Sources : World Bank, Social Indicators of Development,
1994, Washington D.C., A. Boltho, Growth, income distribution and
household welfare in the industrialized countries since the first oil
shock, Economic Paper Series No. 26, International Child
Development Centre, UNICEF, Florence, 1992 and P. Townsend, The
International Analysis of Poverty, Hemel Hempstead,
Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1993.
One of the most striking consequences of the transformations of the
1980s has been the emergence, throughout the world, of dual societies
where great wealth rubs up against the most abject poverty. This evolution
has resulted in a sort of interpenetration of the notions of North and
South, which have, for some time now, ceased to refer to strictly
delimited geographical areas. The ghettos of American cities and the
suburbs of European metropolises, all with large numbers of immigrants,
are afflicted with high rates of unemployment and functional illiteracy,
and thus constitute islands of the «South» in the heart of the «North.»
Likewise, the narrow strata of the privileged that one sees in many cities
of the South, whose standard of living compares with that of their
counterparts in the rich countries, forms an archipelago of the North in
the middle of the mass misery of the South.
- The world crisis is social
This globalization of the
social crisis that has accompanied the globalization of the economy seems
to have caught neo-classical economists off guard, convinced as they were
that a return to economic growth and resultant large-scale job creation
would keep social deterioration in check. But though the majority of
industrialized countries, as well as a significant number of developing
countries, have experienced economic growth in the past few years, growth
now seems incapable of attenuating social problems or braking the spread
of poverty. The increasingly social character of the global crisis, even
with the return to economic growth, shows that there is no automatic link
between the latter and the solution of social problems.
The exhumation by the neo-conservatives of the concept of «trickle
down,» that was in such vogue during the 1960s, has revealed yet once more
its illusory character. High economic growth has not engendered any more
trickle down effect on the lower classes today than it did three decades
ago. Liberal reformers at the time had concluded that only an active
social policy could bring about the redistribution of the fruits of
economic growth. Such a realization seems ever more indispensable today,
as exclusion and poverty have reached such high levels throughout the
world that they can no longer be considered as simply accidental or
residual phenomena. On the contrary, they appear more and more to be a
consequence of the manner in which the economic and political structure of
the world currently functions. Contemporary reality shows that development
involves more than simple economic growth, however necessary that may be,
and that growth on its own cannot cure the planet of the many ills it
suffers 10.
Such an observation has important implications. Both the generalization
of the social crisis and the social character of the global crisis gives a
whole new meaning today to the expression distorted development. Is the
increasingly pronounced dualization of societies - which has plunged a
number of them into a state of anomy - due to the fact that, as Riccardo
Petrella 11 puts it,
«the economy seems to have increasingly lost any sense of purpose»? In any
case, it is more pertinent than ever to call into question the predominant
models of development, as experience has proven that they are at the root
of the exclusion that afflicts a growing portion of the world's
population.
- Exploitation and exclusion
The concept of exclusion
has come into ever greater use with the deepening of the social crisis.
Contrary to what occurred during the Industrial Revolution of the last
century, the rich now have less and less need for the labour power of the
poor. Exclusion seems to have replaced exploitation as the primary cause
of poverty. The technological revolution of the past few decades - which
has made knowledge an essential «raw material» for employment in new
industries and has partially freed industry from its dependence on basic
commodities - has brought about a twin movement toward social polarization
and marginalization of disadvantaged individuals.
On a world scale, the less developed countries (LDCs) occupy an
increasingly marginal place in the production of wealth and in global
trade networks, and their marginalized position in the world economy has
accelerated the process of pauperization of their peoples. At the current
time, as Ajit Bhalla and Frédéric Lapeyre point out, globalization profits
those countries that are prepared for it and marginalizes the others. In
each country, unqualified job seekers are relegated to the margins of the
work force; it is this exclusion from regular, salaried employment that
constitutes the principle cause of their loss of social status and means
of existence. Record rates of unemployment and underemployment in all
parts of the globe give an idea as to the scale of social exclusion in the
world today.
The two phenomena of exploitation and exclusion are not, however,
totally independent of one another. Can one say, as does Philippe Van
Parijs, that the successes obtained by European welfare states and trade
unions in the struggle against exploitation rendered exclusion the
predominant form of social injustice? The increase in the number of the
excluded, who live on the margins of mainstream society, tends to confirm
this hypothesis. On the other hand, the spread of exclusion throughout the
world has contributed to a reinforcement of exploitation, witness the
sheer number of job seekers on the labour market.
These questions regarding the respective importance of the two
phenomena are not a matter of a simple quarrel among specialists. The
response one gives to them generates policies that assign priority either
to the struggle against exploitation or the battle against exclusion. This
dilemma - and it is indeed a dilemma, according to Van Parijs - is far
from being settled. One can measure the effects of this by the liveliness
of the debates, both in Europe and else-where, as to whether or not
priority should be given to increasing salaries or creating
employment.
Formally, at least, the battle against the ever increasing scourge of
exclusion has become the official priority of states. The holding of the
Copenhagen summit, which has made exclusion its principle theme, is a sign
of this. The reality that this now commonly-used term covers - which is
sometimes used in place of poverty - remains somewhat vague, however. The
participants at the Roskilde symposium attempted to identify just what is
meant by exclusion, in order to outline better solutions that deal not
only with the symptoms but also the root causes of the phenomenon.
- Exclusion: a many-faceted phenomenon
What precisely
does exclusion mean? Who is excluded? And why? How does this concept
differ from that of poverty? Does exclusion refer to a problem in the
distribution of wealth or a loosening in the ties that bind society
together? These are some questions that will be addressed before we take
on the issue of possible remedies to this planetary affliction 12.
In the first place, and as Ajit Bhalla and Frédéric Lapeyre have noted,
the concept of social exclusion - which generally comes within the domain
of sociology, whereas studies of poverty are usually taken up by
economists - was born in Europe. This is to be explained by the sharp
increase in the number of poor, whose numbers in the twelve countries of
the EEC (prior to 1994) went from 38 million in 1975 to 53 million in
1992. If the concept has indeed become internationalized, it nonetheless
encompasses several different syndromes.
Bhalla and Lapeyre identify three principle dimensions of exclusion.
Its economic dimension is a direct producer of poverty: the excluded are,
in the first place, the unemployed who find themselves entirely eliminated
from the labour market and thus deprived of a regular income. Outside the
sphere of salaried employment, the economically excluded are those persons
or groups who are deprived of access to assets such as property or credit.
Exclusion is also social: unemployment not only deprives one of an
income but also of his status in society. He is thus denied all social
existence, which in most societies is directly linked to the holding of a
job. As a result, the individual may lose his sense of personal dignity.
Exclusion also represents, as Jacques Charmes has put it, the loss of an
individual's links to mainstream society, which leads to the fraying of
the social fabric and the eventual forging of solidarity ties with
religious fundamentalist or mafia-type networks. In African societies, the
ORSTOM researchers emphasize, the loss of social relations is seen as a
much worse calamity than the reduction or loss of income.
Finally, exclusion takes on a political character when certain
categories of the population - such as women, ethnic and religious
minorities, or migrants - are deprived of part or all of their political
and human rights.
These three dimensions manifest themselves in varying ways and
depending on the social formation in question. Peoples, groups, or
individuals may be pushed out of the productive sphere because they have
been excluded from the environment that gives one access to it, having
been deprived of education or medical care. Entire portions of a society
may be excluded from the enjoyment of effective citizenship and, a
fortiori, from participation in those areas where decisions are
taken.
Trevor Hancock has endowed the concept of exclusion with a fourth and
temporal dimension. Non-lasting modes of development, by compromising the
survival of future generations, excludes them from the benefits of
feasible, durable development. In bringing about exclusion today, the
dominant economic logic is laying the groundwork for exclusion tomorrow.
