Globalization and Social Policy
UN General Assembly High Level Dialogue on the theme of the Social and Economic Impacts of Globalization and Interdependence and their policy implications. September 17th- 18th, 1998. Panel discussion on the Social Impact of Globalization. Sept.18th, 9.00-11.00 am Presentation by Professor Bob Deacon, Director of the Globalism and Social Policy Programme (GASPP), Helsinki, Finland and Sheffield, UK. THE CASE FOR A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE GLOBALIZATION. Preamble. Many discussions about the social impact of globalization point to the negative consequences of greater liberalisation of trade and investment upon social inequality both within countries and between them and go on to focus on the perpetuation of poverty among the poorest of the poor in the world. This then leads to a policy strategy which targets limited resources on the poorest. While understandable this approach misses much of the point and may generate a residualist social policy orientation that history has shown does not serve the poor well. The point of this presentation is to argue that the social impact of globalization as it is currently conceived and managed is much wider than this..it effects potentially in a negative way the social welfare of citizens in developed, transition and developing countries. There is a danger, often overstated however as I shall show, that the universalistic social solidaristic approaches to social policy common in many developed countries, still existing in many transition countries and being pursued in some developing countries will be challenged and undermined by the economic logic and ideological zeal currently associated with a liberalising globalisation. The need is now for a socially responsible globlalization (globalization with a human face) which combines global trade and investment with global (and regional) social redistribution, global (and regional) social regulation and global (and regional) social empowerment of citizens everywhere. In a short presentation I can only make a few assertions. The basis of these assertions and the evidence and argumentation that underpins them can be found in the longer paper entitled Globalisation and Social Policy: International Actors and Discourses which some of you have and which can be downloaded fro the GASPP web site at http://www.stakes.fi/gaspp These ideas are the results of some of the work of the Globalism and Social Policy Programme (GASPP) which is a joint research programme based partly in Helsinki and partly in the UK. Economic competition and welfare states, The danger of a race to the welfare bottom where countries reduce taxation on employers and loosen labour and social regulation in order to attract footloose capital and reassure global financial traders is a feature of the contemporary global politics of welfare. However some liberalising policy initiatives taken in the name of globalization are motivated by ideological commitment to liberalisation..globalization is the (false) justification. The reality is more complex but there is now a measure of agreement in the literature that suggests: i)Welfare states that are financed out of employer payroll contributions are more threatened by economic competition than either privatised welfare 'states' or ,and this point is largely ignored by ideological liberal globalizers, welfare states financed out of income and consumer taxes. (Citizens have always been able to trade wages for welfare so long as it is not at the expense of profit. Governments can go on redistributing between income groups if they have the political will despite globalization). ii)Globalization has segmented the labour market north and south into high tech jobs and low skill jobs. The south has come to the north as well as the north to the south. It is holders of low skill jobs in the north whose social welfare is challenged by globalization. However, again a point usually lost on ideological liberalisers, this only strengthens the case for income redistribution within countries so as to soften the resistance of low wage earners to globalization. iii)Globalization of investment in services as envisaged by the stalled MAI would have posed a further challenge to governments wishing to provide monopolistic state social and health services. The dangers of protectionism, Although some of the threats to welfare states posed by global economic competition have been overstated and some of the liberalising social policy reforms apparently made necessary by globalization have been shown to be motivated not by economic necessity but ideological zeal there remains none-the-less a threat to universalistic forms of national social solidarity as a result of the current form that globalization is taking. The case is now being articulated in many quarters for a reform of globalization, for a socially responsible globalization. Just as unfettered capitalism within single countries in the 19th century lead through
Fw: Le Monde diplomatique en anglais (fwd)
