wide eyed wonderings of the undecided
Mandelson’s trading development for economics
2 Comments
Earlier this week I had the ‘honour’ of sitting alongside Peter Mandelson in an EU Commission meeting about the (so called) Doha ‘Development’ round of WTO Trade negotiations. The meeting with representatives from ‘civil society’ was supposed to enlighten us all on the current ’state of play’ in the negotiations. Having written, read and ranted about development for so many years from an outside perspective, I was genuinely excited to see how things worked in a ‘closed meeting’.
Civil Society has always been a rather opaque term. Lying between business and government it tends to be made up of unelected groups representing various parts of the ‘general public’. NGOs, trade unions, community groups -in short, the good guys. Clearly what passes for civil society outside of my textbooks was rather different. As I mumbled and bumbled myself into the meeting I was faced with a room made up almost entirely of suited white men from all walks of… the business lobby. From Biscuit Advocacy to Chemical Manufactures, this was a wide landscape of diversity.
I cowered myself into a corner, desperately trying to avoid the perpetual one-minute networking that passes for conversation. When ‘Commissioner Mandelson’ strode (late) into the room the hubbub immediately subsided. The supremeo had entered.
Clearly dear Pete had better things to do with his time than sit around with us lot. He, word for word, stumbled through a speech clearly prepared by his assistants. In it he warned of the ‘negative popularism of protectionist measures’. He cooed lovingly about the prospects of genuine market opportunities in ravished developing countries, and the need to ensure that ‘world economic growth, above all else’ is pursued. It was in answering questions from the floor that he showed why he is such a successful politician. Carrying a library of information in his head he deftly reassured each concern raised by business about each particular article of legislation.
When an issue about worker rights raised by the church group, who like me had slipped through the net into ‘civil society’, they were skilfully and powerfully shot down. After some well placed mocking, Petey (as he is to me these days) patted us on the collective head with the invisible hand. ‘The rising tide of world economic growth will raise all ships’. Exactly, why place safegaurds about worker rights? Why place safeguards over environmental standards? We’ve got high living standards in the west, and it’s not like we had to fight for unions, democratic rights, safety standards etc during our industrialisation…. oh no wait.
It continues to amaze me, under the guise of rationality we place enormous faith in whatever ‘the market’ actually means. Trading, over not trading can lead to greater economic welfare and growth for all parties concerned. The research yields very mixed results – the direction of causality is always a problem, as is trying to control for other factors such as geographical conditions. Dani Rodrik at Harvard writes lucidly about the need for strong institutions required for trade to have a positive effect. Where strong education, health and actual civil society institutions exist, we all benefit. This entails demanding strong standards over workers rights – to toilet breaks, safety at work and enough of a wage to send kids to school, to name just a few.
Development though, will always be a power issue. When a group of white men can carve out ‘economic opportunities’ without voice from the very people who live the economic realities, you will never have development. Economics will never escape the political, and that’s why the facts of the market will never reveal the truth about the world.
A corrupting agenda
Leave a Comment
This week in Berlin the World Bank will shuffle around the EU meeting with an upturned palm asking for more funding from the EU countries. Britain, like a guilt-ridden Christmas shopper will dig deep and throw its wallet into the hands of the Bank. For those concerned with International Development, the government might just be throwing in the towel as well.
The department for International Development (DfID) is set to see a budget increase by 11% to £7.9 billion a year by 2010-11. Unfortunately whilst its budget has swelled its department has shrunk. In the name of efficiency, demanded by opposition parties DfID will have to outsource large amounts of its work and taxpayers money to unaccountable international institutions like the World Bank.
The Bank is the largest single development agency in the world and funds grants and loans for things such as health, education and infrastructure building in the developing world. Its influence however stretches well beyond mere finance. Despite being an undemocratic and unaccountable institution itself, the Bank plays a primary role in shaping the political and economic agenda in the developing world. A lot of this revolves, somewhat ironically, around its Anti-Corruption Agenda.
Corruption is central in the challenge of development. The horror stories of developing country government elites waltzing off to Swiss Banks with millions of pounds of aid money has made development and corruption inseparable in people’s minds. Corruption is a major problem, one that infects all powers throughout the world. The worry is the way in which the World Bank uses anti-corruption to demand that developing countries fit into the Banks ideology of ‘good’ governance.
The Bank defines corruption as ‘the abuse of private office for pubic gain’. Interestingly the role that private individuals and corporations play in corruption sees no mention. This betrays the Banks profound antagonism towards government. It believes that if given any chance to interfere with the ‘logic’ of the market, governments and bureaucracy will cordon off vast sums for themselves and their supporters. Their neoliberal belief that international market liberalisation with a minimal role of government is the only path to development, is inescapable.