But is the concept relevant in social formations where those who would
be considered excluded in the North in fact make up the majority of the
population? As Mahdi Elmandjra has asked, how should the issue of
exclusion be taken on when the social norm is dictated by a minority in
society? In such a case, is it reasonable to speak of the majority of the
population as an excluded category? Should not one, on the contrary, ask
questions as to the inclusion in society of minorities living a Western
life style? Assuming that the term is relevant in all places, exclusion
conjures up the word «integration» more than it does «poverty.» Though
exclusion and poverty often intersect, they are not synonymous terms and
the latter deserves to be clarified.
Poverty is also a complex
notion. It is indeed the consequence of insufficient income that prevents
the poor from satisfying their basic needs and deprives them of access to
a certain number of services such as health care and education. As
Figueiredo, Lachaud, and Rodgers remind us, poverty is intimately linked
to the condition of the labour market 13. One must
also distinguish the two faces of work-related poverty: that which ensues
from exploitation within the labour market, of the nature of the work
itself, and the income it generates; and that which is linked to exclusion
from the labour market, i.e. unemployment, whether declared or not.
Poverty is one of the factors contributing to exclusion but does not
necessarily bring it about. In a number of countries in the South, as an
ORSTOM report emphasizes, «the poor remain incorporated within family and
extra-family networks of social protection and mutual assistance,» and
that «this incorporation produces integration and not exclusion.» 14. In a
number of countries the rupture of community and family-based solidarity
networks is an important factor pushing individuals below what is commonly
referred to as the poverty line. This is the case in the United States,
and in a number of countries in Latin America and the Maghreb, where
single-parent families headed by women are among the poorest. Poverty is
also a consequence of a series of political and social exclusions. For
example, discrimination based on gender or membership in a minority group
increases the risks of poverty for a marginalized category of the
population.
Finally, it refers to a series of notions that are by nature
subjective, such as need, inequality, or privation. As Bhalla and Lapeyre
insist, such notions cannot be evaluated in simple material terms.
Society's perception of poverty, for example, is not the same in a poor
country as in a rich one. Is it possible to settle the issue by defining a
minimum income below which an individual will be regarded as poor?
If an analysis of poverty and the policies designed to combat it may be
based on obvious facts such as its close relationship with income levels,
the market, or the nature of work, it thus appears equally obvious that
different categories of the poor do not require the same treatment in
order to improve their condition.
The complexity of reality
poses the all-important question as to the choice of indicators capable of
apprehending and measuring phenomena that do not boil down to their
material dimension. How much weight should be assigned to qualitative
evaluation and how much to quantification? Put another way, how should
measurement and evaluation be balanced? This represents a strategic area
for research, insofar as indicators have a normative and determining value
for policy. Those who judge the state of world according to the
fluctuations of the stock market and interest rates do not see it the same
way as those who judge it by the health of its population or environmental
costs of economic growth.
But quantitative and purely economic indicators such as GNP whose
inadequacy has been abundantly criticized for a number of years now, die
hard and have only been partially unseated by more precise evaluations of
the state of a society. The indicator of human development elaborated by
the UNDP - which attempts, among other things, to correct the rigidity of
GNP in emphasizing purchasing power parities in its calculation of real
income - is one of the efforts made at perfecting the analysis in
question. But it is deemed too reductionist by numerous researchers, who
criticize the use of an artificial indicator in order to comprehend a
complex reality.
For example, what is the best manner in which to measure the incidence
of poverty? The Inter-American Development Bank has attempted in a recent
study to define the dimensions of the problem in Latin America 15. What
criteria of well-being should be adopted to define poverty, disposable
income, social income - i.e., access to basic services such as health
care, education, drinking water, etc. -and indicators of the quality of
life, to name a few? Who exactly is poor and what is the extent of the
scale of poverty among those poor? Limiting the analysis to the poverty
line may make it so that the number of poor varies greatly, which may have
a direct impact on the amount of public resources consecrated to fighting
poverty.
In point of fact, what is measured implicitly anticipates the policy
framework that is eventually put in place. It is therefore necessary, as
Ignacy Sachs advocates, to decide on the objective before selecting a
method of measurement and evaluation. The preliminary questions as to the
choice of any indicator should be: «What development, for whom and within
what institutional structures? What place should having and being have in
them?» 16 If the
social aspect of development becomes a priority for policy - thus
reversing the drift toward the economism of recent decades -, social
accounting will have to take the place of the economic accounting that
currently guides development strategies. Indicators that allow one to work
toward a development centred on human beings should, to use Sachs's
expression, open the way for the construction of an «anthropological
economy», far removed from today's «quantitative economy».
The clarification of the concepts one uses is thus of primary
importance. It constitutes a prior condition for the definition of
priorities, courses of action, and actors to be implicated in social
development policy. If the symposium participants engaged in a rigorous
exploration of the notions of poverty and exclusion, they did not,
however, extend their investigation to other terms that are also
omnipresent in social science discourse. One may also regret, along with
Barbara Harrell-Bond, that they frequently invoked the concept of civil
society, without, however, attempting to define its contours. Can civil
society be understood simply as the increasingly dense galaxy of
non-governmental organizations? Do these organizations - which have not
been adequately analyzed - constitute the ultimate expression of civil
society? Turning to another question, the concept of modernity - which
Laura Balbo sees as the horizon for new sociological thinking - would also
benefit from greater analysis, so as to avoid misunder-standings that
arise from its all too frequent utilization.
It is nonetheless the case that poverty and exclusion are the principle
manifestations of the social crisis that we have attempted to analyze
here.
Factors and manifestations of the social
crisis
- The dictatorship of the economy
The official health of
a country is measured by its economic indicators: GNP, balance of
payments, budget deficit, exports, market shares, and so on. As one knows,
these sorts of indicators are the only variables taken into account for
judging the progress of nations. More seriously yet, the economy - i.e.,
the art of administering the household, or the City, according to the
Ancients - is nowadays reduced to only one of its dimensions: the market.
This deviation in economic analysis may be illustrated, according to
researchers at the IUED 17 by an
«approach toward the merchant economy rather than a general approach
toward the problems of economies». This lacuna is aggravated «by a
frequent inversion of priorities between means and objectives, which makes
the survival of an economic system an end in itself, whereas it can only
be justified insofar as it is an instrument satisfying the needs of
people». Dominant economic thought is concerned only with numbers and
hardly at all with human beings; Richard Knight summed it up by observing
that «though economists may know the price of something they don't know
the value of anything.»
This dictatorship of the economy has reached the point of caricature
with the implementation, since the beginning of the 1980s, of structural
adjustment programmes in developing countries with heavy burdens of
external debt. Their one and only goal being the restoration of financial
equilibrium in the concerned states, these structural adjustment
programmes have, in almost all analyses carried out up to now, resulted in
a deterioration of the social situation of the most vulnerable sectors of
the population in these countries. These programmes have been accompanied
by a reduction in the portion of wages as a percentage of national income,
an increase in inequality, decreasing job security, a rise in
unemployment, and the disengagement of the state from the social sector;
as the Inter-American Development Bank has observed, structural adjustment
has sacrificed social progress in favour of financial equilibrium. Almost
every Latin American country experienced a drop in per capita GNP in the
course of the 1980s. In sub-Saharan Africa per capita public spending
declined during this period in two-thirds of the nineteen countries for
which data is available 18.
Governmental officials and financial backers do not hesitate, however, to
speak of an improvement in those countries where social problems have
become worse. Structural adjustment programmes have, in fact, quickly
ceased being a simple ensemble of measures designed to restore a minimum
of financial discipline in the indebted countries. They have been rapidly
transformed into instruments of macro- economic policy whose objective is
to make the entire planet submit to the dominant economic norm.
Sixto Roxas, in telling the story of this deviation, feels that since
the nineteenth century Western civilization has made the market and its
self-regulating capacity the basis for democracy, the liberal state itself
being the creation of this market. The key to this system, which was at
one time called into question with the development of the Keynesian
welfare state, resides in the assertion that the laws which govern the
market are of the same order as the universal laws of physics. It is
therefore to be understood that a major characteristic of dominant
economic thinking is that it considers itself to be scientifically based
and universally valid. This gives it, in the words of Ignacy Sachs, «an
ahistoric and atopic character 19.» One must
attempt to understand, says Roxas, why the market has progressively
occupied the totality of the economic terrain and how an economic theory
has been able to transform itself into a dominant ideology. Such is the
case today. Thanks to a powerful network structured by international
financial institutions, and those issuing from Bretton Woods in
particular, the dominant economic order is in the process of establishing
a global hegemony of such omnipotence that one may truly speak of our
epoch as the civilization of the market, or of enterprise.
