From the Local to the Global

Contents

Acknowledgements viiAbbreviations viii

Introduction: Whither Development in the Age of Globalisation? 1Stephen McCloskey

Part I Development Issues and Definitions

1. Measuring Development 25Andy Storey

2. The Colonial Legacy and the European Response 41Gerard McCann

3. Towards the Globalisation of Justice: An InternationalCriminal Court 59Paul Hainsworth

4. Women and Development: Examining Gender Issues inDeveloping Countries 76Madeleine Leonard

Part II Aid and Trade

5. Perspectives on Aid: Benefits, Deficits and Strategies 95Maura Leen

6. Is Trade an Agent of Development? 111Denis O’Hearn

7. Building a Global Security Environment 125Purnaka L. de Silva

Part III Debt and Poverty

8. Debt: Cancellation by Instalments 141Jean Somers

9. Child Poverty and Development 158Paula Rodgers and Eimear Flanagan

10. Education as an Agent of Social Change 178Stephen McCloskey

Part IV The Global Cost of Development

11. Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Racism 199Iris Teichmann

12. The Environmental Costs of Development 217Mary Louise Malig

13. Globalisation and Development: Charting the Future 232Gerard McCann

Contributors 247Index 251

vi From the Local to the Global

Introduction: Whither Development in the Age of Globalisation?

Stephen McCloskey

Understanding development issues is essential to enable all of us toplay an effective role as global citizens in working toward the erad-ication of poverty, injustice and social exclusion in both local andglobal contexts. With over a billion people consigned to subsistencelifestyles and living on less than a dollar a day, we have securegrounds on which to question the Western-led model of develop-ment that has characterised the past 50 years. During this period,development has become synonymous with globalisation andregarded as encompassing rapid industrialisation, global trade ingoods and services, laissez-faire economics and capital transfer. Infact, some commentators on globalisation have traced its origins tothe earliest colonisation of the Americas initiated by Columbus 500years ago and view post-war development as an extension of thatprocess. The current phase of globalisation has adopted new tech-nologies and institutions to maintain the old hegemonic control ofthe leading Western powers that has spanned centuries. While manycorrupt and compliant Third World leaders have played a significantrole in economically disadvantaging their own people, the develop-ment model advocated by Western governments in the aftermath ofthe Second World War has been largely responsible for the deepeningunderdevelopment that has enveloped the majority of the world’speople.

This introduction will examine the concepts of globalisation anddevelopment in historical and contemporary contexts. It willhighlight the importance of development issues in equippinglearners with the skills and knowledge necessary to analyse how themodern world is ordered and to address the latent inequalities ofglobalisation. This chapter will also outline the main institutionaland ideological instruments of globalisation whilst charting a futurecourse for development in the context of the new popularmovements for change that have emerged in recent years.

1

GLOBALISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Development issues have accrued increasing importance in theperiod of renewed globalisation that has characterised the post-ColdWar era. The collapse of state command economies in the Easternbloc in 1989 was to herald a ‘new world order’ of greater prosperity,security and equality. The United States (US) emerged from the ColdWar as the world’s last remaining superpower, confident that itsdominant neo-liberal model of economic development had eclipsedthe failed alternative path of socialism. Throughout the 1990s, neo-liberalism became an unchallenged article of faith proclaimed byWestern governments and preached to the poor. This ideologicaldominance was manifested in a sharp swing to the right in politicalinstitutions across Europe and North America, and provided anideological context for an accelerated form of globalisation whichwas promoted as the only legitimate pathway to development.

The contemporary form of globalisation has been characterisedby new innovations in telecommunications, increased interdepen-dence amongst states, enhanced cultural awareness and, morenegatively, by a rampant private sector dominated by TransnationalCorporations (TNCs). The political philosophy underpinning glob-alisation advocates greater trade liberalisation, reduced stateintervention in the economy, and the derogation of increasing levelsof control over our public services to the private sector. As global-isation has reached new levels of technical development, productionand profit, the poverty gap between rich and poor has widenedbetween (and within) developed and developing countries.1

In assessing progress toward the eradication of poverty in the tenyears following the collapse of the eastern bloc, the United NationsHuman Development Report (2000) found that by the late 1990s thefifth of the world’s people living in the highest income countriescontrolled 86 per cent of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP)– the bottom fifth controlled just 1 per cent.2 Thus, the profitsgenerated by globalisation have been largely accumulated by awealthy elite rather than redistributed according to social need.Global inequalities increased in the twentieth century ‘by orders ofmagnitude out of proportion to anything experienced before’whereby the distortion in income between the richest and poorestcountries grew from 34 to 1 in 1970 to 70 to 1 in 1997.3 Moreover,the combined wealth of the top 200 billionaires in 1999 reached astaggering $1,135 billion compared to the collective incomes of $146

2 From the Local to the Global

billion for the 582 million people living in the least developedcountries.4 The human cost of globalisation has been immense andlargely poverty related. Some 30,000 children die every day from pre-ventable diseases mostly caused by food shortages and a lack of cleanwater. Over 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day whilst2.4 billion people lack basic sanitation.5 The technological advancesthat have been the flagship of globalisation underline theunevenness of development when contrasted with the medievalenvirons of some sub-Saharan African states gripped in poverty andcontinually threatened by famine or drought.

The role of globalisation in the development process has beenhotly contested by governments and non-governmental organisa-tions (NGOs). For example, in 2000, the British government’sDepartment for International Development (DFID) published aWhite Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work forthe Poor, which argued that ‘globalisation creates unprecedented newopportunities for sustainable development and poverty reduction’.6

In a critique of DFID’s position, the Catholic Agency for OverseasDevelopment (CAFOD) suggested that ‘equity and redistribution areincreasingly recognized as the “missing link” between globalisationand poverty reduction… What is good for poor people is good forthe economy as a whole. Yet up to now, globalisation has frequentlybeen linked with inequality.’7 Western governments, therefore, arguethat globalisation can be an agent of development by generatinggrowth and investment in developing countries and integrating theireconomies into the global market of commodities and services.However, NGOs and civil society activists believe that globalisationis exacerbating poverty levels in developing countries and effectivelydictating their engagement with the global economy on termsfavourable to the developed world. Third World countries have beenparticularly critical of the institutional instruments of globalisation.

THE INSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS OF GLOBALISATION

The Bretton Woods Institutions

The concepts of development and globalisation can be sourced tothe post-Second World War period of reconstruction led by theUnited States. The economic philosophy associated with the modernand renewed form of today’s globalisation has its origins in theBretton Woods Institutions – the International Monetary Fund (IMF)and the World Bank – established in 1944 to ‘support post-war reha-

Introduction 3

bilitation and promote international trade’.8 These bodies have beenthe vanguard of globalisation for almost 60 years, primarily throughthe disbursement of conditional loans to developing countries.While the post-war period was characterised by resurgent national-ism and the fragmentation of old colonial empires, the combinedefforts of the World Bank and the IMF resulted in an insidiousrecolonisation process by economic means. The World Bank wascharged at Bretton Woods with providing ‘longer term loans todeveloping countries to support their development’ whilst the IMFwas given the role of supporting an ‘orderly international monetarysystem’.9 Beneath the façade of this laudable rhetoric, however, theIMF and the World Bank have orchestrated economic indebtednessthroughout the Third World by facilitating a ‘bonanza’ of irrespon-sible borrowing by developing countries in the 1970s. Loans fromthe IMF became conditional on the implementation of structuraladjustment programmes (SAPs) that ‘covered social policies, financialpolicy, corporate laws and governance’.10 In short, SAPs representeda neo-liberal reform programme designed to dictate economic policyto Third World governments.