Cynics would suggest that the Bank’s sudden focus on corruption and governance is to absolve itself of responsibility of its failures over the last fifty years. Perhaps if the Bank were really concerned about good governance it would spare a moment for introspection. Its president is selected solely by the US government, who are accountable more to its corporate paymasters than the US population. There is also a significant problem when the democratic right of a citizen in Zambia, for example, is trampled all over by World Bank policy. In the name of good governance and ‘fiscal discipline’ the Bank demanded that education and health no longer be paid out of general taxation. Instead unaccountable private companies and NGOs took over. Predictably life expectancy fell to 40 years old and infant mortality piled higher. This strikingly poor governance had nothing to do with Zambia or its citizens.
The rhetoric coming out of the Bank, and its anti-corruption agenda is one that presents development as merely a technical, economic problem. Get the prices right and the magic of the market takes care of everything. Whilst democratically regulated markets play an essential role in development the concern is that this sort of approach excludes considerations of power structures, class and ethnic divisions, historical trajectories and so on, all of which shape the successes of development.
British taxpayers, along with developing countries deserve better than having their policies taken out of their hands. International Development (or justice) is no distant, left-wing dream, there are clear policies that can help or hinder the process. It is a political process, not an economic one. Rather than letting further accountability slip from our hands we should demand DfID ignore the World Banks plea for more funding.
HIV and AIDS is not a health problem, it’s a social injustice.
Leave a Comment
Against a dramatic backdrop of an AIDS ribbon constructed from 6000 red flowers -one for every person that dies each day from AIDS-related illnesses, Stop AIDS campaigners from all over the country joined to demand that the UK Government keeps its 2005 promise of Universal Access to Treatment for HIV and AIDS by 2010.
In the lead up to World AIDS Day on December 1st, campaigners were keen to remind both politicians and the wider public that HIV is no longer a death sentence. “Unlike the 80s there are now medicines that can keep people living active and fulfilling lives. The devastating insult is that 71% of people who urgently need these drugs have no access to them. It is both a moral and economic imperative that the UK government takes action” remarked Rafi Rogans-Watson, BSMS student and MEDSIN activist.
For doctors and healthcare workers around the world this is particularly frustrating. Instead of battling against the disease they have to tackle the barriers placed by western governments, the world trade organisation and pharmaceutical lobbies, if they want to treat their patients.
Currently the producers of ARVs, such as Abbott Laboratories, who recorded a staggering $1.7bln profit in 2006, are awarded a 20-year patent by the WTO TRIPs law for their invention. This law prevents any other company from selling generic ‘copies’ of the drugs and therefore grants the inventor the monopoly power of charging whatever they like. Whilst rewarding inventors is essential for further research the current situation embodies the global inequalities that fracture the world. These large companies – backed by western governments and protected by a trade law that these same governments and companies shaped, are walking away with massive profits whist millions of people in the majority world die needlessly.
Where competition is allowed drug prices plummet and treatment becomes possible. Last year UK activists were instrumental in the effort of the Thai government to provide HIV treatment for its people. Thailand faced huge political and economic pressure from both Abbott Laboratories and the US government to withdraw its move of importing generic ARV drugs. Thanks to UK activists educating Hillary Benn about the situation and demanding he intervene, he spoke out directly in support of Thailand. This multilateral pressure proved sufficient to force US to reteat from its absurd position and 8000 people gained free access the HIV and AIDS treatment that will keep them alive.
In order to achieve the promise of Universal Access by 2010 the UK government needs to announce bold and ambitious measures in its new AIDS strategy due to be launched in spring 2008. Alongside promoting access to affordable medicines, the UK needs to strengthen health systems in developing countries and provide £2.5bln over the next three years to finance Universal Access. Without this bold and necessary action, student campaigners fear that the promise will be broken. “Unless the rate of scale up increases dramatically, less than 5 million people will be on treatment by 2010: a far cry from treatment for all.” Katy Athersuch, Student Stop AIDS Campaign Coordinator.
Campaigners were pleased but remained cautious with the speech made by Douglas Alexander. Though he reiterated his support for the cause he failed to commit to the funding levels required by the UK and failed to mention anything about generic drugs, care or support services.
Throughout the campaign young people have been at the forefront of progress and once again they will need to keep the pressure on the UK government to ensure that millions will not die needlessly.
You can take action and support international healthcare by demanding you’re MP raises the issue with Douglas Alexander and signs the EDM 183.
Blacks, don’t expect any help on a Tuesday!
Leave a Comment
THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACKS!
The other race explained by a black who knows!
“My mates tell me the reason I don’t have a black friend is because my bedroom is a bit on the messy side. Do blacks really make an issue out of that kind of thing?”