-- From: Le Monde diplomatique [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: info-diplo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Le Monde diplomatique en anglais Date: Dienstag, 22. September 1998 15:39 Le Monde diplomatique et The Guardian Weekly Le Monde diplomatique en anglais Le 20 septembre, The Guardian Weekly a publié le premier numéro du Monde diplomatique en anglais, dans un supplément de seize pages. * * * PROCHAINES PARUTIONS 25 OCTOBRE ET 22 NOVEMBRE Pour toute demande d'information, écrire à Patrick Ensor, The Guardian Weekly, 75, Farrington road, London EC1M 3HQ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Le Monde diplomatique en anglais est également disponible sur Internet : http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/ Comme celles de nos éditions en allemand (Berlin et Zürich), italien (Rome), espagnol (Madrid et Mexico), grec (Athènes) et arabe (Beyrouth), la réussite de cette édition en langue anglaise est d'une première importance à nos yeux et pour la diffusion de nos idées. Merci de bien vouloir nous aider à la faire connaître, par exemple en adressant à vos correspondants anglophones le texte ci-dessous. This week (20 September) will see the first of three supplements of Le Monde diplomatique which are being printed and distributed by The Guardian Weekly (GW) on a free trial basis (September, October, November). The GW is part of Guardian Publications Ltd., UK, and it is distributed worldwide, sold mainly by subscription. We hope this will be the start of a regular printed edition of Le Monde diplomatique to which you or your friends may wish to subscribe, jointly with The Guardian Weekly. For more information please contact Patrick Ensor, The Guardian Weekly, 75, Farrington road, London EC1M 3HQ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To secure a copy of this first edition, contact your local newsagent or the Guardian Weekly to place an order. The GW can be contacted for regular subscriptions at mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In this first issue, Ignacio Ramonet writes: Le Monde diplomatique Taking a stand We are delighted to welcome readers of The Guardian Weekly into the family of people who are regular readers of Le Monde diplomatique... Our desire to broaden the readership of Le Monde diplomatique beyond the confines of France is not a recent thing. Already one third of total sales of our French-language edition are to readers overseas. From the start, we have been not a French newspaper that happens to sell abroad, but an international paper that happens to be based in France. Not only does our newspaper offer broad coverage of major world developments, but we also open our pages to intellectuals, experts, journalists, writers and public figures from all around the world. This has been a major contributing factor in our success. Le Monde diplomatique is in excellent health. Over the past ten years our circulation has doubled - rising from 135,000 copies at the end of 1987 to 270,000 by late 1997. Our readers tend to be young - 81% of them are under 49 and 41% under 34. We were the first paper in France to have its own site on the Internet, and visits to our French-language site are now approaching 200,000 per week Newspapers today are going through a bad patch. So what we have achieved is good news for all who care about freedom of expression, and who want to see that freedom operating in the interests of reliable reporting, a concern for justice and an ethic of solidarity... Our readers appreciate us because we are serious about our journalism. They like the fact that, in dealing with the news, we dig deeply into issues of economics, sociology, politics, science, technology, ecology, culture and ideology. They want to understand the complexities of the global economy, and what it means for the world in which we live. They want to know about new problems emerging in our societies, about the strategies of the worlds major powers, and about the new kinds of conflicts that are shaking the worlds major regions. This is the logic underlying our efforts in the past few years to build foreign-language editions and partnerships with newspapers outside France. Le Monde diplomatique is now published on a monthly basis in seven different national editions: in Italy with Il Manifesto; in Germany with Tageszeitung; in Switzerland with WochenZeitung; in Spain with the publisher L-Press; in Mexico with
Public Dollars should Support living Wage Jobs (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:28:17 +1200 From: janice [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Public Dollars should Support "living Wage" Jobs If poor workers are expected to make their way without government help, we should pay closer attention to whether government policies are encouraging the creation of jobs that people cant live decently on. Public Dollars Should Support "Living Wage" Jobs Pending the resolution of a court challenge, voters in Montgomery County will have the opportunity this fall to vote on a referendum which would set a new standard for accountability in how public dollars are spent. The proposed amendment to the Montgomery County Charter would require that companies doing business with Montgomery Country pay a "living wage." Such "living wage" ordinances have spread around the country in the last few years, spurred on by several trends. The federal government has retreated from its role in defending living standards for the majority of workers. Real wages have declined for the majority of workers over the last two decades, and workers at the bottom have been hit the hardest. The weakening of labor unions, the loss of workers bargaining power, increases in imports and capital flight have all contributed to this decline. Meanwhile the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has fallen, losing almost a third of its value in the 1980s. The income of a person working full-time at the federal minimum wage is well below the official poverty level for a family of three. The passage of "welfare reform" -- removing the federal guarantee that poor families would have income -- has shone a spotlight on the grim prospects of workers at the bottom of the labor