Over the past 30 years the debt crisis has strangled Third Worldeconomies and prevented meaningful development for the world’spoor. According to the Drop the Debt Campaign, the combined debtof developing countries currently exceeds $2.4 billion and therebyforces Third World governments to drastically cut social expenditurein order to meet loan repayment schedules.11 Developing countriesare locked in a vicious cycle of debt repayment, rescheduling loanswhen faltering on payments, and fresh borrowing to repay old debt.The poorest countries are forced to channel more than 50 per centof their GDP into repaying debt, which necessitates a massiveausterity programme encompassing cuts in health, education,welfare, housing and public utilities. The burden generated by thisneo-liberal agenda is most acutely felt by the vulnerable indeveloping countries: the elderly, children and, especially, womenwho often combine onerous domestic chores (unpaid labour) withintensive, low-paid employment in either rural or urban contexts.Debt also traduces the impact of multilateral (from internationalorganisations like the United Nations) and bilateral (country-to-country) aid as agents of development. For every $1 donated in grantaid to developing countries, more than $13 is returned in debtrepayments to the developed world.12 While long-term aid deliveredin partnership with communities and NGOs in developing countries


can effectively address social needs, this process is continuallyundermined by the downsizing of governments by the debt crisis.

World Trade Organisation

A third key agent of the contemporary form of globalisation is theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) which, together with the WorldBank and the IMF, makes up a triumvirate of international financialinstitutions (IFIs) that effectively control the policy agenda for globaltrade and economic development. The WTO was established on 1January 1995 as a successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade (GATT) with the aim of liberalising trade and reducing stateprotectionism of domestic markets. The US was initially reluctant todevolve meaningful powers to an international regulatory body ontrade so GATT evolved through a series of trade negotiations thatculminated with the Uruguay Round from 1986–94. Although GATTfocused primarily on manufactured goods, its successive traderounds reduced tariffs on commodities from ‘an average of 40 percent in the 1940s to 4 per cent today’.13 The Uruguay Round agreedthe establishment of the WTO to carry forward the GATT agendawhich was broadened to include agriculture, services (such astelecommunications and finance) and intellectual property rightsthat governed the patenting of commodities. The WTO also has thepower to arbitrate in trading disputes between its members and, ifnecessary, impose sanctions on nations in breech of its regulations.

Negotiating and implementing the rules of global trade providesthe WTO with enormous influence over the economic developmentof Third World countries. Development NGOs consider the WTO anundemocratic institution designed to propagate a profit-driven modelof development that mostly benefits developed countries and privatecompanies. With 144 members, the WTO should, in theory, arrive atdecisions favouring developing countries, which represent some 80per cent of the world’s population. In practice, however, negotiationsare rarely concluded by democratic procedures, but rather involvebruising exchanges in which poorer nations are arm-twisted intoaccepting terms tabled by Western governments. Moreover, manydeveloping countries lack the resources and expertise to properlynegotiate their case in the WTO on a level playing field. Negotiationsrepresent a web of legalistic jargon and intricate detail that requireregular monitoring and expert representation. Government delegatesto the WTO are regularly lobbied by TNCs equipped with batteries oflawyers contracted to enhance the privatisation of public utilities and

Introduction 5

maximise the investment conditions for private companies. However,developing countries are woefully under-represented and, thereby,sidelined in negotiations that regularly result in outcomes thatbenefit the developed world.

Developed countries proclaim the benefits of free trade economicsas a badge of honour and, yet, protect their domestic markets fromThird World imports by applying tariffs and quotas to specified com-modities. By contrast, developing countries are browbeaten intoaccepting foreign direct investment by TNCs on terms that threatendomestic productivity and services, and increase unemployment.The ‘open economy’ mantra of the WTO can be disastrous fordeveloping countries. For example, the dumping of cheap foodimports into Mexico from the US created a collapse in local maizeprices and impoverished Mexican farmers who saw their incomeslashed and livelihoods threatened.14 The WTO sustains the tradingdomination of developed countries by employing loopholes tocircumvent regulations. An example is the WTO Agreement on Agri-culture, which is designed to reduce subsidies to farmers and protectmembers’ domestic markets from cheap food imports. However, theEuropean Union (EU) and US government continue to subsidisefarmers at an annual rate of $360 million which, consequently,undermines agribusiness in developing countries.15 According to theUnited Nations (UN), this form of protectionism in developedcountries costs the Third World ‘an export income of $2 billion aday, many times more than the total inflows of aid’.16

GATS and TRIPS

The decision-making mechanisms of the WTO are dominated by ‘theQuad’ – Canada, the European Union, Japan and the US – with aview to securing maximum advantage for their economies and facil-itating the creeping privatisation of the public sector in the Northernand Southern Hemispheres. The EU and the US sometimes makeuneasy transatlantic bedfellows and have occasionally engaged inmutual recrimination over protectionist policies that have disad-vantaged imports. However, ‘the Quad’ has been unified in itspursuit of WTO agreements designed to open up public sectorservices to private investment and control. The MultilateralAgreement on Investment (MAI) was formulated in the 1990s andoffered unprecedented powers to TNCs in challenging the rights ofnational governments to protect public utilities and employment


sectors from private takeover and competition. The MAI wasdefeated in December 1998 through the vigorous and sustained cam-paigning efforts of hundreds of NGOs around the world. Theprivatising impulse of MAI has been resurrected, however, in theguise of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) whichwas originally ratified in 1994 and is currently under debate at theWTO with a view to extending its remit. Described by the WTO Sec-retariat as ‘the world’s first international investment agreement’,GATS is designed to remove any restrictions and internalgovernment regulations in the area of service delivery that areconsidered to be ‘barriers to trade’.17

The services vulnerable to privatisation under the GATS agreementinclude education (schools and colleges), health (hospitals), publiclibraries, and municipal services such as the supply of water. Themain danger for the poor, of course, lies in public services becomingprofit-making entities under the control of TNCs that will thendemand payment at the point of delivery. The quality of essentialservices will steadily decline without government intervention andbe priced beyond the reach of the poorest communities indeveloping countries. Unsurprisingly, it is the TNCs that have driventhe GATS negotiations in the WTO and it is they who are primed tobecome its chief beneficiaries. The foothold of TNCs in developingcountries has also been secured by the Agreement on Trade RelatedIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was one of the mainoutcomes of the Uruguay Round of trade talks.

TRIPS is a particularly damaging agreement for developingcountries in that it enables TNCs to patent ‘intellectual property’that includes medicines and agricultural seeds indigenous to theSouth. As the South African activist Mohau Pheko stated, TRIPSenables ‘bio-pirates to steal from your land, patent your seeds andthen sell them back to you’.18 Under the auspices of TRIPS, Western-based corporations can monopolise new technologies and stifleindigenous industrial development in developing countries. Mostcrucially, however, intellectual property rights (IPRs) enable TNCs topatent and market drugs and agricultural products that will hinderfood and commodity production, and exacerbate medicinalshortages in developing countries. With the spiralling AIDS crisisreaching epidemic proportions in Southern Africa, the TRIPSagreement will deepen the suffering of its victims.