The result of such an evolution is that, in Petrella's words,
competitiveness «is no longer a means; it has become the prime objective
not just of enterprises but also of the state and society as a whole 20.» But when
the survival of a group, state, or society is supposed to be subject to
competitiveness, the world enters into a logic of war, as the Other - the
competitor - becomes a source of danger. Petrella agrees with Roxas in
asserting that private enterprise is in the process of shaping the values
of our times by fixing the rules of the game, not only for itself but also
for the state and the whole of society. The constraint of the dominant
economism is now such that states are enjoined to run themselves like
private firms, whereas the latter take on an increasing number of
prerogatives that were once in the exclusive domain of the state.
Basic to such logic is that the gains in productivity resulting from
technological innovation are regarded as progress, and that employment
does not have the status as a key variable in development strategies.
Worsening unemployment is thus the price that has to be paid for
increasing competitiveness, which is seen as the precondition for
collective survival. As long as the dynamic of unemployment is not
replaced by a dynamic of employment, the link between production and
labour will become even looser. The economy will thus, as Sachs maintains,
continue to produce more exclusion.
The social crisis, which has now become the norm, is thus due in large
part to the fact that «development strategies proposed and followed up to
now are defined essentially in economic terms and hardly give any thought
to their consequences, either on the nature of social relations or on the
general viability of the societies that they affect 21.»
Disregarding the plural nature of humanity, the pensée unique
thus promotes the fiction of a single, global society that is liable to be
driven toward progress by submitting itself to a single model. In this
vision of the world, crises in the model are little more than chance
mishaps.
The Western European welfare
state took on a certain regulatory mission at its inception and which was
perfected over time. This is now under assault from both globalization and
the dictatorship of the market. In the course of this century Europe
created two forms of the welfare state. The first developed in the
authoritarian frame-work of the Eastern bloc dictatorships and which broke
down with the collapse of communism. The second, which took root in the
democratic part of the continent and under the leadership of social
democracy, is now revealing its limits and showing obvious signs of
exhaustion. The Keynesian welfare state was born out of the contention
that the market could not be the economy's sole regulatory mechanism.
Based on a minimum of societal consensus that was hammered out following
decades of working class struggle, as Henri Rattner reminded us in order
to emphasize the fact that social progress has always had to be fought
for, the welfare state's mission has been to redistribute more equitably
the fruits of economic growth. The welfare state has long been able to
confine the operation of the market within well defined parameters,
through legislation, taxation, public spending, and in instituting a mixed
economy in which the state has often played a leading role. It is thus
logical that the welfare state should be going through rocky times, given
the current supremacy of the market over the ensemble of economic,
political, and social actors.
But what are the real causes of its present malady? Is this due to the
fact that, as Bent Greve and Louis Emmerij advance, the Keynesian model of
the welfare state is based on full employment? Is it the victim of the
very institutions it created, which have engendered oversized
bureaucracies and an excessive centralization of decision-making? The
economic crisis, which has diminished public resources and tax receipts
across Europe, and the privatization of large portions of public sectors
under the pressure of the market, have in any case posed in brutal fashion
the problem of how the welfare state is now to be financed. Less well
endowed and more spendthrift than in the past, the state has proved to be
incapable of financing the social equity that it has long enjoined itself
to do. This has, among other things, caused it to lose the legitimacy that
its regulatory function has conferred upon it.
The most spectacular consequence of this exhaustion throughout the
industrialized world is the cutting back of social programmes and the rise
of insecurity. Some observers indeed do not hesitate to see in these
phenomena the signs of a rupture in the social contract upon which the
modern development of European societies has been based. The European
welfare state is certainly not dead, nor have the factors that brought it
into being disappeared. But it is now caught between the cross pressures
of globalization, on the one hand, and the emergence of new regional and
local dynamics - themselves the fruit of globalization -, on the other. It
is between these two frontiers that the welfare state must henceforth
restore its prerogatives and freedom of action.
The welfare state will have to redefine its role and attributes. If
this exercise seems achievable in the older, industrialized countries, it
is considerably less certain in the countries of the South where veritable
welfare states have never existed. As Mahdi Elmandjra points out,
state-building in the South is a relatively recent phenomenon and is far
from being completed; these states thus possess neither the structures nor
the resources that could permit them to insure a sufficient level of
social protection. The weakness or absence al-together of social policy in
the South may thus be explained by the embryonic character of
state-building in that part of the world. This is aggravated, as ORSTOM
reminds us, by the privatization of state functions, which results in
forms of regulation that are «clientelistic, rentier, and repressive» in
character. Such traits are prevalent in the countries of the South. On the
other hand, and as has already been mentioned, traditional solidarity ties
do in part make up for this absence of the state. But traditional
structures are also subject to the multiple shock effects of
modernization, which reduces their efficacy, when it does not lead to
their outright disappearance.
The crisis in the South is thus not one of the welfare state. But this
does not mean that it is any less serious. In many countries of the South,
as Jorge Wilheim notes, the state is in the process of disintegration. He
attributes the proliferation of NGOs to this decay of the state, as they
constitute a partial response to the increasingly flagrant absence of
public authority. The latter, given its lack of means in many countries,
no longer carries out the regulatory and «stately» tasks that
theoretically constitute the essence of its mission.
The question as to how one defines the role and functions of the state
is thus not of the same order in the countries of the North and the South.
Can the latter embark on the road to a society that takes charge of its
destiny by skipping over the stage of the welfare state? Mahdi Elmandjra
does not think so, considering that in the absence of an institutional
network capable of promoting social progress, the LDC's will require the
active intervention of the state, whose legitimacy will have to be based
on reconstruction with the establishment of democracy. An impossible
wager? Not necessarily, deems Ignacy Sachs, for whom welfare-type states
can be built in the South at much less cost than their full-fledged
counterparts in the industrialized world, insofar as the low cost of
labour may also constitute a comparative advantage in the area of social
programmes. The experiences of countries such as China, Cuba, and Sri
Lanka have shown that relatively modest levels of investment can produce
spectacular results in the social domain. Sachs thus reckons that one may
invest efficiently in health care and education without a massive transfer
of funds from the North to the South.
One may nonetheless deplore, as does Jorge Wilheim, the fact that the
scholars and specialists at the Roskilde symposium spent little time
exploring the question of democracy in the South, giving priority instead
to the search for new ways in which to dynamize the welfare state in the
North and better enable society to take control of its destiny.
If nothing is done to limit the deviant drift of the market and find
new forms of regulation, one runs the very real risk of seeing - in both
the North and the South - the proliferation of «two-speed» societies, as
well as the generalization of a sort of social apartheid which is already
the lot of numerous countries in the South.
It is in the large cities
that this «apartheid» is the most visible today, where it arises out of a
spatial segregation that creates veritable borders inside urban areas.
Poverty is becoming an increasingly urban phenomenon. It was estimated in
1990 that 600 million of the 1.4 billion city-dwellers of the South were
living in conditions that directly threatened their health and survival.
Half of the poor in Latin America today live in cities, estimates the
Inter-American Development Bank. The poor sections of cities throughout
the world - in the rich countries: suburbs or inner cities neglected by
the public authorities and populated mainly by foreigners or ethnic
minorities; in the LCD's: shantytowns devoid of infrastructure and
inhabited by recent rural migrants, who often make up a major part of the
urban population in these countries - are living proof that distorted
development has become a global phenomenon.
But urbanization has continued apace and at an accelerated rhythm. In
the year 2000, a full half of humanity, i.e. 3.2 billion persons, will
live in cities. In the period 1980-2000, the number of city-dwellers in
the South will have doubled, going from one to two billion. A second
doubling will come about in the 25 years to follow, which will bring the
total number to four billion 22.
