<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><div class="gmail-meta-wrap gmail-hero-meta gmail-tipi-m-typo elements-design-1 gmail-clearfix"><div class="gmail-meta gmail-meta-no-sub"><div class="gmail-title-wrap"><h1 class="entry-title gmail-title gmail-flipboard-title">The need for a new development paradigm</h1></div></div></div> <div class="entry-content-wrap gmail-clearfix">
<div class="entry-content gmail-body-color gmail-clearfix gmail-link-color-wrap">
<p><strong><em>Francine Mestrum* – MEER</em></strong></p>
<p><em>Taking the opportunity of the upcoming UN summit meetings</em></p>
<p>‘We need to put the world back on track’! The objective of the
SDG-summit to be held at the UN General Assembly Meeting in September in
New York is very clear. Halfway on the road to 2030, the end date for
the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, the future looks
rather bleak. If nothing changes, it may well be that none of the
seventeen goals will be met. It would be a serious blow to all UN
efforts to build a world of ‘development’, economically, socially,
politically and culturally.</p>
<p>One may have serious doubts and criticism about these objectives, but
they are among the best our world has ever produced. Whatever the
perspective, from North or South, from modernity or post-colonialism,
one cannot deny the importance of teaching children to read and write,
to have all people live in good health, and to build a world without
poverty and with reduced inequalities. Our world is so immensely rich
that it is difficult to understand why this does not happen.</p>
<p>Many answers are possible. One may refer to the recent pandemic, to
bad governance, to unfair trade and terms of trade, or to the remnants
of colonialism. All this may be true though; none of these explanations
can be sufficient.</p>
<p>It cannot be denied that colonialism and the slave trade have
seriously damaged African societies. But just imagine that all the
development theories and programmes made and promised after the Second
World War and the decolonisation of the 1960s had come true, would the
world not be different today?</p>
<p>Again there are several possible explanations, such as the inadequacy
of theories and programmes, their imperfect implementation, or the lack
of political will to have them come true.</p>
<p>Just look at the numbers.</p>
<p>In 1971 the first UNCTAD list of ‘Least Developed Countries’ counted
25 extremely poor countries. In 1991 there were 52 already, until now
only 6 countries ‘graduated’ and 46 are still on the list. In other
words, there are, today, more very poor countries than fifty years ago.</p>
<p>Thirty-six of these countries are commodity-dependent and are net
providers of most ecological resources to the world market. However,
since 2010 their share of global merchandise exports remains at around
1%, according to UNCTAD.</p>
<p>As for their debt service, it more than tripled since 2011 and
absorbs 5 to 13% of the value of their exports. According to World Bank
statistics, the headcount for extreme poverty rate is now close to 10%,
amounting to more than 700 million people. Even if the Bank pleads for a
‘correcting course’, it does remain with its recommendations to ‘better
target’ and ‘promote growth’. And let us not forget that the poverty
reduction since 1981 is mainly the result of China’s efforts!</p>
<p>For the first time since the indicators were introduced, human
development is declining. The World Bank’s ‘shared prosperity’ works
backward: the poorest 40% lost income twice as high as those of the
richest 20%. There are setbacks in education and health.</p>
<p>As for inequality, Oxfam states that since 2020, the richest 1% have
captured almost two-thirds of all new wealth – nearly twice as much
money as the bottom 99% of the world’s population. Billionaire fortunes
are increasing by $2.7bn a day, even as inflation outpaces the wages of
at least 1.7 billion workers, more than the population of India. Food
and energy companies more than doubled their profits in 2022, paying out
$257bn to wealthy shareholders, while over 800 million people went to
bed hungry. Only 4 cents in every dollar of tax revenue comes from
wealth taxes, and half the world’s billionaires live in countries with
no inheritance tax on money they give to their children. A tax of up to
5% on the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires could raise $1.7
trillion a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty and fund
a global plan to end hunger.</p>
<p>Faced with all the different consequences of climate change, from
droughts to floods, more and more people are trying to migrate, only to
clash with racism and the unwillingness of rich countries to help.</p>
<p>This is the state of today’s world.</p>
<p><strong>Old truths</strong></p>
<p>Reading the old texts of the United Nations from the 1960s and 1970s,
one is surprised to read about many policies that could indeed ‘correct
course’, such as technology transfers, fair prices for commodities,
equitable terms of trade, monitoring transnational corporations,
sufficient aid, etc. A couple of specific texts such as the General
Assembly Declaration on a New International Economic order (NIEO) or the
1986 Declaration on the Right to Development are taken up again today
because they never had any beginning of implementation and do indeed
have very interesting viewpoints.</p>
<p>One can only hope these efforts will lead to policy changes because the current inequalities are simply not sustainable.</p>
<p>In a new document for a New Financial Architecture, the UN
Secretary-General states that the current model has failed the stress
test and is simply not fit for purpose, it lacks stability and
possibilities for long-term financing. Borrowing costs are too high and
there is underinvestment in global public goods. He therefore makes new
proposals for global economic governance with debt relief, international
public financing, global financial safety nets, regulatory measures for
capital markets and a global tax architecture.</p>
<p>One obviously can think this does not go far enough but we can be
sure that for the ‘Summit of the Future’, planned in 2024, many
compromises will have to be made.</p>
<p>The most important point however is the awareness that the current
model does not work and that we necessarily have to look for a new
development paradigm.</p>
<p>The UN can be an important source of inspiration with its current
work and also with its past ideas on the NIEO, the ‘unified approach’
concept (integrating economic and social development), the right to
development, the Universal Declaration on human rights with its right to
an adequate standard of living, coupled to the important progress at
the ILO (International Labour Organisation) concerning labour rights.