Transnational Corporations

Introduction 7

TNCs have been the vanguard of globalisation in the post-war era.Like modern manifestations of the Spanish Conquistadors, who firstbrought a missionary and military zeal to empire building over fivecenturies ago, TNCs are international conglomerates which use theforce of capital to capture new markets. TNCs such as McDonald’sand Starbucks have become totems of accelerated globalisation anddriven its expansion into areas such as Eastern Europe that are ripefor investment following the end of the Cold War. With their head-quarters normally based in Western Europe or North America, TNCshave proliferated their operations in developing countries under theauspices of favourable trading terms agreed in the Uruguay Round.Accountable only to stockholders and the international share index,TNCs reflect the capacity of trade rules to open up governments andmarkets to the advantage of developed countries and private capital.The operations of TNCs have been criticised on the grounds thatthey:

• Relocate most of their profits to their countries of origin(usually industrialised nations)

• Regularly prevent the unionisation of their labour force• Exploit child and women workers in poor developing countries

to maximise their profits• Pay low wages to employees who are forced to work long hours

to earn a living wage• Create environmental problems through the use of unsafe and

polluting methods of production, particularly, in the oilindustry

• Breach environmental and labour standards in host countries,especially poor nations in the greatest need of internalinvestment

The world’s top ten TNCs exercise immense political influence andaccumulate annual revenues that dwarf the earnings of manydeveloped and developing countries. For example, the car manu-facturer General Motors has an annual turnover greater than Norwayand the US-based oil company Exxon can boast an annual incomethat is more than double the Gross National Product of Venezuela –one of the world’s leading oil exporting countries.19 TNCs are,therefore, developing an alarming level of political impunity in theiroperations, facilitated by the profit-driven ethos of neo-liberalism,favourable trading conditions, and the prescriptive economic


measures foisted by the World Bank and the IMF on vulnerabledeveloping world economies. The World Development Movement(WDM), an NGO that has successfully campaigned on trade justiceissues, states that:

... multinationals could play a valuable role in pro-poor economicdevelopment providing jobs, capital and technical know-how, butin reality their positive impact is limited. Their full potential isnot realized. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that multi-nationals, registered in the North, are actually causing harm inthe Third World. Transgressions include: abusing workers’ rightsand causing bodily harm; destroying local lands and livelihoods;promoting harmful products to consumers; breaking national lawsand undermining local democracy.20

Thus, TNCs could generate positive investment in developingcountries but, instead, effectively asset-strip natural resources fromthe Third World while exploiting a labour force that receives inwages a fraction of the profits made by TNCs on commodities soldin developed countries.

The WDM has urged industrialised countries to take responsibilityfor the activities of corporations based and registered under theirjurisdictions that operate in developing countries. In an idealscenario, TNCs would be self-regulating bodies measuring theiroperations against a firmly enforced code of conduct which addressesissues relating to the environment, working conditions, wages andtrade unions. However, many leading corporations, such as Nike andGap, continue to manufacture their products in conditions thatcontravene international labour standards despite using a code ofconduct in promoting their products in developed countries.21 TheWDM has argued for binding regulations to be introduced that willproperly police the activities of corporations under the auspices of anInternational Investment Treaty ‘promoting quality investment andcore standards for corporate responsibility’.22 Given the influence ofTNCs over some national governments in the context of WTO nego-tiations, the regulation of such a treaty should be handled byindependent specialist bodies such as the International LabourOrganisation (ILO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).

THE IDEOLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS OF GLOBALISATION

Development and Underdevelopment

Introduction 9

The international financial institutions have been the battlegroundon which the contemporary debate on development has beenfought. Third World networks, NGOs and development organisa-tions regard the IFIs as partners in globalisation, working in tandemto pursue a neo-liberal agenda that masquerades as development but,in fact, deepens poverty levels in developing countries. The lendingpolicies of the World Bank and the IMF have prised open ThirdWorld economies to inward investment from countries andcorporations in the developed world, while the WTO has lockeddeveloping countries into unfair trade agreements that compoundtheir difficulties. The IFIs and Northern governments regard develop-ment as integrating poor countries into the globalising economy.This is achieved by export-led economic regeneration, attractinginward investment, dropping protectionist tariffs, and enhancingprivate control of public services. However, the prescriptive policiesof the IFIs raise fundamental questions about the appropriateness ofneo-liberalism in a developing world context and what actually con-stitutes meaningful development.

Wolfgang Sachs has sourced the concept of development to aninaugural address by US President Harry Truman on 20 January 1949in which he described the Southern Hemisphere as comprising‘under-developed areas’.23 Sachs regarded Truman’s description ofunderdevelopment as having four basic premises:

1. That industrialised nations stood at the top of the ‘social evo-lutionary’ scale and, therefore, represented the apex ofdevelopment – the model to which underdeveloped nationsshould aspire. The 2001 Human Development Report, however,points to increasing levels of poverty in the wealthy memberstates of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) in which:

• 15 per cent of adults are functionally illiterate• 130 million people are living in income poverty• 34 million people are unemployed• 8 million people are undernourished24

2. That the development process would enable the US to enlist thesupport of developing countries in the ideological battle withEastern bloc countries during the Cold War. The US, therefore,represented a ‘comforting vision of development’ which poorcountries could ape in their eagerness to ‘develop’. However,


Sachs suggests that the US has run out of ‘ideological steam’ inthe aftermath of the Cold War and that the East–West rivalry hasnow been superseded by the rich–poor divide, with under-developed countries largely blamed for their own poverty.

3. That in the race to develop, poor countries would ultimatelymatch their counterparts in the North by adopting the samemodel of development and swallowing the strong medicine ofneo-liberal reform. The ‘one-size-fits-all’ doctrine of the Trumanyears continues to underpin the model of development espousedby Northern governments today. The IFIs apply the same neo-liberal template to all developing countries without dueconsideration of their particular social, economic and politicalneeds. Southern countries that have bravely embraced alternativepaths to development which encompass the redistribution ofwealth and land, and tackle social problems such as health andeducation, are bullied, threatened or overthrown by the US.Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, and more recently, Venezuela, areexamples of countries that challenged US hegemony within itsown hemisphere and, consequently, suffered varying levels of USintervention.

4. That development will result in the westernisation of the world.Sachs argues that the Truman ‘project’ aimed to create a mirrorimage of the US in the development of poor countries. This fearhas been realised to an extent in the cultural imperialismattending the pervasive export of Hollywood films (the biggestexport earner for the US economy), and brand names like Nikeand Coca-Cola. These icons of globalisation collectively threatencultural diversity, standardise material expectations and margin-alise traditional life in terms of customs, clothing, language, andidentity. Westernising the world, however, reinforces the oldmonetarist hierarchy of countries and the ideological dominanceof the US. It also stifles debate on alternative models of develop-ment that are both sustainable and consistent with social justiceand equality.25

The Truman Doctrine

A dictionary definition of a developing country states that it is a‘poor or non-industrial country seeking to develop its resources byindustrialisation’.26 Thus, the concept of development is equatedwith industrialisation or, as Gustavo Esteva suggests, is reduced tothe accrual of economic growth.27 Truman’s coinage of ‘under-

Introduction 11

developed’ as a new description of poor regions prefaced acommitment to a ‘program of development based on the conceptsof democratic fair dealing’ ... ‘The old imperialism,’ he said, ‘has noplace in our plans.’28 Truman’s speech heralded over 50 years ofdeepening global underdevelopment in which many developingcountries, such as Indonesia and Vietnam, became pawns in a ColdWar over markets, control of resources, strategic dominance and ide-ological supremacy.

