhere in the region, aiming to increase women’s autonomy and political power. However, nearly thirty years on, these programmes have failed and faltered, with little continued support in empowering women’s rights and alleviating poverty. Due to this, inequality has grown in the region, poverty levels are still higher than anticipated, unemployment is rife and gender-based violence is still a common occurrence. We assume that when countries transition to more capitalistic models and enter our ‘Western-ideals’, that poverty will reduce, inequality will reduce, and women will partake more in the global economy. Whilst there has been some progress, with Croatia boasting a female President and Serbia a female Prime Minister, Eastern European and Central Asian women are still neglected in the global fight for women’s empowerment. In order for the Western Balkans to ascend to the EU, gender equality must be a vocal policy point to meet the outlined criteria, with Serbia and Montenegro both active candidates for ascension. To comprehend how exactly women have been empowered in these regions in the past thirty years, we can look at labour force participation and education attainment as vital signifiers of empowerment.

One of the leading EU priorities in enabling the ascension of the Western Balkans into the EU is the guarantees of women’s economic and social rights. Whilst the EU average employment rate for females is 65.3%, the highest female employment rate in the Western Balkans is 55%, in Albania (Lilyanova, 2018). On the other end of the spectrum, the ladies of Kosovo have only 14.6% employment rate and those from BiH have an employment rate of 32%. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung identifies the key challenges in the region are predominantly based in the labour market, with labour market insecurity for females, an increasing share of unpaid care work, gender pay and pension gaps widening as well as uneven job progress and sexual harassment and violence (Lilyanova, 2017). Women in the Western Balkans are more likely to see a wage gap in the private sector, which could be why more women are employed in the public sector in most Balkan countries. Women also do a significantly higher share of unpaid labour, such as raising children, running the household and maintaining the community, which keeps women out of the workplace. With lack of access to childcare and elderly care due to lack of financial support, this keeps women in a weaker economic position in men than women, with which can only change with either increased public spending on child and elderly care, or cultural attitudes change towards men undertaking more unpaid labour in the household (Batkovic, 2013). However, there is much hope for the next few years, with many civic groups and feminist uprising advocating and encouraging change in their local communities.

Similarly, women in former-USSR states are also protesting for change, with Marianna Grigoryan stating that “slowly, change is coming” (Grigoryan, 2015). According to the ILO, one of the main countries where women’s pay differs from what would be is expected in Russia, with women earning approximately 32.8% less than men. When considering factors that may affect this, such as education, experience and job role, they should make 11.1% more, which has led to a female labour force participation rate of 56.64%, in comparison to that of 59.28% in 1990. Women in former Soviet states also receive fewer child benefits than those in Europe, meaning they both take on a higher share of unpaid household labour than their partner, earn significantly less than their partner and are poorly compensated by the state for doing so. In Tajikistan, women’s rights are written into the constitution in a way that demonstrates ‘western values’ on paper, yet realistically these rules are scarcely applied, with a women’s rights predominantly depending on her social status (Lillis, 2015). In contrast in Georgia, women are predominantly the household’s sole breadwinner, yet men remain in decision-making roles outside their home.

According to DFID’s 2017 Report on the Western Balkans, the biggest challenge towards achieving gender equality is shifting mentalities in the community regarding traditional gender roles. Across the Balkans, women are more likely to leave education early than men, in comparison to the EU average of 12.2% of men leaving education earlier compared to 9.6% of females. Whilst there are many theories surrounding this, the leading ideologies surrounding this are due to child marriage/ pregnancy, taking up unpaid labour in the home or taking up low-paid work in the community. Serbia is the only Western Balkan state which reported women has having a higher rate of education attainment rate, with every other state having a higher male education attainment rate. Serbia has seen a significant rise in women graduating from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) disciplines, with 18.9% of every 1,000 female inhabitants graduating from STEM fields in 2016 – higher than the EU average. Females from ethnic minority groups, such as Roma groups, had the lowest education attainment of all young people in the region – due to both cultural attitudes towards educating females and ethnic discrimination in schooling. Boys are more likely to be privately educated than females in the region, demonstrating a higher monetary value placed on a boy’s education than girls. However, this is slowly changing, with Kosovan females slowly catching up to their male counterparts in the battle for private education.

Interestingly, the Soviet Union had a much better record of training women in STEM than developed countries such as the US have today (Lillis, 2015). The Soviet Union placed significant importance on the education of its citizen, which has shown a remarkable decline since the collapse of the communist regime. In the -stan countries such as Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, women’s education has significantly dropped on the political agenda due to the revival of conservative norms, leaving women in the home and men in the workplace (Turdieva & Hellborg, 2016). Rather than attending classes, women are expected to take care of the household, whilst men predominantly migrate to Russia in pursuit of work. Rising poverty levels have also reduced educational opportunities for girls, with a rise in protectionism from international trade further heightening the negative implications of poverty on girls. A lack of urbanisation in these states has also led to a decline in the provision of education to girls from rural communities, making travelling to and from school more and more expensive. Due to these constraints, families prioritize their son’s education over females, due to the idea that women are ‘temporary’ members of the family until marriage when they live with their husband’s family.

Whilst we often assume that the developed, middle to high-income countries surrounding us are on the forefront of women’s empowerment due to our own assumptions based upon our lived experience, it’s somewhat sad to see the opposite. Fly 3-4 hours outside of the UK, and a women’s access to education and paid employment seems to drop by the minute. When we talk about countries that struggle with female empowerment, at the forefront of our mind are those ‘developing’ countries based in Sub-Saharan Africa. We don’t tend to think of countries such as Montenegro or Georgia as having these issues, due to a lack of representation of these problems in the news. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, with many female campaigners and activists within these regions slowly but surely making positive changes for females in their regions. So, for this IWD, and the next ones to follow, I’ll be celebrating those women at the forefront of the fight for women’s rights in the countries surrounding me, near and far. I’ll be advocating for genuinely empowering programmes for these women, and not just service-skills training programmes set to help women make a few pounds here or there. We need to stop making women beacons of victimhood, and instead, empower them to help develop their community in a way which suits them, empowers them, and doesn’t just appeal to our western ideals of empowerment.

Works Cited
Batkovic, Z., 2013. BALKANS Evidence of Change in Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, Geneva: CARE International.
Grigoryan, M., 2015. Slowly, Change is Coming: Life for Women in the Post-Soviet World. The Guardian, 08 04.
Lillis, J., 2015. ‘We Want a Voice’: Women Fight For Their Rights in the Former-USSR. The Guardian, 08 04.
Lilyanova, V., 2017. Rights and Empowerment of Women in Western Balkans, s.l.: European Parliament.
Lilyanova, V., 2018. Women in the Western Balkans, s.l.: European Parliamentary Research Service.
Turdieva, Z. & Hellborg, M., 2016. Losing Out: Barriers to Girls’ Education in Tajikistan, s.l.: Institute for Security & Development Policy.

Published by Development Perspectives Ireland