Under capitalism, to lament the current increase in inequality is to bemoan the economic growth paradigm itself.
- In a world where 51 of the world’s 100 biggest economies are corporations, capitalist globalization has led to the urbanization and feminization of poverty and to widespread social marginalization. One third of urban households worldwide live in absolute poverty. Many rural households are female-headed.
- The international community will not be able to move effectively against poverty and other human rights (HR) violations until the neoliberal global restructuring that Globalization promotes is modified by an ethic about which its proponents continue to be terribly ambivalent.
2a. [Pro-market globalizers tell us: “One cannot throw away the huge gains from Globalization just because some people are left out”. The easy counter-argument to this is that it is not just ‘some’ people…Noteworthy also is the fact that books by anti-market, anti-globalizers seem to have better arguments; but books by pro-market globalizers seem to have better book sales].
- Capitalist globalization does not pursue its aims consistently; it tinkers with parts of the economic system and it determines its means according to its ends, i.e., to maximize short-term profit. Globalization certainly does not fight the most urgent evils of society: it is for the good of shareholders, and not stake-holders! It makes neighboring countries compete for foreign investors rather than foster common growth strategies. It all boils down to elite pacts: local administrations and Capital gain from providing international markets with cheap goods at the expense of workers who hardly earn enough to survive.
- The IMF and the WB –that pay lip service to be putting-a-human-face-on-globalization– do not practice enough self-criticism of the right kind and thus have demonstrated an inability to learn from their mistakes. As an example, the World Bank’s Development Policy lending that has replaced Structural Adjustment Programs still suffers from some of the same major flaws. HR issues are not addressed or even considered.
4a. [There have, therefore, been numerous calls for the democratization of International Financial Institutions. The more progressive NGOs think that IFIs should at least consider applying the ‘Double Majority Principle’ in which decisions would need a majority vote from both the rich and the poor countries voting separately].
- On assessing progress towards HR under capitalist globalization, political scientists are as divided as economists about whether market reforms can be effectively implemented in an equitable manner in democratic and less than democratic regimes. The truth of the matter is that behind free market forces, there are always persons/people biased by an ideology based on narrow political interests (John K. Galbraith) …which leave little (if any) room for equity. Greed also drives these forces to periodic crises and these crises are often self-fulfilling: they are the reaction to perceived and not real risks. When risk is perceived, greedy investors ultimately display a ‘herd behavior’; they panic and ‘run on the bank’ (actually ‘run on the country’, as was shown in the recent Asian crisis).
5a. [International commodity prices are also volatile, because they are driven by the same greed and herd behavior (see oil prices in the last 5 months). Other than herd behavior, on average, low income countries record a so-called ‘commodity price shock’ every 3.3 years].
5b. In all these cases, common people’ rights –including the right to health– are the losers.
- Economists are also fond of using ‘models’. Often these are econometric. In HR work, we do not use such models. We think gross abstractions make computer-simulated models irrelevant –and models usually fit more developed countries; there, they are perhaps somewhat less irrelevant; but they sure represent a straightjacket when applied universally. One problem with relying on models is that solutions may seem far easier than what they really are. Our analysis would be better informed by assuming a greater anarchic state as a starting point rather than a pristine world as portrayed by the models. One can only suspect that elegance-rather-than-relevance is the appeal for the use of these models by our friends the economists.
- Another thing that irritates HR activists is the current call for ‘evidence-based data’, especially in health. This concept, imported from clinical sciences, has seen calls to use it in cases of HR violations…!? Is there a need for more evidence, I ask myself? ‘Evidence-based’ sometimes sounds to me like a collection of anecdotes, and one could easily share the skeptics’ view that the plural of ‘anecdote’ is ‘no data’! The naked truth behind many an ‘anecdote’ is that they sound good and have some superficial plausibility, but, upon reflection and examination, they are found to be largely devoid of much real substance or of real in-depth analysis. (Mind you, the press actually has the habit of using such ‘anecdotes’ as an analytic tool of the ‘facts’ to explain away the real negative consequences of capitalist globalization).
7a. [The above is why, in the HR domain, handling media contacts clumsily leads to inaccurate reporting; so, there is a need for periodic, meaningful public relations campaigns by HR activists].
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City