Indonesia provides a prescient example of the human cost of theCold War. In 1965, the US and its Western partners turned a blindeye to the 1965 military coup d’état led by General Suharto thatresulted in the slaughter of 1 million Indonesians and a 30-year dic-tatorship which plunged the country into communal division,corruption, political repression and widespread human rightsabuses.29 The US embraced the new military regime, which con-veniently disposed of a communist ‘bogeyman’, President Sukarno,who had led a reformist government that took a leadership roleamong developing countries to co-ordinate united action towardseffecting meaningful development for poor nations. Sukarno wassacrificed to satisfy the strategic interests of the US in South-EastAsia, where it now had a foothold to repel the spread of communismand, most importantly, an ally conducive to Western investment andneo-liberal ‘reform’. Truman’s promise of development as‘democratic fair dealing’ became an example of Orwellian double-speak that characterises how development is defined by today’sleading agents of globalisation. Truman’s ‘development’ consignedmillions to poverty, insecurity, repression, hunger and social mar-ginalisation – the antithesis of development – through a renewal ofthe ‘old imperialism’ that had no place in ‘his plans’.30 Develop-ment, therefore, signalled a deepening underdevelopment whichprioritised selfish strategic and economic interests over the welfareof the world’s poor.

THE INSTRUMENTS OF CHANGE

Charting the Future

Despite the social polarisation of wealth and inequality that hasattended accelerated globalisation over the past 50 years, there aregrounds for optimism regarding development in this newmillennium. In December 1999, the Ministerial Council of the WTOmet in Seattle and faced vehement protests from an internationalcoalition of campaign groups: NGOs, development agencies,


women’s organisations, environmentalists, socialist groups, tradeunions and other civil society organisations. The aim of the protesterswas to demand ‘trade justice’ for developing countries, including:the cancellation of Third World debt; abolition of trade rules thathobble developing world economies; meaningful and bindingcontrols on environmental pollution; and the democratic account-ability of TNCs. The protesters successfully collapsed the WTO talksbut, more significantly, drew worldwide public attention to the un-democratic operations of the IFIs and their exacerbation of povertyin developed and developing countries. While similar protests hadbeen organised in developing countries along similar lines in thepast, the formulation of a trade justice agenda and campaignmovement in the North reflected a deepening public awareness ofdevelopment issues within industrialised countries. Moreover, civilsociety in the North demonstrated a preparedness to take action thatwould address poverty-related issues in solidarity and in partnershipwith developing countries on the doorstep of the IFIs.

The trade justice coalition is arguably the most significant popularmovement to emerge in the North since the civil rights and anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s. It indicates the often underestimatedcapacity of the public to digest complex economic issues andformulate strong opinions on the causes of underdevelopment. SinceSeattle, protests have been organised in cities throughout thedeveloped world, including Bonn, Genoa, London, Madrid andSeville, to coincide with the meetings of international financial andpolicy-making bodies like the EU, the Group of Eight leading indus-trialised countries (G8), the UN, the World Bank and the WTO.Although the mainstream media and Western governments haveoften been dismissive of the protests as anti-democratic andharbouring violent intent, in reality the trade justice movementrepresents a revitalisation of democracy on the streets rather than athreat to democratic order. The protesters recognise the culpabilityof Western governments in facilitating the privatisation of the publicsector largely to the benefit of powerful corporations. Civil societyhas consequently become increasingly alienated from Northern gov-ernments and been prepared to bypass ‘democratic’ institutions toseek justice for a silent majority disempowered and marginalised bygovernment bodies. As the journalist and broadcaster John Pilgerpoints out, the British general election in May 2001 produced thelowest turnout in electoral history: ‘24 per cent of the electoratevoted for Tony Blair and this is described as a landslide victory.’ As

Introduction 13

Pilger suggests, the low turnout was less an indication of public‘apathy’ than a demonstration of ‘public protest’.31

The trade justice movement has successfully monitored andchallenged the policies and negotiations of the IFIs, played animportant educational role in raising awareness of developmentissues in the public domain, and illustrated the value and power ofpopular democracy as an effective vehicle for change. The protestershave also recaptured the concept of development from the distortionof Truman’s definition to encompass:

• The redistribution of wealth to address social needs• The regulation of trade and investment to developing countries

to ensure that it enhances their technological developmentand promotion of indigenous industry

• Greater Third World participation in, and influence over, inter-national finance and trade bodies

• The establishment of national development strategies topromote pro-poor growth

• Sustained public investment in health, education and welfareservices

• The introduction of an effectively monitored InternationalInvestment Agreement

• The cancellation of Third World debt• The implementation of effective controls over environmental

pollution and the protection of biodiversity32

These are baseline measures that can begin to arrest the poverty gapwithin and between developed and developing countries. The alter-native vision of development advocated by leading world powers willnot only perpetuate social divisions and inequalities but also absorbnatural resources at an unsustainable rate. Sustainability has becomeincreasingly debated in the context of development, particularlysince the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio de Janeiro which raised concerns about theincreasing demands made of the natural environment to fuel theglobal trade in commodities.33 The follow-up to the Rio conference,the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannes-burg from 26 August to 4 September 2002, tested the commitmentof developed countries in setting aside national economic intereststo ensure sustainable development on a global scale.


World Summit on Sustainable Development

In the ten years since the Rio conference, poverty levels haveworsened in the developing world, overseas aid from somedeveloped countries has receded, the number of people livingwithout clean water and sanitation has risen to over 2 billion, and28 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have contracted HIV/AIDS(an estimated 60,000 Africans died of AIDS during the ten-daysummit).34 The Johannesburg summit, therefore, presented achallenge to all the participating countries to display the politicalwill necessary to address the world’s immense social problems andthe main causes of environmental denudation. The key environ-mental concerns discussed at the summit included arresting thedepletion in fish stocks, increasing renewable energy sources toreduce pollution caused by fossil fuels, protecting biodiversity, andtackling the causes and effects of adverse climate change. The WorldSummit consequently had a formidable agenda that requireduniversal consensus to end what Thabo Mbeki, the South Africanpresident, described as a ‘global apartheid’ between rich and poor.35

A total of 45,000 delegates representing 187 countries attendedthe summit, which was addressed by 104 world leaders – althoughPresident George Bush refused to lead the US delegation at theconference. Bush’s decision was apparently influenced to someextent by a letter (leaked to Friends of the Earth) from 31 right-wingpolitical groups in the US – seven of which are funded to the tuneof over $1 million by the oil giant Exxon Mobil – which advised thepresident that ‘the least important global environment issue ispotential global warming, and we hope your negotiators keep it offthe table and out of the spotlight’.36 In fact, the US negotiators wereconspicuously successful in preventing the summit establishing newtargets and timetables in respect of key development and environ-ment concerns. Frustration with the US position over the ten days ofthe summit boiled over on the final day when Colin Powell, the USSecretary of State, was roundly booed by delegates for his country’sintractability on key issues.

Before the summit had even begun it was clear that delegateswould find it difficult to reach consensus on a plan of action to takeaway from Johannesburg. Preliminary negotiations designed tostructure an agenda for the conference identified more than 400points of disagreement between delegates. Thus, the fact that thesummit managed to agree a 65-page plan of action at end of the

Introduction 15

event was considered by many as nothing short of miraculous –though NGO and Third World delegates were bitterly disappointedby the final text. The most significant new target agreed at thesummit was a pledge to halve the number of people (about 1.2billion) living without basic sanitation by 2015, which in itself wasa restatement of an earlier International Development Target (IDT)set at a UN Millennium Summit in 2000 to halve the number ofpeople without safe drinking water.

