|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161957
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
117741
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There has been increasing consciousness among the government institutions of Bangladesh about social protections as measures to protect people from becoming trapped into poverty. The country has therefore, been conducting series of Social Safety Net Programmes (SSNPs) to implement social protections for addressing the needs of the poor and the vulnerable people. These SSNPs range from relief supports for the victims of natural disasters to health and sanitation services, microfinance for rural women, and legal services for establishing citizens' rights. However, with the absence of multilevel governance in the social, political, and economic sectors of Bangladesh, the extensity of social disparity and inequality remained persistently the same. This is an important issue for a country like Bangladesh where social disparity exists both in agency and structure in which both formal and informal political, economic, social, and cultural institutions are restricting people's participation on the basis of wealth, power, and identity. Therefore, while the social protection policies and programmes have greater resonances in Bangladesh, the poorest and the vulnerable communities have not been benefited that much yet. The paper attempts to explore the emerging need for multilevel governance for the social safety net measures in Bangladesh ranging from policy formulations to implementations in effective ways. The paper addresses governance deficits and delineates the need for multilevel governance in Bangladesh. It is argued that administering SSNPs through traditional governance approaches suffer from inefficiency and specificity, thus generate a good deal of debate regarding the sustainability and impacts of SSNPs in Bangladesh. And for some functions associated with the proper delivery of social safety net programmes in Bangladesh, multilevel governance set up is more well suited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
138561
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
An enormous proliferation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) has been explicitly evident in recent years especially due to a reaction to the slow and disruptive process of trade negotiations in the multilateral forum i.e., the World Trade Organization (WTO). These FTAs now adopt Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)-Plus provisions that include new areas of Intellectual Property (IP) rights protection and implementation of more extensive levels of IP standards beyond WTO TRIPS’s requirements, particularly in terms of elimination of options and flexibilities available under the WTO TRIPS. TRIPS-Plus provisions are conceived as stringent IP provisions aiming to harmonise global IP standards and enforce IP rights. Given the disparities and lack of progress regarding the implementation of IP protection, developed and industrial countries have pursued for stronger IP protections through entering into bilateral FTAs with the developing countries. In exchange of stronger IP protections, developed nations bilaterally offer greater market access for developing ones while the FTAs demand extensive adoption, amendment and invocation of intellectual property rights laws, institutions and enforcement mechanism. In this context, this paper attempts to analyse factors behind the adoption of TRIPS-Plus agreements and their impact on developing countries. The central research questions of this paper are: why does world community need TRIPS-Plus agreement? Does TRIPS-Plus agreement help to enforce Intellectual Property rights? Obviously opportunities like greater market access are lucrative from the developing country perspective; however, implementation of TRIPS-Plus provisions is squeezing TRIPS flexibilities available for them. Therefore, developing countries should adopt cautious measures during the negotiation phase with developed nations in order to continue to enjoy WTO TRIPS flexibilities particularly in the fields of pharmaceuticals and agriculture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|