Though the number of rural poor has not diminished and misery remains
the lot of the majority of those living in the countryside in much of the
world, particularly in the Sahel and South Asia, the social crisis today
is increasingly urban in character. The urbanization of poverty ranks
among the principle factors of social and political instability in the
world. This is the reason why a world summit centring on cities will be
organized by the United Nations in 1996. In order that it yield concrete
results, it will have to tackle the many roots of urban poverty.
The manifestations of the global social crisis, as we have seen, are
now too numerous to ignore. To do away with exclusion and attempt to
construct more socially cohesive societies is nonetheless a vast
undertaking and whose implementation will necessitate a profound change in
the economic and political logic that have brought about the current
situation.
From social exclusion to social
cohesion
- Some conditions for change
In the view of increasing
numbers of researchers, the economistic drift, the supremacy of exchange
value over the notion of use value, the running of the planet according to
the sole criterion of the profitability of enterprises, and the extension
of the cash nexus to the ensemble of human activity are in the process of
pushing humanity into an impasse. The IUED's report reminds us that the
imposition of the market as the sole and indisputable reference for
development policies has led to a disregard of collective needs not linked
to the market, the waste of finite resources, and the exclusion from the
benefits of growth of a larger and larger portion of the world's
population.
The calling into question of economism and the return to a holistic
conception of development - which breaks with the excessive
sectoralization that has prevailed over the decades - thus appears as a
precondition for any enterprise wishing to base change on the primacy of
social policy. This demarch is also a matter of principle insists Alberto
Tarozzi, who notes that neo-classical liberalism is characterized by the
will to deprive social regulation of any moral basis; to assert the demand
for a social development that includes everyone consists of conferring an
ethical dimension upon the concept of development.
It is in fact essential, as Ignacy Sachs asserts, to endow meaning on
this durable development - of which so much has been said since the Rio
Earth Summit in June 1992 - and to recall that it is a multidimensional
concept which can only be realized through an approach «where the social
is in control, the ecological is an accepted constraint and the economic
is reduced to its instrumental role 23.» This new
value system, in which economic efficiency would cease to be measured
according the sole criterion of the profitability of enterprises and
instead according to the satisfaction of social needs, is the only one,
according to Sachs, that is capable of being universally operational while
at the same time respecting the diversity of humanity.
If one were to put an end to the hegemonic status of dominant economic
thinking - where LCD's are expected to mimic the experiences of the
industrialized countries - and give primacy to social policy, it would
become possible for development strategies to take into account the twin
character of the human condition, which is both universal and - depending
on the country and culture - specific in nature. The principle of
universality would, to use Mahdi Elmandjra's expression, finally cease
being synonymous with Western ethnocentrism, which has unilaterally
decided to endow its model with universal value.
It is not possible to ensure the primacy of the social side of
development without reference to politics. The continued aggravation of
inequality illustrates, in effect, the political dimension of the social
issue and demolishes the myth of the neutrality of the state, which,
according to the nature of the policies carried out and power
relationships in the system, may be either an agent for integration or a
force for exclusion. But the ability of the state to engender exclusion
has been reinforced in recent years by its near wholesale adoption of
neo-classical economic policies, whose one and only goal is to create a
favourable environment for the flourishing of free enterprise.
There are two political aspects to the social issue. As Henrique
Rattner emphasizes, it poses the problem as to the legitimacy of policies
that have led to a cutting back of the welfare state in Europe, as well as
of the struggles that various societal categories have led in order to
have their rights recognized. The social issue also impinges on politics,
according to the IUED's report, insofar as all processes of ordering a
society's priorities is political by its very nature, as it must take into
account conflicting interests between different groups and social classes.
The elaboration of a development strategy that accords primacy to social
policy must therefore be accompanied by the building of a political and
social base, which is essential in order for the strategy to be carried
out.
The rejection of the dictatorship of economism will lead the world into
adopting a different economic logic. The certainty according to which the
market economy must be considered as the norm for scientifically rational
decision-making will be succeeded by a holistic conception of development
from which the political dimension will not be able to be excluded. The
logic of short-run thinking, upon which the search for profits is based,
will be succeeded by the notion of a societal project implying long-term
reflection as to the ultimate aims of development. The idea according to
which the general interest is simply the sum total of particularistic
interests, which can be satisfied by the play of market forces, will be
replaced by both an analysis of possible ways to meet the aspirations of
different social categories and the translation of choices decided upon
into priorities for action.
This ambitious programme poses the question as to the modalities of
change as much as it does that of ultimate aims. The scholars and
specialists gathered at Roskilde were in agreement that the debate over
means is as important as the identification of ends.
How does one go from a logic of
economic growth to a logic of social development? Here is a vast area open
to reflection and action. Adopting more ecologically sensitive life
styles, redefining the role of the state, strengthening the ties that bind
society together in order to bring about lasting social cohesion, giving
new meaning to democracy: these are the principle paths toward the sort of
change capable of rendering to humanity - at the end of the shortest
transition period possible - a more livable world.
Here again, the simplicity of
the formulation somewhat obscures the complexity of the problems that this
objective implies. How does a way of life, which cannot be reduced to mere
consumption patterns, evolve? What are its determinants? What are, as Bent
Greve asked, the possible material and symbolic motivations capable of
inciting a given society to change its way of life? What are the links
between ways of life and exclusion? Some ways of life, as one knows, bring
about exclusion whereas others, such as survival strategies by society's
poorest, are its consequence. What are the obstacles that are sufficiently
formidable so as to hinder progress?
Regardless of how one answers these questions the case remains that
change in ways of life is at the heart of the problem of durable
development. This change poses the crucial problem of the forging of a new
relationship between the North and South that is based on the recognition
of planetary solidarity. It is, in the first place, a matter of sharing in
a less unequal manner the use of finite natural resources and the fruits
of global growth, which one now knows will be slower than in the past and
more constrained by ecological considerations. If one takes as a starting
point the hypothesis, which is taken up by Louis Emmerij, that growth in
consumption by the poorest is a condition of their well-being, should one
henceforth set aside for them the benefits of growth?
Is the latter idea even compatible with the notion of durable
development? No, replies Nick Meyer, for whom the available ecological
space can no longer produce growth for all and must be reserved for the
LCD's, the rich countries having already largely abused the planet's
resources. Sachs asserted in return that the demand for durable
development does not put an end to economic growth, as energy and other
material factors of production contain many potential sources for
increased productivity that have yet to be exploited. He nonetheless
endorses the idea that the societies of the North restrain their levels of
consumption in order that the enrichment of some does not bring about the
impoverishment of others, and thus lead to globalization of social
apartheid.
As a number of symposium participants pointed out, however, the
beneficiaries of the current system are nonetheless sufficiently numerous
and powerful to prevent the changes that the international community
recognized as necessary at the Rio summit. It does not bear repeating, for
example, that nearly all industrial firms would like to continue
externalizing the social and environmental costs of an economic growth
that generates less and less social progress. Only the internalization of
these costs will put an end to environmental and human waste that
characterizes the logic of the dominant mode of production. How can
alternative modes of production implying the development of more
economical ways of life be fostered when it is known, as Dupont and
Rattner remind us, that powerful lobbies - particularly in the energy
sector - have no interest in promoting alternative technologies, and that
the much talked about cultural imperialism conceals a technological
domination, which is less often mentioned.
This is why Rattner insists on the need to identify with precision the
global actors who seem to have so much power, to better discern their
interests, and explore their cognitive structure in order to understand
the vision they have of the world which they are in the process of
shaping. The problem of conflicting interests and of the political stakes
linked to change has thus been posed yet again, as well as the
identification of forces liable to promote it. In an increasingly
interdependent world it is, moreover, indispensable to plan for the
creation of international regulatory organisms, without, however,
downplaying the importance of the role played by the nation-state.