Securing US support for the basic sanitation target came at a pricehowever: the vetoing of an EU-led proposal to increase theproportion of global energy supplies from clean, renewable sourcessuch as wind and sun. The EU’s initiative was specifically aimed atover 2 billion people lacking electricity supplies and reliant on alter-native polluting sources of fuel such as animal dung. Renewableenergy has the capacity of bringing clean energy to the poor withoutexacerbating global warming through the use of fossil fuels.However, the EU found itself hopelessly isolated on the issue, withAustralia, Canada and Japan joining the US in opposing its proposal.Even the group of 77 Third World countries, which normallyoperates by consensus in the UN as a single bloc, could not reachagreement on renewable energy targets. Third World members ofOPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) wereconcerned about reduced oil revenues in the event that the EUinitiative proved successful. The summit plan of action was,therefore, woefully short of firm timescales and targets for eradi-cating poverty and undoing the environmental damage caused byunchecked resource consumption over several generations.

In comparing the Johannesburg and Rio summits, delegatespointed to the increased influence and direct involvement of thebusiness sector in the former as partially explaining its failure toarrive at positive and meaningful outcomes. Held in the prosperousand exclusive suburb of Sandton, the Johannesburg summit assumedthe appearance of a corporate trade fair with its hi-tech exhibitionshoused in a ‘plush shopping centre’.37 Some 8,000 business andpressure group representatives attended the summit and wereheavily involved in the preliminary negotiations which agreed theagenda. Naomi Klein, the author and commentator on TNC activity,suggested that ‘many of the official “stakeholders” (NGOs andcommunity activists) weren’t at the official table but out in thestreets or organizing counter-summit conferences to plot verydifferent routes to development’.38 For Klein and other activists, the


business sector had supplanted the interests of the poor in summitnegotiations, ensuring that key decisions were either deferred andleft in a negotiating limbo, or only paid lip service at the event.

The fact that a conference on sustainable development, whichincluded strong NGO representation, became itself subject to a40,000 strong counter-demonstration similar to those organised atIFI meetings, reflected the anger and disappointment of developmentand environment activists with the summit proceedings. Delegateswere unequivocal in their condemnation of the US as the mainsource of the summit’s failings, but also apportioned culpability toother developed countries in their lacklustre efforts to make headwayon key issues. Whatever the causes of the summit’s poorly receivedplan of action, it seems that the UN is rethinking the organisation ofsimilar large-scale set-piece conferences in the future ‘until govern-ments put into practice what they have decided to do’.39 The reactionto the summit’s toothless action plan by NGOs, developing countriesand those suffering the effects of underdevelopment will undoubt-edly be manifested in greater activism in grassroots development andsupport for the global coalition for economic and social justice.

Global Interdependence

The trade justice coalition has been labeled an anti-globalisationmovement by the media and governments, which suggests that theprotestors are opposed to all things global and all aspects of global-isation. In fact, the protest movement is itself a global initiative inthe composition of its affiliates, the issues it addresses and the natureof its operations. Therefore, it can hardly be defined as anti-globalisation. Moreover, the benefits of globalisation include newinnovations in telecommunications and information technologythat have underpinned the mobilisation of trade justice groups.Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Laureate for Economics, suggests that‘over thousands of years globalisation has progressed through travel,trade, migration, spread of cultural influences and disseminationof knowledge and understanding, including of science andtechnology’.40 Globalisation has strengthened cultural inter-dependence between developed and developing countries enablingus to increase our understanding of other societies and develop moremeaningful opportunities for cultural exchange.

The challenge of development in the age of globalisation is topromote cultural diversity and interdependence while implement-ing democratic controls over unfettered trade and reckless forms of

Introduction 17

investment. A Christian Aid/CAFOD briefing paper on globalisationstates that:

Globalisation is a process of increasing interconnectedness of indi-viduals, groups, companies and countries. The technological,economic and political changes which have brought people closertogether have also generated serious concerns over the terms ofthat globalisation. These concerns have also been generated by therealisation that while globalisation has led to benefits for some, ithas not led to benefits for all. The benefits appear to have gone tothose who already have the most, while many of the poorest havefailed to benefit fully and some have even been made poorer.41

The increasing power and influence of international finance andinvestment organisations over the past half century has compelledsome commentators to write the obituary of the nation state as anagent of development. Their concerns are based on a perceivederosion of democracy that has attended the shift of decision-makingprocesses from national governments to regional trading blocs suchas the European Union. The danger of regionalisation is that keydecisions affecting our everyday lives will be taken by faceless,unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Geneva or Washington who areunaccountable to national forums and their elected officials.Moreover, the accumulation of wealth and political clout in theboardrooms of major corporations combined with WTO trade rulesand the increasing deregulation inherent in the investment policiesof the World Bank and the IMF, are limiting the capacity of nationalgovernments to implement programmes that are consistent withsocial justice and equality. These concerns merit serious discussiongiven that development has to take root at local and national levelsto bear fruit in the international arena. However, it may bepremature to consider the nation state a spent force in promotingdevelopment and effecting positive global change.

For example, the European Union summit held in Seville in June2002 considered proposals tabled by the British and Spanishgovernments ‘to cut aid to countries such as Turkey and Bosnia thatrefuse to crack down on asylum seekers passing through theirborders’.42 The Anglo-Spanish plan to tie aid donations tocompliance with hardline EU policies on asylum and immigrationwas vetoed by France and Sweden when a unanimous vote wasrequired. The difficulty in establishing a common position on such


contentious issues in international bodies like the EU and the UN isrooted in the pressures felt by politicians at a national level to act inthe best interests of the state and the electorate. This was underlinedin Seville, where France vetoed the asylum plan advocated by TonyBlair ‘to protect its relations with francophone countries in NorthAfrica and the Middle East’, while Sweden commendably ‘recoiledat the harshness’ of the measures on poor countries.43 Thus,developed countries can significantly influence decisions in theinternational arena either bilaterally or in tandem with other nationstates. Therefore the challenge for the trade justice movement is toensure that wealthy countries support policies toward eradicatingpoverty even when such policies might conflict with their owneconomic interests.

The Text

This text aims to introduce the key issues that are fundamental toour understanding of development. It is offered as a reference text orresearch aid for those active in the field of development, studyingdevelopment issues at tertiary level or interested in enhancing theirknowledge of the main economic and political forces that influenceour lives. The contributors to the book include leading academiccommentators in the development field and representatives of someof the main development NGOs that operate in both local and globalcontexts. While the text is not an exhaustive commentary on allaspects of development it provides useful suggestions (including websites) for further reading on the issues raised. The chapters aredesigned both to introduce specific issues and to complement thecontributions from other authors, particularly, as many of thethemes addressed in the text are interconnected. It is also intendedthat the chapters can serve as ‘stand-alone’ introductions to themain issues highlighted in the book. Readers are encouraged to usethe text as a manual for increasing their knowledge of developmentissues and, in the spirit of Freirean discourse, to use their under-standing as the basis for action to effect positive change.

NOTES

1. The use of the terms ‘developed world’ and ‘developing world’ refer tothe so-called First World and Third World. Alternative terms used in thistext include minority (First) and majority (Third) worlds, and North(Northern Hemisphere) and South (Southern Hemisphere). Thedeveloped world refers to wealthy, industrialised countries and thedeveloping world to poor, underdeveloped countries. We accept the

Introduction 19

limitations of all of these terms, which have been used interchangeablyin the text. For example, the term Third World is often consideredderogatory as if suggesting a third-class status for people living indeveloping countries. In fact, this term emerged from the Third Worldduring the Cold War, and referred to a possible third path to develop-ment which strictly followed neither capitalism nor communism. Theterms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ are also flawed in suggesting thatpoor countries should embrace a Western-led model of development,when social inequalities and divisions are strongly prevalent in indus-trialised countries. ‘North’ and ‘South’ represent a crude demarcation ofdeveloped and underdeveloped countries – for example, Australia is adeveloped country located in the Southern Hemisphere. ‘Majority world’and ‘minority world’ are narrow, one-dimensional terms reflecting thefact that 80 per cent of the world’s population live in developingcountries and 20 per cent in developed countries. We acknowledge thevalidity of other terms not used in the text and those outlined above.The terminology of development is usefully outlined in Wolfgang Sachs(ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (Londonand New Jersey: Zed Books, 1992).