force. If poor workers are expected to make their way without government help, we should pay closer attention to whether government policies are encouraging the creation of jobs that people cant live decently on. The move by many local governments to cut costs through privatizing and outsourcing -- often replacing decent-paying jobs for government employees with minimum wage jobs at contracted firms -- has caused many to question whether local governments are leading in the wrong direction. The Montgomery County amendment defines a "living wage" as 130% of the federal poverty level for a family of four. It requires that all County employees and employees of County contractors and subcontractors receive this wage. The amendment also establishes a Community Advisory Board to oversee implementation of the new requirements. This board would be empowered to examine not only whether companies benefiting from County contracts pay their workers decent wages; it would also seek to ensure that such businesses meet other public concerns, such as compliance with environmental laws, or the fulfillment of job creation claims when they receive funds targeted to economic development. Such ordinances have been moderately successful when tried elsewhere. Of course, they do not necessarily impact a large number of workers: typically, most workers who would be covered by such ordinances are already paid wages above the level set by the ordinance in question. This is no reason not to proceed with such policies; it makes sense to increase the wages of the lowest-paid workers in any way that we can, particularly when their jobs are supported by public dollars. In the absence of policies to increase these wages local governments are sending the message that paying poverty wages is acceptable. Of course, some would object that, if there are benefits, there are also costs. Indeed, its true that governments might save some money by replacing full-time workers who may belong to a union and have decent wages and benefits with contracting workers who make the minimum wage and have no benefits. However, if we agree that people who work full time should be able to earn a decent living, then, morally, savings that could be gained from impoverishing workers should not be considered a cost. It might please my tummy to take an ice cream cone away from a child for my own benefit, but few people would think that I am making a great sacrifice if I purchase my own ice cream cone. Communities adopting such policies are not going into uncharted territory. Baltimore has had a living wage ordinance since December of 1994. A study of the Baltimore ordinance by the Preamble Center for Public Policy in October 1996 found that costs to the city of the ordinance were minimal -- indeed, the real cost of its contracts actually declined, while city contractors reported no reduction in staffing levels. Let us hope that the voters of Montgomery County have the opportunity to add their voices to those who have asked that public dollars be accountable for the kind of employment that they create. janice -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see
More free market misery
WEATHER DISASTERS Economic forecast: no money for that rainy day Sept. 21, 1998 Sydney Morning Herald By JOHN VIDAL in London The weather is blamed for wrecking the lives of up to 300 million flood-affected people in Asia and the Indian subcontinent in the past two months, but free market economics which have greatly increased people's vulnerability to extreme weather may also be responsible. Disaster experts, development agencies, academics and leading climatologists are beginning to support an emerging theory that the globalisation of economies may be largely responsible for much of the misery now stalking the planet. An area the size of Europe has been inundated in Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with more than 15 poor countries trying to alleviate wide-scale destitution and battling water-related health epidemics. Many other countries are still recovering from droughts, forest fires and other extreme weather events. But climatologists argue that weather is only partly to blame. "There is a long-term underlying trend of climate change but no great increase in extreme weather or any greatly increased severity," says Mr Mick Kelly, of the University of East Anglia. "There is a greatly increasing vulnerability of people following over-exploitation of resources, the clearing of forests and changing of river courses." The floods in China and India have been directly blamed on massive deforestation in the uplands, and giant dams and river control. The Chinese are now planning to replant the hillsides. Economic trends are critical to understanding natural disasters, says Mr Kelly. Austerity measures, IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs and the opening of markets were heightening inequalities, encouraging countries to sell off resources. Displacement of people because of development projects and population pressures has also contributed, he says. "Five years ago 70 per cent of world disasters were related to refugees, and less than 5 per cent were natural. Almost a third of all disasters are now weather- related," says Mr Peter Walker, of the International Red Cross in Geneva, which is appealing for funds to cope with weather- related emergencies in more than 25 countries. "Governments are increasingly unable to support public works, like embankments and flood control," he says. "Private capital has flooded into many poor countries, but it is after the quick buck. It is not interested in public works, social welfare or development projects which can increase people's capacity to cope in crises." Many flood control systems are now old and the cost of rebuilding or constructing embankments is mounting. At the same time, governments are being told to invest more in exports and services, and there is less money available for protection. "Economic constraints are preventing authorities investing in traditional protection services," says Mr Walker. "They are not being encouraged to think long-term but are moving away from being protectors of citizens. Many traditional areas of government concern are being left to slide." -The Guardian