To be honest, I don’t know any black who’d be happy to be invited back to a filthy flat. Admittedly some blacks can be obsessive about cleanliness but if you really want to get lucky you’ll just have to live with that.
*********************************************
The above passage, adjusted from last Friday’s Nuts Magazine shows how quickly ‘harmless fun’ disintegrates into something more sinister when placed in a different context. From the original copy the references made to ‘women’ were changed to ‘blacks’ and ‘men’ to ‘whites’. Whilst the analogy may not be perfect the prejudices it displays remain. Nuts may be a flaccid target for critics but with almost 6000 copies a week sold in the UK it demands attention.
‘Lad’s Mags’ often attract criticism for their objectification of people. Whether objectification need be dehumanising is an important debate. However, in this example I simply question whether the attitudes on display would be deemed unacceptable in a different context.
Like racism, you will never rid society of sexism. Thankfully in the last century much progress has been made on both fronts. The common defence of such publications and the attitudes portrayed is that they are simply what the market demands. Yet, in today’s age it would be unthinkable for companies to sell their goods through a racist card. Why should it be different when dealing with an equally ignorant prejudice?
Racism entails assigning behavioural and cultural traits to the different biological ethnicities. On the basis of these imaginary characteristics a racist concludes that one ethnic group is superior to another. The above article carried a similar process of behavioural assumptions about men and women.
The shocking statistics released last month by the British Crime Survey estimated 200,000 incidents of rape and sexual abuse, of which the police recorded only 12,000 and disgracefully only 5% ended in conviction. This means that of the 200,000 cases of rape committed only 600 men end up in prison.
Too often the pervasive notions of gender prescribed the media are divorced from the visible crimes they reveal themselves in. In no way does reading Nuts amount to raping women but the complacent attitude that brushes aside offensive writing as ‘harmless fun’ does seem to exhibit itself in these far uglier forms.
Last year Anna was savagely beaten up in Notting Hill late one evening. She called the police the morning after, only to be questioned about whether she’d been drinking and what she’d done to provoke this assault. The officer rounded off the call with the news that they were unlikely to catch the man who did this to her so there was little point in proceeding. Yet, in the same area, there is no shortage of yellow Metropolitan police incident boards seeking information when men are the victims of unprovoked violence. Rather than being an isolated incident the statistics suggest cases like this are indicative of the entire system.
Returning to race, if there were numerous magazines reducing and homogenising ethnic groups to imbeciles, accompanied by evidence of intrinsic racism in the police force, there would, quite rightly be public outrage. The two things would be discussed together and wider questions about our attitudes towards race would be raised.
The dominant ideas of both women and men that pervade are ignorant and offensive. The contest to the millennia of misogyny has only just begun. If progress is to be made we must challenge ourselves to make a stand and demand debate about these issues.
Tags: feminism, gender, lad's mags, media, men, nuts magazine, police, pornography, racism, rape, sexism, women
what is left, right and wrong?
1 Comment
“I’m all for social justice but there’s nothing wrong with economic prosperity, nothing wrong at all”
I found this quote strangely fascinating, it seemed to contain just about everything. I reckon the two key terms, ’social justice’ juxtapositioned against ‘economic prosperity’ hold the roots of the hazy labels left and right.
Starting with social justice. The word ’social’ puts us into the collective, public realm. The public realm, as I’ve suggested before, consists of public goods – environment, law and order, schools, hospitals and the like. Justice, in this context, I’d suggest implies an equality of access and treatment within this public realm.
Economic prosperity, when positioned as it is here against social justice has the key difference of belonging to the individual realm. It implies an individual accumulation of economic assets to a level of abundance.
Broadly, and this does involve a bit of a jump, these two terms can be polarised into ‘left’ and ‘right’. The left would stress the importance of social justice as the foundations and primary aim of society, with economic prosperity as a bi-product. Whereas the right would argue the need for individual economic prosperity as the primary motivation for society, which will result in the most socially just outcome.
The two are of course irredeemably linked, and the debate will rest upon where we should lie in between these dichotomies.
I’d suggest that now, perhaps we’ve gone too far: to the point where economic prosperity is inhibiting social justice. These are only a few examples: a key public good, clean environment is being threatened by the pursuit for further economic prosperity of certain businesses and industries. The affordability of houses, in the UK, is being pushed beyond the reach of much of the public because conditions lie in favour of those few emassing great prosperity. Perhaps most alarming, equality under the law is being challenged. A fraud investigation envolving BAE systems arms dealings with Saudi Arabia (a dictatorship with an appalling human rights record) was blocked by the British government, and so to ensure the economic prospetity of a company, the law was not upheld.
Its all a matter of opinion of course, but I think its vital that our political debates remain here rather then getting clouded by issues such as immigration, religion, so-called morality and the celebrity status of politicians.