2. UNDP, Human Development Report 1999 (Oxford and New York: UnitedNations Development Programme, 1999), p. 3.

3. UNDP, Human Development Report 2001 (Oxford and New York: UnitedNations Development Programme, 2001), p. 20.

4. UNDP, Human Development Report 2000, p. 82.5. UNDP, Human Development Report 2001, p. 9.6. DFID, Making Globalisation Work for the World’s Poor: An Introduction to

the UK Government’s White Paper on International Development (London:Department for International Development, December 2000), p. 4.

7. CAFOD, ‘A Development NGO Critique of Globalisation: Submission tothe House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee’ (London: CatholicAgency for Overseas Development, February 2002).

8. Jean Somers, ‘Debt: The new colonialism’, in Colm Regan (ed.), 75:25,Ireland in an Increasingly Unequal World (Dublin: Dochas, 1996), p. 171.

9. Somers, ‘Debt: The new colonialism’, p. 171.10. Martin Khor, Rethinking Globalisation: Critical Issues and Policy Choices

(London: Zed Books, 2001), p. 12.11. The Drop the Debt Campaign is an extension of Jubilee 2000, a global

coalition of NGOs and civil society organisations that vigorouslycampaigned for complete debt cancellation at the start of the newmillennium. The campaign achieved significant successes with somedebt liabilities being written off by developed countries; however, anti-debt campaigners regard this approach as piecemeal and insufficient inaddressing the larger debt problem. A full analysis of the debt crisis canbe accessed on <www.jubilee2000uk.org>.

12. Drop the Debt Campaign, <www.jubilee2000uk.org> (19 July 2001).13. CAFOD, CAFOD Guide to the WTO (London: CAFOD, 2001).14. CAFOD, CAFOD Guide to the WTO.15. CAFOD, CAFOD Guide to the WTO.16. CAFOD, CAFOD Guide to the WTO.


17. World Development Movement (WDM), ‘Briefing Paper on GATS’,<www.wdm.org.uk/campaign/GATS.htm> (27 January 2002). The WDMwas one of the leading campaigning NGOs that ensured the defeat ofthe Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in 1998. It has playeda valuable role in deciphering the trade jargon used in the WTO andexposing the effects of global trade on the world’s poor. The WDM website is a useful resource for information on global trade and investmentissues.

18. Mohau Pheko (Africa Gender and Trade Network) was speaking at theWorld Development Movement conference ‘Whose Rules Rule?’ held inthe Institute of Education, London (8–9 June 2002).

19. Regan, 75:25, p. 189.20. WDM, ‘Briefing on Regulating TNCs: Making investment work for

people: An international framework for regulating corporations’(London: World Development Movement, February 1999).

21. See the investigative journalism of John Pilger on the impact of global-isation in developing countries recorded in The New Rulers of the World(London: Verso, 2002). Pilger gathered evidence of human rights abusesand widespread exploitation of workers in factories in Indonesia manu-facturing products for Western-based multinationals that claimed tooperate a code of practice. The codes seem designed to allay the fearsand salve the consciences of customers concerned that they may bepurchasing goods produced by exploited workers rather than provide amodus operandi for corporations.

22. WDM, ‘Briefing on Regulating TNCs’.23. Sachs, Development Dictionary, p. 2.24. UNDP, Human Development Report 2001.25. Sachs, Development Dictionary, pp. 2–4.26. Collins Pocket English Dictionary (Glasgow: HarperCollins, 1989).27. Gustavo Esteva, ‘Development’, in Sachs, Development Dictionary, p. 12.28. President Truman’s Inaugural speech delivered on 20 January 1949,

quoted in Gustavo Esteva, ‘Development’, p. 8.29. Pilger, New Rulers of the World, pp. 15–45. Pilger describes events sur-

rounding the coup d’état in 1965 and the consequences of the Suhartodictatorship for today’s Indonesia – which has been a ‘model pupil’ ofthe World Bank and IMF.

30. Quoted in Esteva, ‘Development’, p. 6.31. John Pilger quoted from his input to the World Development Movement

conference ‘Whose Rules Rule?’, held in the Institute of Education,London (8–9 June 2002).

32. WDM, ‘Briefing on Regulating TNCs’.33. OWC, Education for Sustainable Development in Northern Ireland (Belfast:

Environmental Education Forum and One World Centre, 2000).34. Irish Times (7 September 2002).35. Guardian (31 August 2002).36. Guardian (24 August 2002).37. Geoffrey Lean, ‘They Came. They Talked. And Weasled. And Left’, Inde-

pendent on Sunday (8 September 2002).38. Guardian (4 September 2002).

Introduction 21

39. Independent on Sunday (8 September 2002).40. Amartya Sen, ‘Slicing up the Spoils’, Guardian (19 July 2001).41. Christian Aid and CAFOD, ‘A Human Development Approach to Glob-

alisation’ (June 2000) <www.cafod.org.uk/policy/polhumdevglobsum1.shtml> .

42. Observer (23 June 2002).43. Observer (23 June 2002).

WEB SITES

Catholic Agency for Overseas Development www.cafod.org.ukChristian Aid www.christian-aid.org.ukDevelopment Education Association www.dea.org.ukDrop the Debt Campaign www.jubilee2000uk.orgOne World Centre (NI) www.belfastdec.org World Development Movement www.wdm.org.ukWorld Summit on Sustainable Development www.worldsummit.org


Abrugre, Charles 101Afghanistan 68–9, 126, 163, 188

refugees 129, 201, 202, 207–8,209, 213

Africa 44, 56, 83, 103, 201aid to 100education 165and HIV/AIDS 15

Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)46, 47, 48, 49, 50–1, 55–6

Agenda 21 219, 220, 227Agenda 2000 42Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) 6,

226–7Agreement on Trade Related

Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) 7, 226

Agreement on Trade RelatedInvestment Measures (TRIMs)226

aid 95–107and asylum/immigration policies

18–19, 206conditionalities 105, 127, 221in conflict situations 104–5, 131and corruption 42and debt 4–5distribution 53–4effectiveness 95–8emergency 103–4and good governance 95, 96,

100–2and policy coherence 99–100and trade 50, 51

Amann, D.M. 68American Coalition for the ICC

(AMICC) 69American Service Members’

Protection Act (ASPA) 66–7, 68,69

Amnesty International 64–5, 67–8,135, 201, 205

Anderson, Mary 104–5, 106Annan, Kofi 132–3, 225Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty

69anti-globalisation movement 17,

148, 182, 193, 244see also trade justice movement

Anti-terrorism, Crime and SecurityAct (2001) 213

Arat, Z.F. 83Argentina 87, 143, 144, 242arms trade 126–35, 188

control 130–1, 133, 134, 135Article 98 Agreements 67–8asylum seekers 18–19, 42, 199–214

and anti-terrorism legislation 213detention of 206–7, 208, 210,

211, 214dispersal 211–12illegal entrants 206–7, 208, 213protection of 202–5and racism 210–13and welfare systems 211, 212Western response to 205–10see also refugees