Malaysia swims away from piranha
Global capitalism -- one dollar, one vote -- is like government by a school of piranha that furiously tear chunks out of anything that bleeds. Global Intelligence Update Red Alert September 24, 1998 Mahatir Demonstrates an Alternative Asian Solution The focus of the Asian crisis is shifting to Malaysia, where the political consequences of economic meltdown are now being played out The overt crisis revolves around the decision of Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad to fire and then arrest his Deputy Prime Minister, who also served as his Finance Minister and heir apparent. The deeper issue, transcending both personality and politics, concerns how Malaysia will respond to its own version of the general Asian crisis. Mahathir, who has long been an advocate of Asian solidarity, has charted a course that is both idiosyncratic and, in our mind, a model of the direction Asia is going to be moving in the coming months. Thus, the political crisis points in an interesting and revealing direction. The split between Mahathir and Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim began over differences of opinion as to the best way to achieve economic stability in Malaysia. Anwar favored a Western- style financial reform package, similar to the IMF packages being put in place all over Asia. Mahathir, however, was more in favor of a national approach to solving the problems, one which relied more on Kuala Lumpur than on multilateral agencies. Mahathir, who had carefully observed events in neighboring Indonesia, including the fall of Suharto in May, became increasingly convinced that the IMF solution to the Indonesian problem was not only ineffective, but that it had directly led to the fall of the Suharto government and the resulting disorder in Indonesia. Since he was convinced that the IMF did not have any workable solutions in hand, he was not prepared to risk his regime by following IMF dictates. After Suharto's fall, Mahathir became concerned about the support his erstwhile protege, Anwar, had been developing in the ruling party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Anwar and one of his deputies made remarks in June suggesting that the Malaysian situation was analogous to that of Indonesia, with the clear implication that Mahathir's fate ought to be the same as Suharto's. Needless to say, Mahathir vigorously disagreed with this analysis. With the UMNO becoming divided over the ability of Mahathir to lead Malaysia out of its economic turmoil, Mahathir needed to act swiftly. In July he brought in his friend Daim Zainuddin as Special Functions Minister, removing much of the control Anwar had over Malaysia's financial decisions. A campaign of vilification against Anwar was launched, including the interesting charge by his brother in law that he had been sodomized by Anwar. Apart from personality and power, the struggle between Mahathir and Anwar represents a struggle between two visions of how Malaysia and Asia are to recover from their shared economic crisis. Anwar and his allies represent the conventional view on how to solve Malaysia's crisis. Their focus is on external aid, particularly from multilateral organizations like the IMF. Since the price for IMF support is austerity at home, the imposition of market reforms and a decrease in protection, this faction is prepared to make fundamental changes in Malaysia's economy. Of course, since economic liberalization runs counter to Mahathir's more authoritarian, less liberal economic strategy, it followed that Mahathir had to go. Mahathir's own analysis was fundamentally different. In his view, the IMF offered no solution at all. The amount of money and credit being offered was completely insufficient to solve Malaysia's problems. Moreover, the IMF's price would create social chaos in Malaysia. For example, the IMF required a rigorous program of closing insolvent banks, writing off bad loans and decreasing available credit accordingly. Having seen the consequences of these policies in Indonesia, Mahathir's position was that, since the IMF provided no real solution anyway, it followed that it made no sense to pay the price. Mahathir has pursued a radically different course. On September 1, Mahathir announced new foreign exchange controls, effectively limiting the convertibility of the Ringgit. In addition, earlier this week, Mahathir's government introduced new banking regulations that provided banks with more time in which to write off bad loans, reduced reserve requirements, and generally allowed Malaysian banks, at least internally, more room for maneuver. In addition, Mahathir had Anwar arrested in the midst of the Commonwealth Games and Queen Elizabeth's visit. What is important about events in Malaysia is that they demonstrate a new economic response to the crisis emerging. The previous response has been to look to the outside for support. Malaysia's response to is cast itself free from the outside, on the theory that the outside world