- Redefining the roles of the state
Two observations may
be made here. On the one hand, as under-scored by Ignacy Sachs, it must be
recognized that the debate has been off track for many years. The issue is
not one of setting the state against the market, as partisans of the
welfare state have long tended to do, but rather to remember that the
self-regulating market has shown its limits and that it is necessary to
restore the regulatory function of the state. In the North as in the
South, the latter still has a major role to play as an agency of
regulation, definition, and implementation of development policies.
Whatever the need to involve all partners in the drawing up of a new
social contract, macroeconomic policies will continue to have an important
impact - positive or negative according to whether or not the state plays
an integrative role - on poverty and exclusion. This impact will be felt
by the means of taxation, interest rates, and levels of public spending in
sectors such as housing, health care, and education.
What will perhaps be regarded as Europe's most positive contribution of
the twentieth century is its invention of a state capable of remedying
serious social inequality, redistributing the fruits of growth and
innovation, and able to counterbalance the perverse effects of the
unbridled market. One should thus not advocate a «smaller state,» as
partisans of neo-classical liberalism do, but rather a «better state,»
which presupposes a redefinition of its modes of operation and relations
with the ensemble of economic and social actors. It is in any case
illusory to think that the European welfare state can continue to exist
without some fundamental changes, Alberto Tarrozzi considers, seeing that
even in its heyday it never really succeeded in reaching either the
poorest strata, the most backward regions, or groups experiencing specific
problems. While reasserting the necessity of its continued existence, the
manner in which society is organized must be thought through afresh. This
implies, according to Laura Balbo, calling into question the bureaucratic
and centralized character of the state. The state must be transformed so
that its principle function is not so much to protect society as it is to
lead the way and, while providing services, create a context that will
narrow social cleavages and allow society to take charge of its destiny.
- Mending the social fabric
Though few people today
contest the need to mend the social fabric, this does not mean that there
exists a consensus as to how to go about doing it. What is the scale at
which the search for social cohesion should be envisaged? At the local
level, where one runs the risk of sacrificing the general interest in
favour of sectoral interests? At the national or regional level, at the
risk of forgetting about the need to instill a sense of global
solidarity?
The debate over the minimum income has given an idea as to the
complexity of the question. Niels Meyer and Philip Van Parijs have
advocated the adoption of a minimum level of remuneration for everyone,
which is to be understood as the right to an income for the whole of the
citizenry. For Meyer, the generalization of a guaranteed salary should be
able to be obtained by a policy of work-sharing; Van Parijs, on the other
hands, promotes the idea of a dissociation between work and income, the
right to the latter not having to depend on the holding of a job. The
latter idea, which is certainly generous, would nonetheless be difficult
to implement. Louis Emmerij asked if this is economically feasible and
insisted, along with Bent Greve, on the difficulties of financing such an
enterprise. José Figueredo, for his part, wondered about the effectiveness
of a minimum salary taken as a means of combating exclusion, when it is
known that exclusion results not only from a lack of income.
But, above all, who should be able to benefit from this? Should a
minimum income be implemented everywhere in the world or can it only be
realized in countries where the state theoretically has the means to
finance it? In the latter case, can one speak about the struggle against
exclusion if the majority of the world's population does not take part in
such a redistributive scheme? Several participants insisted on the need to
think about these issues on a world scale and not to sacrifice, once
again, the countries of the South on the alter of the well-being of the
societies of the North. For one should not have any illusions here, as
Jean-Luc Dubois maintained: if a minimum income were implemented in the
rich countries, it would be, at least in part, financed by a reduction in
development aid geared to the countries of the South. The countries of the
North indeed have a duty to combat exclusion at home, but they should not
do so by penalizing the LCD's.
Mending the social fabric where it has frayed under the combined
effects of the crisis, liberalization policies, and urbanization demands
serious reflection on a series of complementary actions. Legislation in
the areas of labour and social protection throughout the world have been
developed in relationship to the dominant model of salaried employment.
But, as the above-cited ORSTOM report points out, «not only does the
wage-earning sector still absorb a minority of individuals in every
developing country, but it is also declining under the effect of
increasing unemployment and the growth of the informal sector on the
fringes of the state». It is thus urgent that new forms of social
protection be developed in these countries that will benefit the
non-salaried population.
Given that the globalization of the economy is an important factor
explaining exclusion in the poorest countries and among the most
defenseless categories throughout the world, economic policies in a number
of countries should be reconsidered, with a view toward reducing the
priority accorded to exports and giving preference once again to the
internal market. By reassigning the notion of territory to the core of
economic policy, which has been globally-centred for the past two decades,
the construction of veritable internal markets on the national, regional,
and local levels would encourage the creation of economic «space» that
would both satisfy domestic demand and help produce solidarity ties that
are currently non-existent.
If it is agreed that one must explore all avenues capable of curing the
social ills currently afflicting the world, work-sharing seems to be one
essential route to take. For work, as we have seen, does not only generate
income. It is also, as Niels Meyer notes, a primordial component of social
existence, insofar as men need to be part of a «community of work» in
order to feel that they are contributing something to the life of the
collectively. Since the world today is producing more and with less
labour, and since growth no longer creates employment, it is essential,
Louis Emmerij insists, that the labour market be restructured in order to
take into account the gains in productivity engendered by technological
innovation. Decision-makers must stop viewing unemployment as an
inevitability, Ignacy Sachs contends, and start implementing vigorous
employment policies, whose foundations are work-sharing and job creation
in the heretofore neglected social domain.
Mending the social fabric is especially urgent, as the health of
democracy depends on it. The rise of totalitarian temptations driven by
ultra-nationalistic myths - which frequently seduce collectivizes that
have descended into a state of social anomie - is sufficient testimony
that the absence of social cohesion can pose a serious danger for
democracy. For, as Ajit Bhalla reminds us, democracy can hardly have
substance if the majority of the population lives in a state of exclusion
and spends most of its energy struggling to survive. In advancing the
axiom of the recognition of dignity and of basic rights for all, the
IUED's report asserts that social development by its very nature situates
democracy at the heart of the debate.
- Giving new meaning to democracy
Democracy, such as it
as has been conceptualized and realized up to now, finds itself hemmed in
by two borders whose rigidity is undermining its very principles. Strictly
confined to the political arena, on the one hand, democracy has never been
extended to the economic and social terrain, which are, however, vital
spheres of human activity. Narrowly representative, on the other hand, it
has remained a democracy by delegation, having neglected to explore
mechanisms whereby the whole of the citizenry may directly participate in
the making and execution of decisions. In order to be meaningful once
again, democracy needs to recreate itself by opening up to the ensemble of
social actors, to develop new forms of partnership, to break with
centralism, and to take into account the various possible levels of
decision-making involving citizen participation.
To go from a model where the state is seen as the sole agent of social
change toward a perspective where the actors play a determining role in
change is not utopian, according to Laura Balbo; it is a condition that
must be fulfilled in order to allow society to take greater charge of its
destiny in a world where the various agencies of power - state or
community - no longer assume the functions of real and symbolic protection
of the population, which used to be among their attributes. The necessary
evolution toward societies that take greater responsibility for their
destinies necessitates a redefinition of the relationship between the
principle social partners, the state, market, and civil society.
An indispensable actor in economic and social life, as history has
shown, the market cannot be the sole agency that regulates social
relations. The past few decades have proven this. Generally speaking,
private initiative, whether it comes from the market or elsewhere, cannot
substitute for the state, which the whole of society needs for its role as
an arbitrator. This is especially so since, contrary to dominant tendency
of recent years, associations issuing from civil society - that some have
idealized - are more subject than one may think to the logic of
self-interest. Many «popular initiatives,» as ORSTOM notes, are not as
spontaneous as they may seem. As for associations in the countries of the
South, they often «conceal strategies for cornering international aid» and
turn it «into major tools of self-aggrandizement and self-promotion» 24 ; in the
North, associations do not always escape the logic of the cash nexus or of
political instrumentalization. One must also ask how representative many
NGOs really are, particularly given that many proclaim themselves to be
the spokesmen of a civil society that is often silent and which did not
necessary designate them.