The recent document of the Human Rights Council on the Right to
Development, coupled with social protection can be a real and immediate
help.</p>
<p>Another source of inspiration can be found in the efforts made in the
starting years of the Soviet Union as well as the many proposals from
African leaders in the period up to decolonisation.</p>
<p>All these solutions, though, will require transforming the economic and financial structure.</p>
<p><strong>Shifting geopolitics</strong></p>
<p>The bleak outlook for the poorest countries could make us forget that
some countries did do well these past decades. The foremost example is
obviously China, but also Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico and some
others. The sad thing is that in spite of the economic success, there is
not always equal progress in democratic and social terms.</p>
<p>There is also a serious setback in terms of academic research and
civil society actions. Research on development stalled, too many people
reject the concept as being too ‘western’ or has changed track, passing
from ‘improving the world’ to ‘improving people’s lives’. There is
nothing wrong with this second perspective, but it cannot succeed if
there are no structural changes in how the world is turning around.
Development necessarily is a collective endeavour and can never become a
reality if the world itself is not ‘developed’. In fact, with its
priority for ‘poverty reduction’, introduced in 1990, the World Bank
abandoned the development project for countries and societies.</p>
<p>As for civil society, the sad reality is that only a handful of big
movements still have a global and systemic agenda, mostly also taking
into account the urgent needs of care for the planet. The huge number of
smaller movements and organisations are very fragmented, limited to
community scales and spreading a moral discourse beyond that. Vijay
Prashad calls it ‘neoliberalism from below’.</p>
<p>In brief, it seems there are three important lessons to be learned from the past.</p>
<p>One, development in terms of human rights, basic productive
activities, social protection, democracy and cultural expression remains
a worthy goal. New theories and new concepts should be developed to
revalue the idea and help countries and societies reach their goals. One
cannot deny there were real developmental aspirations in all countries
that were de-colonized in the 20th century.</p>
<p>Secondly, one should never forget development necessarily comes from
within and can never be brought from the outside. Obviously, the
international community can help, most of all financially, but
governments and societies should decide for themselves what kind of
development and what modernity they want.</p>
<p>Thirdly, there is much talk today of strategic autonomy, a concept en
vogue. This is very important, though it should never replace the old
and important interdependence. This is a primary condition for peace and
requires a well-functioning multilateral or unilateral system. The
international institutional order should be examined and transformed
from this perspective.</p>
<p>Today, there is again a huge gap between words and things, between
what the UN and even the World Bank and the IMF preach, and the reality
on the ground. This gap should be filled as much as possible. It is the
root of many discourses rejecting all kinds of modernisation and
development because people reject with good reason the practice of the
past. However, they do not reject the ideas. Colonialism and
neocolonialism have been very damaging. What is called ‘the West’,
responsible for this damage, is currently losing its global influence.
Faced with this fact, one should look at the past and at the future. It
is far from sure that hegemonic powers will disappear and there is no
certainty that the future will be better than the present and the recent
past. As for the past, recent research is teaching us that this Western
experience is nothing exceptional. For centuries, if not millennia,
people have been subdued and exploited.</p>
<p>A very positive and recent development is the growing South-South
cooperation. Even if it now lacks a clear democratic dimension, the
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) initiative could
show a different way to take into account people’s real needs and
aspirations.</p>
<p>The concept of development, however vilified it may be, still
contains an element of utopia, equality, freedom and solidarity.
Moreover, it is crystal clear that global development is perfectly
possible if there is political will, at the local and national as well
as the global level.</p>
<p>A first step should be to support all new U.N. efforts for
democratising reform and transformational policies. Moreover, the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights is 75 years old. It deserves to be
put in the spotlights. Most of all, we should stop doing ‘as if’
everything went well and we will soon be back on track. We will not be
without a strong and united voice of resistance.</p></div></div></div></div>