Globalisation and Social Justice Group

Transcription

1 Globalisation and Social Justice Group Multilateralism, Global Governance, and Economic Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses David Held, Professor of Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science July 17th, 2007 In the third meeting of the Globalisation and Social Justice Breakfast group, participants examined the themes of multilateralism and global governance arrangements, addressing both their strengths and weaknesses. It was suggested that those policies that have largely set the global agenda in recent years primarily, the Washington security doctrine and the Washington Consensus are failing, and alternatives need to be proposed. To this end, David Held, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics, set out five main categories in order to achieve an informed and alternative approach to the Washington consensus: 1. Guiding principles and institutional stepping stones 2. Political opportunity and vulnerability 3. Problems and dilemmas of global problem-solving 4. 9/11, the war on Iraq and human security 5. The contested nature of global economic governance Guiding principles and institutional stepping stones International institutions such as the UN and the EU provide a mechanism to promote social and economic progress embedded in law, rights and responsibilities. This view is guided by the principle that human well-being should not be limited by one s geographical or cultural location, but rather directed by the creed that all human beings deserve equal moral respect and concern. These principles have guided the work of a growing number of multilateral agreements, institutions, and transgovernmental networks - monitoring and regulating a vast majority of human activity. Despite the fact that these institutions and networks lack the overall coordinated political

2 programme and centralisation associated with national governments, one can witness the increasing expansion of their jurisdiction and intrusion into domestic affairs of states such as the rulings of the WTO trade dispute panel. Global networks and institutions provide two further functions: they provide a mechanism through which civil society and corporate interest can merge in global policy such as the Global Water Partnership; and they allow for the configurations of regional governance for example the EU is an institution where states have come together across a growing number of areas of common concern. Political opportunity and vulnerability The process of globalisation in the twenty-first century has led countries to become increasing interconnected by the ways in which they trade, communicate and effect the environment. The causes and subsequent effects of their actions flow across national borders conflating the wellbeing of these countries into a common pattern. As such, any form of development in one area economic, social or political creates a centrifugal effect and vice versa. Held noted that the most crucial challenges facing global leaders can be summarized as those concerned with: sharing our planet (such as global warming and water deficits); sustaining our humanity (poverty and conflict prevention); and our rulebook (nuclear proliferation, trade rules, finance and tax rules). In an increasingly interconnected world, these problems of global importance cannot be solved by any one nation-state alone. They call for collective and collaborative action. The progressive-left must question whether there is an appropriate governance capacity to resolve these challenges. And if not, can it be put in place? Problems and dilemmas of global problem-solving The lack of centralisation and a coordinated political programme of international institutions and networks are compounded with a number of structural difficulties which haunt their problem-solving capacities. Problems include those that transpired as a result of globalisation generating public policy problems from the domestic and the foreign. Other problems include: the inability of international agencies to act collectively on problem-solving solutions; the obscure division of labour among the multitude of international governmental organisations; and an accountability deficit relating to the disparity among states and between states and non-state actors in

3 formulating and implementing of global public policy. As Held suggests, underlying these institutional difficulties is the collapse of symmetry and congruence between decision-makers and decision-takers. 9/11, the war in Iraq and human security The US s decision to invade Iraq after the attacks on 9/11 undermined the fabric of international institutions by making the world more polarised, weakening international law and by exposing the vulnerability of multilateral institutions. It is imperative, as Held suggested, that the way forward includes the development of a human security agenda derived from multilateralism and common rules. This requires three things of governments and international institutions: a commitment to the rule of law and the development of multilateral institution; a sustained effort to generate increased legitimacy and accountability for international institutions involved in security and peace-making; and an acceptance that the global wealth, income and power gap cannot be left to the markets to resolve alone. Social democrats and liberal-left leaders must understand that security and development, and security and the human rights agendas, have been treated as separate intellectual and foreign policy domains, but should no longer do so. The contested nature of global economic governance For the past three decades the agenda of economic liberalisation and global market integration associated with the Washington Consensus, has been guiding economic powers and international financial institutions. Contemporary progressive thinkers must now re-assess the nature and implications of this agenda as the World Bank, IMF and leading economic powers have often been less than productive. Many countries that have benefited significantly from globalisation have not completely complied with the rules of the standard liberal market approach, including China, India and Vietnam. Those that have, for example the Latin American countries, have lagged behind in growth records, proving that the link between growth, economic openness and liberalisation is weaker than the standard liberal argument suggests. Taking the unprecedented growth of both China and India into account it was argued that the number of people living below the poverty line of $1 a day has actually risen in the two decades since However, if China is excluded from consideration, inequality between countries can be shown to have increased since 1980.