What forms of partnership should be invented in order to allow the
ensemble of social actors to play a role, and to harmonize public policy
and citizen action? Can the tripartite negotiating approach, which
inspired the creation of the ILO and remains a means of bargaining between
trade unions and the state in many countries, still play a role?
The Hungarian experience, described by Lajos Hethy, shows the
advantages and limitations of this. Hungary, he explains, is a country
where political and social stability quickly appeared as an important
stake in the context of an accelerated transition - with all the
consequences that implied - toward a market economy. As the trade unions
had not lost their character as mass organizations, negotiations were able
to take place with business associations and the state in order to reach
agreements over labour legislation, the regulation of salaries and the
right to strike, the share contributed by business for social protection
schemes, and so on. Even better, tripartite dialogue enabled the trade
unions to take part in the formulation of public policy and demonstrated
that this form of organization contributes in large part to maintenance of
social peace. As Hethy warned, however, in the absence of a veritable
social policy the search for an accord with the trade unions may be a
simple means to get the population to accept the negative effects of the
transition, without its modalities or goals being discussed.
If the principle of tripartite bargaining is to maintain its value, it
must be adapted to the evolution of civil society and enlarged in order to
incorporate the ensemble of social partners, including representatives of
the excluded, who are often ignored by traditional trade union structures.
Dialogue must in all cases be extended to the making of economic policy,
in which the every citizen takes part.
At what level should decisions concerning a given collectivity be
taken? This is a crucial question for democracy, which, in order to cease
being merely representative and to take on a participatory dynamic, must
take into account the need to differentiate levels of decision-making and
to increase the power of local authorities. Allowing democratic local
structures to intervene in the decision-making process presupposes the
recognition of the diversity of circumstances, needs, and actors. It is to
recognize that there exists no single solution that can resolve the
problems of a pluralistic world.
What should the modalities of this recognition be? Can decision-making
function according to the principle of subsidiarity, as Sixto Roxas
proposes, where the international community is considered as a vast
community of communities? To reorganize democratically a world that is
characterized by the tradition of a centralized nation-state, the dilution
of responsibilities on the international level, and the silence of local
actors, it seems necessary to reflect on new relationships between the
local, national, international, and global levels. The increase in the
number of actors involved in defining policy, which has been a positive
development, does not, however, mean that one has to respond to every
single demand. Rather, as the IUED report proposes, it is a matter of
building an institutional body capable of arbitrating conflicts between
contradictory interests and to solicit the participation of different
levels of decision-making in the definition of collective goals; in other
words, of reconciliating local action and global thinking. The objective
is ambitious insofar as up to now, as Ajit Bhalla reminds us, competition
is often the rule in the relationship between different decision-making
levels; for Bhalla, what is needed is to go from a logic of competition to
one of complementarity. One of the solutions, according to Henri Rattner,
would perhaps be to define the level of centralization that all modern
societies need.
One of the routes toward more participatory societies may involve, as
Trevor Hancock proposes, ceasing to talk only in terms of the satisfaction
of the needs of the communities concerned and to take into account their
non-utilized capacities. Linking up needs and capacity would allow for the
resolution of a considerable number of problems at the local level,
Hancock continued, basing his argument partly on the experience of
participatory health care structures in Canada.
Generally speaking, the recognition of the plurality of contexts, of
the right of all to participation, and the multiplication of
decision-making levels implies the decompartmentalization of different
levels of knowledge, by creating passageways between popular knowledge,
scientific knowledge, and scholasty knowledge. For, as Richard Knight
notes, the priority accorded to elitist knowledge in nearly all national
policies has deprived humanity of a good part of its savoir-faire. «Ninety
percent of human knowledge today has been produced over the past thirty
years», Knight asserts. «But if one defines knowledge as the ability to
survive on earth in a lasting manner, then 90% of human knowledge has been
lost in the past thirty years». Such a decompartmentalization is not
impossible, as Kurt Nielsen showed in pointing to the Danish experience in
this area. The promotion of popular knowledge and it being linked up with
academic knowledge has in part, according to Nielsen, enabled Denmark to
prevent the technostructure from entirely running the country.
The question over whether or not democracy is a precondition or a
result of development has been long debated, though without any conclusion
being arrived at. It is clear that a society where survival is the sole
objective of the majority of the population can hardly produce anything
more than the facade of democracy. Socially-oriented development, for its
part, will call for the enlarging of the domain covered by democracy,
which will eradicate at the same time one of the major forms of exclusion:
political exclusion.
From reflection to action: some
pathways
- Rehabilitating the social sciences
Putting people at
the centre of development is not only a slogan. Abundant experience has
shown that models that do not emanate from the actors themselves collide
with the internal logic of the development process. In spite of this
obvious fact, the demand for sociological-type knowledge is tragically
weak, Michael Cernea laments 25, and
almost no development agency has felt the need to include social
scientists at decision-making levels. To justify this attitude,
development agencies invoke the high cost of social scientific studies,
without ever evaluating the cost of errors committed when an action is
taken without any knowledge of the social formations that are
affected.
In fact, the social sciences up to now have served as a reservoir of
information and statistics for economic decision-makers won over to the
«theology of the market», to use Cernea's expression. The order of
priorities should be changed in order that social policy be accorded the
status it should never have lost, thus integrating sociologists into all
levels of reflection and decision-making on matters relating to social
change.
Taking note of this deficiency should be cause for reflection on the
part of academics. Perhaps they are partly responsible for their absence
from decision-making circuits, Cernea considers, insofar as they have
rarely attempted to link up their research with the real world of policy.
If they wish to participate in the development and implementation of
development policies, academics will have to do more than just analyze but
also get directly involved in action and share the risks.
Research must furthermore, deems Tarozzi, set new priorities that take
into account the evolution of the contemporary world, as well as the
obstacles to change. Since it is thus impossible to extend the
Western-style welfare state to the entire world, given its exorbitant
environmental, economic, and social costs, it is urgent that durable
development strategies be seriously reflected upon, which could in return
benefit the developed countries. This proposal is especially relevant, as
it was clear that, throughout the Roskilde symposium, the debate was
focused mainly on the problems of the North; the participants seemed to
have difficulty developing new ways of thinking about North-South
relations and the possible solutions to global inequalities. The
discussions around the welfare state and the guaranteed minimum income
gave an idea as to the extent of this difficulty. The globalization of
social problems and the relative interpenetration of the North and South
indeed allow one to think globally more than before. But if one is not
careful this global thinking could once again take on the thinking of the
developed North.
Reflection for action must, in any case, be the objective of social
science if it wants to be a full partner in the construction of to-
morrow's world.
- Reforming the international community
A redefinition
of the respective roles of social actors, which takes into account both
the effects of globalization and demands for action on the social front,
presupposes new forms of political and economic regulation on the
international level. This implies a profound reform of the United Nations
and the organizations issuing from Bretton Woods.
These institutions, Sixto Roxas reminds us, were created not only to
safeguard the hegemony of the dominant economic order but were also
designed to respond to the specific functional needs of the developed
capitalist countries. The effort to internationalize this «recipe», to
impose a model that is being increasingly called into question, leads to
the conclusion that the rich countries deny the world's pluralistic
character. Seen from the angle of social development, it becomes apparent
that the entire edifice of development aid needs to be recast, as Habiba
Wassef emphasizes. The United Nations system must, for its part, begin to
adapt its modes of intervention to the evolution in priorities, by
participating more than it currently does in the dynamics of change.
International aid donors should be more respectful of diversity and
democracy, Habiba Wassef admonished, as well as more attentive to points
of view and approaches it has long neglected to hear. Wassef continued by
saying that these aid donors should stop trying to impose their views and
ways of doing things on public authorities in the LCD's, who often operate
under domestic constraints and are frequently more knowledgeable about the
needs of their own societies.
The reform of the international system must put an end to the monopoly
of interstate organizations and allow for the emergence of
democratically-oriented global organizations with powers of oversight and
of putting forth proposals. Such are the stakes, according to the World
Alliance Against Social Apartheid, which endorses the creation of a global
organization of citizen representation in order to facilitate, among other
things, the equitable participation of all the world's inhabitants in the
management of global affairs.