Australia 207, 211

Bali massacre (2002) 213Beck, Ulrich 238Belgium 98Beneria, Lourdes 81Benn, Tony 107Bhopal disaster 229Bilderberg conferences 238bin Laden, Osama 69biodiversity 15, 219, 225, 229Blair, Tony 14, 19Bolivia 143, 151Boserup, Ester 79–80, 81Bosnia-Herzegovina 131, 200Boulding, Elise 80Brady Plan (1989) 143–4, 149

251

IndexCompiled by Sue Carlton

Brazil 26–7, 83, 143, 144Bretherton, Charlotte 47, 50Bretton Woods Institutions 3–5Brundtland Report 27, 191, 218Brydon, Lynne 88Buitenen, Paul van 53Bush, G.W. 15, 65–6, 67–9, 71, 129,

224

Cambodia 59, 125Canada 6, 98, 130, 135, 204Castells, Manuel 236, 243Catholic Agency for Overseas

Development (CAFOD) 3, 18Centrepoint 172Chambers, Robert 37–8Chant, Sylvia 88Cheney, Dick 224Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)

162, 166children

and armed conflict 163–4child labour 164, 165–7, 173, 236education 165, 167–8gender discrimination 167–8infant mortality 161–2, 163, 167participation 166–7, 171–4and poverty 158–74rights of 168–71

Chile 59, 83, 88, 89, 143China 64, 127, 129, 130Chiu, S. 120Christian Aid 18, 181, 185civil society 3, 13

and aid 98, 101, 103, 106and debt relief 153and development education 185,

189, 194and state 96, 102see also NGOs

climate change 15, 16, 219, 225,230

Clinton, Bill 65, 69Co-ordinating Action on Small

Arms (CASA) 134Coalition for an International

Criminal Court (CICC) 65Cologne Debt Deal 152, 153–5colonialism 79, 118, 119, 184, 201

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)48

Common Commercial Policy (CCP)43

Common External Tariff (CET) 43Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women (CEDAW) 89

Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime ofGenocide 61, 71

Côte d’Ivoire 147Cotonou Agreement 55, 56Cresson, Édith 53crimes against humanity 62, 63, 64,

65, 68, 70, 72see also war crimes

Crowley, Ethel 84Crush, J. 37Czech Republic 130

Daschle, Thomas 69Davide, Hilario G. 70Davies, Lynn 178–9debt

morality of 151–2sustainability 141–2, 150, 151,

153debt crisis 4–5, 49, 51, 83, 141–55,

227managers of 144–6see also structural adjustment

programmesdebt relief 13, 100, 143–4, 150–3,

162and aid inflows 100and poverty reduction 148–9,

153–4deforestation 147, 218, 219, 221,

225, 236democracy 52, 237, 240, 244Democratic Yemen 83Department for International

Development (DFID) 3, 97,104, 186–7, 188

developed countriesasylum procedures 205–10child labour 166and development education 185


and eco-protection 218, 219–20,229

and poverty 10, 160–2developing countries

colonial legacy 41–56and debt 4–5, 49, 51, 83, 141–55,

227gender issues 76, 80, 82–6, 87–8market access 100representation in WTO negotia-

tions 5–6trade justice 13

developmentcorporate-driven 225–8definitions of 14, 26–8, 33dependency theory 77–8discourse 35–7and economic growth 26, 28, 225environmental cost of 217–31and industrialisation 1, 12,

119–20measuring 25–38modernisation theory 77, 79, 142paths of 118–22and social action 105–7and structural transformation

26–7world systems theory 78, 117,

118Development Awareness Working

Group (DAWG) 187development education 178–94

and cultural synthesis 183–4definition of 179–81and environment issues 192evaluation 191practice of 184–6, 189–90and reflective action 182–3theory of 181–2

Development Education Associa-tion (DEA) 180, 188

Development Education Centres(DECs) 185–6, 186–7, 189

disarmament 130, 131, 132–5Dominican Republic 143Drop the Debt Campaign 4, 106

Eade, Deborah 105–6, 107

Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro 14,16, 192, 217, 219–21, 227

East Timor 59, 209Eastern Europe

arms trade 129–30collapse of 2, 49refugees from 200–1, 212

Ecuador 83, 143, 144, 151education 32–3, 165, 167–8

as agent of social change 178–94spending on 146–7, 159, 160,

162women 79, 82see also development education

education for sustainable develop-ment (ESD) 179, 191–3

El Salvador 14311 September 2001 60, 67, 68–71,

213, 239Elson, Diane 85Enabling Effective Support (EES)

188–9Enhanced Structural Adjustment

Facility (ESAF) programmes147, 148, 149, 152

environmental issues 15, 16, 27,30–1, 192, 217–31

and business interests 16–17,217–18, 220, 221, 223–4

and free trade 227and poverty reduction 224, 230

Escobar, A. 37Esteva, Gustavo 12European Commission (EC) 43,

52–3, 54European Community (EC) 44–7European Community Humanitar-

ian Office (ECHO) 42, 52European Convention on Human

Rights 213European Development Fund (EDF)

43–4, 51, 52, 54, 55–6European Network on Debt and

Development (EURODAD) 154European Union (EU)

asylum/immigration policies18–19, 42, 51, 199, 204, 206–8,237–8

Index 253

development aid 42–4, 48, 50,51–2, 54–6

development education 194European Union (EU) continued

enlargement 48funds mismanagement 52–4and ICC debate 67, 68, 71integration 237–8protectionism 48, 51reforms 54, 56relations with developing

countries 41–52, 54–6renewable energy proposals 16and WTO 6

EU–Africa Civil Society Forum 102ex-Yugoslavia Tribunal 59, 61–3, 71export-led development (ELD) 115,

147

feminist theory 79, 81–2Ferguson, J. 35–6Focke Report 49foreign direct investment (FDI) 6,

148, 225, 241Foster-Carter, Aidan 77–8Foucault, Michel 35, 36–7Fowler, Alan 106France

aid expenditure 98arms sales 130, 135asylum/immigration policies 19,

206, 211development education 51–2,

185and ICC debate 64

Freire, Paulo 179, 181–5, 189, 194Friedman, Milton 241Friends of the Earth 147

Gap 9gender relations

in developing countries 80, 82–6,90–1

in development literature 77–9General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT) 5, 49General Agreement on Trade in

Services (GATS) 7Geneva Conventions 62, 64, 202

genocide 61, 63, 64, 128, 131George, Susan 59Germany 49, 51–2, 98, 130, 135,

200, 207Giddens, Anthony 234Global AIDS alliance 100Global Compact 229Global View 2001 106globalisation 178

and cultural domination 184definitions of 232–5and democracy 237, 240, 244and development 1, 2–3, 10,

12–13, 232–43and development education 189,

193global alliances 106global citizenship 59global finance 241–2global governance 102–3, 236–40ideological instruments of 10–12and inequality 2–3, 232, 235–6,

237–8, 241–4institutional instruments of 3–9and interdependence 17–19and justice 59–73and market competition 52,

235–6, 240–2and poverty 2–3, 159–60, 201,

240Goldsmith, Edward 31Goulet, Denis 34Greece 48, 98Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 25,