4 However, the debate should not be limited to whether or not we can support globalisation, per se. Rather social democrats and progressive-left leaders need to consider options for a sustainable and equitable globalisation trajectory and to the shape of such a global order can be effectively managed. It was argued that the implications of the Washington Consensus have weakened confidence in public authority and in the authorities capacity to govern and provide urgent public goods. As such, the question raised was: how can markets, democratic choices about public goods and a concern with basic universal standards such as human rights and environmental protection be pursued systematically and simultaneously? Some proposed steps in addressing this question included: Building bridges between international economic law and human rights law, between commercial law and environmental law, between state sovereignty and transnational law. The introduction of new terms of reference into the ground rules or basic laws of the free market and trade system. Precedents exist in the social chapter of the Maastricht Agreement. Moreover, what are at stake are three interrelated transformations: 1. The first would involve engaging companies in the promotion of core universal principles such as the UN's Global Compact. This would be an important advancement if human rights and environmental standards were embedded in corporate practices. 2. The second would involve the entrenchment of revised rules and codes on health, child labour, trade union activity, environmental protection, stakeholder consultation and corporate governance in the articles of association of economic organisations and trading agencies. 3. The third set of transformation would require development policies to be linked to: advancing national trade and industrial incentives; developing transparent, accountable political institutions; long term investment in health care, human capital and physical infrastructure; and ensuring the sequencing of global market integration into a framework of fair rules for trade and finance.

5 Within this context it is the challenge of the centre-left to create a clear, effective and accountable decision-making process across a range of urgent global challenges. Nonetheless, Held sees this as an opportune moment for progressives to rethink foreign policy goals and objectives. As the political and economic tectonics world wide continue to shift and change, it is inevitable that the current multilateral world order will be challenged in the years ahead. There is a need to build on the multilateral steps of the twentieth century and deepen the institutional hold of this agenda. Despite the bleak opening of the twenty-first century, scared with terrorism, corruption and global warming, Held suggested that steps towards addressing urgent global challenges are still within reach. An approach which links the human security agenda to an alternative direction of governing the world economy would, as Held suggested, reinforce both international law and multilateral institutions. Discussion Following David Held s presentation, group members examined a variety of issues centring on the themes of multilateralism and global governance. It was suggested that countries with infant industry policies such as China and India may actually hinder their countries economic growth process due to their protectionist policies. Protectionist policies, along with inefficient industries may lead to higher prices and lower quality products whereas the same product could be produced at lower prices and higher quality if it was produced on the international market. Addressing this comment, Held highlighted that it was not too long ago that European countries themselves were also relying on infant industries and protectionist policies to guide their economic growth. In many aspects, the US continues to apply protectionist polices in its economic dealings with its business counterparts. Moreover, Held suggested that the use of protective mechanisms should not be interpreted as an ends to economic prosperity. Rather, one must remember that development takes a long time and can take a various forms. The EU as it is now known was only established 14 years ago and is continuing to develop and transform. Moreover, it was contested that there is no one single narrative which guarantees economic growth. India for example, first had liberalised internal markets to compete with each other before

6 gradually opening up to the international markets. China on the other hand, has staggered and regulated its entry into the global market and FDI is locked into partnerships often with significant controls from its political body. It was suggested that both China and India are developing economically at an astronomical rate. However, this growth comes at the cost of increasing emissions of green house gases which feed into the process of global warming. In terms of social justice within and economy and social justice world wide, how can we address these countries to abide by the rules and regulations set forth in treaties on climate change and limitations on the emissions of green house gases? Responding to this question, it was argued that in terms of economic development and social justice world wide, we cannot overlook the fact that the West has contributed over seventy percent of global carbon emissions. Indeed, there is a need to address the environmental issue; however, it must be done so in a fair, understandable and equitable way in order for it to function at the global level. Moreover, it was highlighted that it took the West decades of trials and errors to set up its capacity building abilities at the national and local level. The West cannot over-burden less developed countries to deliver successful results from the rules and regulations agreed upon in international treaties. Such demands require less developed countries to produce results in ever shortening timeliness and with disproportionately low financial assistance. Questions regarding equality and gender issue were also raised during this series. It was suggested that as globalisation increases, those who work in the informal sector, primarily women, have been largely excluded from the benefits of the new socio-economic global order. The reason being that most of the benefits generated take place outside the realm of the formal economy. How has the global community addressed this pressing issue? It was agreed that the issue of gender (class, race, ethnicity and location) is a pressing one and needs close attention. Held suggested that there needs to be a uniform standard to address such issues and initiative or else organisations with the same goals will compete for their own interest and all too often fail to achieve their purpose.