- Developing new forms of partnership
Such an enterprise
could be based on a series of acts that have been undertaken in many
countries, such as the experiences of community management of health care
that has been successfully tried in Canada, or the European Healthy
Cities network that has been progressively put in place since 1986
under the aegis of the WHO.
The Canadian experience, Trevor Hancock points out, could only have
been carried out by replacing the sectoral approach to dealing with health
care issues with a global vision of the context in which the problems were
situated. Income inequality, social stratification, and the condition of
the environment are major factors impacting on health care and help
explain why «inequalities» in illness have not disappeared from societies
where all the basic needs of the population are supposed to have been
satisfied. In order to involve the whole of the population in resolving
its health care problems, a community-type approach based on local action
has been taken, which has led to the creation of health care councils in a
number of Canadian cities. The activities of these councils includes the
discussion of problems, development of solutions, and the collecting and
dissemination of ideas that help groups of citizens take their own
initiative. Round-tables organized by the councils do not necessarily
produce consensus and often reflect conflicts of interest between
different categories of citizens, Hancock made clear; citizen action has,
however, reinforced their ability to influence municipal health care
policies.
Though not taking on the same form, the Healthy Cities network,
which groups together more than thirty European cities, is inspired by the
same methods. It attempts to act in all domains having an impact on health
care, such as housing, transport, and the environment, and to encourage
decision-makers to take into account the consequences of their policies on
the health care sector as a whole. The WHO has also innovated in expanding
its working relationships beyond just urban administrations, to include a
number of organisms and associations liable to play a role in urban health
and sanitation policies.
Other experiences could also inspire the search for new forms of
partnership between social actors, capable of alleviating the deficiencies
of the state and of finally giving a real social content to municipal
democracy.
- Favouring access to employment
Given that exclusion
from the world of work is one of the principle causes of poverty and
marginalization, it is urgent to replace the current dynamics responsible
for unemployment with an active job creation policy. This policy should
have two components.
The first consists of acting directly upon the job market through
voluntaristic policies. Without detailing the modalities, one may specify
two types of proposals liable to put a brake on the dynamics that generate
unemployment. José Figueredo and Zafar Shaheed propose, among other
things, the inflicting of financial penalties on firms that resort too
often to layoffs 26. The fines
thus collected could be used to finance unemployment insurance programmes,
pension funds, or action - in the educational sector, for example - aiming
to help non-qualified job seekers find employment. In the same vein,
financial-type incentives (subsidies, tax rebates, etc.) can be envisaged
for employers with active hiring policies. Sachs reckons that many
countries could solve a part of the huge problem of rural under-employment
by adopting policies designed to increase rural, non-agricultural
employment. This would, among other things, increase the supply of
services to underdeveloped regions. In the urban areas, the creation of
social service-type jobs involving immediate contact with the population,
which are practically non-existent in the North as well as in the South,
would help alleviate the pressure on the labour market.
The second component of this active job creation policy consists,
strictly speaking, of acting upstream on the job market. One is aware of
the extent to which illiteracy, lack of skills, and/or member-ship in a
minority group suffering discrimination bars hundreds of millions of
individuals from access to visible, paid employment. Only strategies whose
objective is to remove their handicaps can enable the most deprived and
vulnerable groups to acquire the tools that are indispensable for
obtaining remunerative employment. With this perspective in mind, the
areas of health care, education, and elimination of discrimination based
on cultural prejudices must be regarded as priorities for action. Such
action is especially necessary since it alone can help girls and women
escape the exclusion of which so many of them are victims. From this
angle, Richard Anker integrates family planning and day care policies into
the struggle against labour market exclusion 27.
But the symposium participants spent little time discussing the issue
of gender discrimination, or the fact that the overwhelming majority of
women are confined to the sphere of non-remunerative domestic labour,
which is relegated everywhere to the category of household tasks or the
so-called family economy. The debates over the extension of democracy and
on the link between work and social status - between exclusion from the
job market, on the one hand, and poverty, on the other - showed that the
gender dimension of social exclusion was not taken into account at the
Roskilde symposium. Mere support for dynamic education and training
policies, including civic education, can nonetheless help remove one of
the major handicaps that women suffer from in a large number of
countries.
The cost of these programmes, which is often invoked as an obstacle to
their realization, poses fewer problems than is generally believed. It is
certainly important to carry out studies of each potential programme to
determine their compatibility with sound macroeconomic policies and to
strive for the best ratio between cost, efficiency, and equity. But
without even quantifying the political and financial price of social
exclusion, the sums - which are often considerable, at least in the
countries of the North - currently earmarked toward minimizing these
scourges could be converted into actions that generate social cohesion.
Action that is taken upstream in
the area of employment policy must go beyond the satisfaction of simple
social needs. Given that the unequal distribution of wealth and of factors
of production are among the principle causes of exclusion, it is equally
necessary to act by the means of a policy of redistributing assets. The
Inter-American Development Bank thus deems it indispensable to carry out
important agrarian reforms in most Latin American countries, where the
extreme concentration of landed property is one of the leading causes of
rural unemployment and migration to the urban areas. Democratization of
access to credit must be an equal part of a policy of redistributing
assets, in the same way as fiscal reforms that lighten the tax burden on
labour and increase it on capital and income gained from speculative
activities.
Indispensable for reducing the inequalities that are found in all
countries, such reforms cannot, however, have an impact on the unequal
distribution of the world's wealth. It would seem necessary to introduce a
system of international taxation in order to bring about more equitable
distribution. Such a system of taxation would raise significant financial
resources that could be devoted to social development. At the Rio summit,
for example, the institution of a tax on energy consumption - the famous
«ecotax» - was envisaged, though immediately buried under the pressure of
the United States, the big oil companies, and hydrocarbon exporting
countries. The explosive growth of speculative capital in recent years has
popularized the idea of creating a tax - the Tobin tax, named after the
Nobel Prize winning economist who conceptualized it - on profits gained
from speculative activity. Yet again, numerous voices have been raised
against such a tax, all in the name of the sacrosanctity of the
self-regulating market. But such resistance to the inauguration of
international taxation should not prevent the continued study of such a
system, nor of efforts to put it into action.
We have only touched upon here the numerous ways one can redistribute
national and global assets in order to benefit the disadvantaged. It is
important to insist that such policies are not utopian in character but
are rather indispensable in getting at the root causes of the world's
social crisis.
Within just a few years the majority of
the planet's inhabitants will reside in cities. If urban growth occurred
at a more or less gradual pace in the course of history, its current
development is such that it needs to be subject to planning and control.
As the world social crisis is increasingly urban in character it has
become urgent to develop policies and tools capable of resolving it, while
taking into account the diversity of contexts and situations.
Cities have always been centres of culture, contact, and of immense
opportunities for human creativity. We have to insure that they continue
to fulfill these functions, Jorge Wilheim pleaded. But can we truly label
as «cities» the urban agglomerations which are inhabited by so many recent
arrivals from the countryside? How should we manage the phenomenon,
widespread in the South, of «rurbanization,» to use the term coined by
sociologists? So many questions, which remind us of the urgency in
developing veritable urban policies adapted to contemporary change.
Global reform aiming to reverse the dynamics that create poverty and
exclusion is an immense undertaking, to say the least. The debates at the
Roskilde symposium sought to underscore the need to modify the existing
order of priorities and to forge, on a global scale, a durable development
based on people rather than on things.
A nostalgic attempt to recover a long lost social harmony and rejection
of an evolution regarded as inevitable by its defenders? Certainly not.
The defense of another type of development, that is both durable and
social in character, is not, as some claim, a negative reaction to the
shock effects of modernity. On the contrary, it is a fight for modernity,
as Sixto Roxas maintains. In creating the crisis and revealing itself
incapable of improving the condition of the whole of humanity, the current
economic and political systems, as well as the technologies upon which
they are based, have shown their obsolescence. The only way to prepare for
the twenty-first century will be to challenge the validity of the current
systems and develop alternatives, which will be capable of closing the
fault lines that coming tremors in the world order promise to breach. That
is to say, to enable all of humanity to feel part of global society, with
equal opportunity to live in dignity.
It is nonetheless not at all clear that the world is embarking on this
route. In organizing, since the beginning of the 1990s i.e. since the end
of the geopolitical polarization brought about by the Cold War, a series
of international conferences and summits with the goal of sketching out a
«new world order,» the United Nations has indeed attempted to enlist the
international community in the search for solutions to the various aspects
of the crisis. But parallel to this is the consolidation of another very
real order, based on the resort to force and the simple logic of narrow
national interest. The limits of Copenhagen summit's timid and half-way
resolutions, which contrasted sharply with the hopes raised by its
convening, show that, for the moment, the obstacles to the forging of
planetary society based on a democracy with a strong social character have
yet to be lifted.
(Translated from French by Arun Kapil)
APPENDIX
List of participants
Peder AGGAR.
Professor. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Olympe AHLINVIDE. Professor. Centre Panafricain de Prospective
Sociale. Porto Novo, Benin.
Peter ALTHEID. Professor. Sociologist. Centre for Advanced
Technologies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Helle Mukerji ANDERSEN. Department of the Environment, Technology,
and Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
John ANDERSEN. Centre on Integration and Social Differentiation.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maj-Britt ASLUND. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Maria Inacia d'AVILA NETO. Professor. UNESCO Chair for Durable
Development. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Henrik BAK. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Laura BALBO. Professor. Institute of Philosophy. University of
Ferrara, Italy.
Tania BARROS DE FREITAS MACIEL. Professor. University of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Brian BARTON. Department of Economics. University of Quebec at Trois
Rivières, Canada.
Maria Durvalina BASTOS. Professor. Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Anna BOESEN. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Simon BOLWIG. Centre for Development Research. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Thomas P. BOJE. Professor. Department of Social Studies. University
of Roskilde, Denmark.
Karin BRÿNNUM. Centre on Integration and Social Differentiation.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ajit BHALLA. ILO. International Institute of Labour Studies. Geneva,
Switzerland.
Luc CAMBREZY. ORSTOM. Paris, France.
Michael CERNEA. Sociologist. Senior Adviser. World Bank. Washington,
DC, USA.
Jacques CHARMES. Associate Director. Department of Societies,
Urbanization, and Development. ORSTOM. Paris, France.
Christian COMELIAU. Professor. Institut Universitaire d'Etudes du
Développement. Geneva, Switzerland.
Ann-Marie CONNOLLY. WHO. Regional Bureau for Europe, «Healthy
Cities.» Copenhagen, Denmark.
Georges COURADE. ORSTOM. Paris, France.
CZESKLEBA-DUPONT. Department of Social Studies. University of
Roskilde, Denmark.
Anna DAM. European Programme on Society, Science, and Technology.
University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Valerie DENTEN. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Faith DUBE. AIESEC. Centre on Integration and Social
Differentiation. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jean-Luc DUBOIS. ORSTOM. Paris, France.
Mahdi ELMANDJRA. Professor. Mohammed V University. Rabat,
Morocco.
Louis EMMERIJ. Special Adviser to the President of the
Inter-American Development Bank. Washington, DC, USA.
Martin FABIANSEN. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
José B. de FIGUEIREDO. ILO International Institute of Labour
Studies. Geneva, Switzerland.
Francine FOURNIER. UNESCO. Assistant Director-General for Social and
Human Sciences. Paris, France.
Genoveva Maya FRUET. International Programme for Development
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Benoit GAILLY. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Sergio GOEZ Y PALOMA. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Maria de Fatima GOMES. Professor. Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Cees GOOS. WHO. Interim Director, Regional Bureau for Europe.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bent GREVE. Professor. Department of Social Sciences. University of
Roskilde, Denmark.
Simon GROTH. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Trevor HANCOCK. Consultant in public health. Ontario, Canada.
Bente HALKIER. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Andreas Wester HANSEN. Department of Social Studies. University of
Roskilde, Denmark.
Birgitte Steen HANSEN. Department of the Environment, Technology,
and Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Jette HANSEN. Geography and Communication. University of Roskilde,
Denmark.
Barbara HARRELL-BOND. Director. Programme for the Study of Refugees.
Oxford University, Great Britain.
Lajos HETHY. Secretary of State, Ministry of Labour. Budapest,
Hungary.
Anders HINGEL. European Commission. DG-XII. Brussels, Belgium.
Mogens HOLM. Centre for Development Research. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Helge HVID. Professor. Department of the Environment, Technology,
and Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Erling JELSØE. Professor. Department of the Environment, Technology,
and Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Per Homann JESPERSEN. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Peter JOENSEN. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Douglas JOHNSON. Johnson International. Hvidovre, Denmark.
Wambui KAMARA. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Geogre KATROUGALOS. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Ali KAZANCIGIL. UNESCO. Director, Division of Social Sciences,
Research and Policy. Executive Secretary, MOST Programme. Paris,
France.
Kristine Vik KLEFFEL. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Richard KNIGHT. Professor. Faculty of Architecture. University of
Genoa, Italy.
Jesper LASSEN. ,Professor. Department of the Environment,
Technology, and Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Nina LAURITZEN. Centre for African Studies. University of Roskilde,
Denmark.
Albert LEE. European Programme on Society, Science, and Technology.
University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Casper LITTRUP. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Thomas LØVSHOLT. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Maj MANCZAK. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Pietro P. MASINA. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Martino MAZZONIS. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Niels I. MEYER. Professor. Department of Physics. Technical
University of Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Troels MIKKELSEN. Department of Administration. University of
Roskilde, Denmark.
Inge-Lise NIELSEN. Teacher. JÊgerspris, Denmark.
Kurt Aagaard NIELSEN. Professor. Department of Sociology. University
of Copenhagen, Denmark.
John NKINYANGI. UNESCO. Division of the Social Sciences, Research,
and Policy. MOST Programme. Paris, France.
Lene OKHOLM. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
José Vilhena de PAIVA. Vice-Rector, Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Philippe van PARIJS. Professor. Faculty of Economics, Politics, and
Social Sciences. Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.
Anne Sprog¯e PETERSEN. HIB II. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Gert PETERSEN. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
K ° are PETERSEN. Department of Social Studies. University of
Roskilde, Denmark.
Patoommat PHANCHANA. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Louise PIHL. Institute of Political Science. University of
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maya PINTO. University of Bath, Great Britain.
Aurora PUCCIO. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Henrique RATTNER. Director, Programme on the Environment and Durable
Development. University of Sao Paolo, Brazil.
Sixto K. ROXAS. Foundation of Community Organization and Management
Technology (FCOMT). Quezon City, Philippines.
Marianne ROY. University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada.
Vladimir RUKAVISHNIKOV. Professor. Institute of Political and Social
Research. Academy of Sciences. Moscow, Russia.
Ignacy SACHS. Director of Studies. Ecole des Hautes Etudes en
Sciences Sociales. Paris, France.
Inaki Heras SAIZARBITORIA. European Programme on Society, Science,
and Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Antonella SANTORSOLA. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Peter SCHÖNHÖFFER. Pax Christi. Münster, Germany.
Karen Prochnow SLETTEN. Department of the Environment, Technology,
and Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Inger STAUNING. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Sunniva ØVERLAND. Department of the Environment, Technology, and
Social Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Francesca TAMBORINNI. European Programme on Society, Science, and
Technology. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Alberto TAROZZI. Professor. Department of Sociology. University of
Roskilde, Denmark.
François VEDELAGO. Institut Michel de Montaigne. University of
Bordeaux-III, France.
Habiba H. WASSEF. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland.
WEI Li . European Programme on Society, Science, and Technology.
University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Jorge WILHEIM. Assistant Secretary-General. HABITAT II. Nairobi,
Kenya.
Jacob YTTESEN. Department of the Environment, Technology, and Social
Studies. University of Roskilde, Denmark.
NOTES