28–9, 30–1Gross National Product (GNP) 25,

26–7, 29–31, 32Group of Eight (G8) 13, 41, 98, 135,

237, 242and Third World debt 143, 152,

153, 155Guatemala 119, 143Guinea 209Guyana 151

Habibie, B.J. 128Hadden, Tom 70, 71Hague Tribunal 62–3Hain, Peter 65


Haiti 83, 143, 151, 201Hamilton, Heather 69Hardwick, Nick 213–14Hauck, V. 107Hayek, Friedrich 241health care 32, 146–7, 159, 160,

162, 164–5Heavily Indebted Poor Countries

(HIPC) initiative 100, 101, 141,150–1, 152–4

Held, David 233Helms, Jesse 66Henderson, P. 171Hirohito 60HIV/AIDS 7, 15, 98, 100, 106, 147,

192Howard, John 207Human Development Index (HDI)

25, 27, 31–3, 35human rights 52, 59

abuses 62, 133, 135, 201, 204,207, 213

Human Rights Watch 64, 205Hungary 207, 210Hutu 209

immigration 42, 199, 205, 211,237–8

see also asylum seekersimport-substitution industrialisa-

tion (ISI) 115–16Improvised Explosive Devices

(IEDs) 125India 64, 163, 172–4Indonesia 12, 64, 83, 127–8, 207, 209industrialisation 1, 12, 80, 119–20,

142Intel 122, 226intellectual property rights 7, 117,

118, 226Inter-Agency Committee on

Climate Change 218–19internally displaced persons (IDPs)

131International Bank for Reconstruc-

tion and Development (IBRD)145

international criminal court (ICC)59–60, 61, 63–73

bilateral impunity agreements 67,68

and Islamic jurists 70, 71opposition to 65–8

International Criminal Tribunal forthe Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY)62–3, 71

International Development Associa-tion (IDA) 101, 145

International Finance Co-operation(IFC) 145

International Financial InstitutionAdvisory Commission 222–3

international financial institutions(IFIs) 5, 10, 11, 225, 241, 243

challenged by trade justicemovement 14

and environment 225, 227, 230and free-market policies 155and sustainable development 223undemocratic operations of 5–6,

13see also International Monetary

Fund; World Bank; WorldTrade Organisation

International Labour Organisation(ILO) 9, 85, 166, 173

International Law Commission(ILC) 61, 63

International Monetary Fund (IMF)3–4, 9, 116, 235, 242

and debt crisis 4, 141, 143,144–5, 148–55

and good governance 100, 102,103

impact of programmes 10, 146–7,162, 165, 220–3, 227

see also structural adjustmentprogrammes

International Women’s Year 76, 81Iran 64, 128, 207Iraq 64, 126, 130, 188Ireland

aid expenditure 98asylum procedures 207development education 190, 194economic growth 121–2, 161poverty 160–1, 164–5

Italy 130, 135

Index 255

Jamaica 83, 143Japan 6, 98, 116, 120Joyce, J.P. 163Jubilee 2000 106, 141, 151–3, 155

Kabeer, Naila 87Kambanda, Jean 63Karadzic, Radovan 61Keohane, Robert 234Keynes, John Maynard 38Klein, Naomi 16–17Krstic, Radislav 62Kyoto protocol 69, 224

Land, T. 107Landless People’s Movement (LPM)

228landmines 106, 125Lesotho 35–6Liberia 209Lim, Linda 84Lockwood, M. 90Lomé Conventions 45, 46–52, 54Lubbers, Ruud 208Luxembourg 98

Maastricht Treaty (1992) 48, 50–1,99

McBrian, Angus 182McCollum, Ann 184–6, 191Machel, Graca 169McMichael, P. 119Mali 147Marcopper Corporation 227–8, 229Marín, Manuel 53Marinduque 227–8Martinussen, J. 32–3Marx, Karl 183, 232Mauritius 51, 52Mbeki, Thabo 15Médecins Sans Frontières 104Melzer report 222–3Mexico 88, 143Microsoft 226Milosevic, Slobodan 62Mladic, Ratko 61Molyneaux, M. 87Monbiot, George 59

Monsanto 226Mont Pelerin Society 238Montreal Protocol 218Morgan Stanley 121Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo 87Mozambique 125, 151Multilateral Agreement on

Investment (MAI) 6–7multinational corporations 84–5

see also transnational corpora-tions

Musharraf, Pervez 128

National Land Council (NLC) 228natural resources

consumption by developedcountries 220–1, 224

depletion of 218, 219, 221–2,225, 226, 227

Nepal 167Netherlands 211New Zealand 207NGDOs 5, 95–6, 97, 106, 107NGOs

and aid 103–5and children’s rights 162, 169,

173and civil society organisations

96–7, 101, 102codes of conduct 104and development education 181,

185–6, 188, 189–90and environmental issues

217–18, 224, 225, 229and ICC debate 64–5and Multilateral Agreement on

Investment 7and official donors’ policies 97–8partnerships 106–7and refugee and asylum seeker

issues 205, 213–14and women 87, 89and World Summit 16–17

Nicaragua 87Nice, Treaty of (2000) 42Nigeria 151, 223Nike 9North Korea 127, 129Northern Alliance 201


Novartis 226Nuremberg Tribunal 59, 60–1, 71Ogoniland 223oil industry

and environment 223, 224prices 142

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) 98, 160, 162, 237, 238,242

Organisation of PetroleumExporting Countries (OPEC)16, 45, 142

Overseas Development Administra-tion (ODA) 95, 186

Oxfam 147, 181, 185

Pakistan 128–9, 129, 202, 207, 209,213

Paracel Islands 127Paris Club 150, 152, 238Parsons, Talcott 77Patman, Robert G. 68Pearson, Ruth 85Peru 83, 143Peshawar 128–9Pheko, Mohau 7Philippines 218, 221–2, 227–8, 229Pierre, Andrew 125, 130Pilger, John 13–14Pinochet, Augusto 62Placer Dome 228Platform for Action 89pollution 15, 218, 219, 223–4, 225,

230Portugal 45, 48post-development theory 34–7poverty 10, 15, 119, 162

and aid effectiveness 95, 96, 98–9causes of 201, 221, 230exacerbated by SAPs 222–3and gender relations 90–1reduction 14, 148–9, 153–4, 224

poverty gap 14, 49, 160, 232–3globalisation and 2–3, 178, 224,

235, 243–4Poverty Reduction and Growth

Facility (PRGF) 149, 154

Poverty Reduction Strategies Papers(PRSPs) 101–2, 148–9, 153,154–5

Powell, Colin 15Prebisch, Raul 112Prodi, Romano 238

racism 210–13rape 87–8Real Deal initiative 171–2Red Cross 104Refugee Council (UK) 213refugees 131, 199–214

causes of movements of 200–2,204, 213

and media reporting 213–14protection of 202–5, 209, 213status 202–3, 204, 211Western response to 205–10see also asylum seekers

Ricardo, David 111Richardson, Bill 66Rio Declaration on Environment

and Development 219Roberts, Adam 66Robertson, Geoffrey 61, 64, 70, 71,

72Robinson, Mary 65, 70Rome Statute 60, 61, 64, 65–6, 67,

69, 70, 72Rome, Treaty of (1957) 41, 43Rostow, Walt 26–7Rwanda 34, 53, 83, 209Rwanda Tribunal 59, 61, 62–3, 71

Sachs, Wolfgang 10–11Samuelson, Paul 114Sangatte detention centre 211Santer, Jacques 53–4Save the Children Fund 162–3, 166,

168, 172, 173, 181, 185Schultz, Theodore 241Scott, Catherine 77, 78security 125–35Seers, Dudley 27, 30Sen, Amartya 17, 239–40Sen, Gita 81, 85–6Senegal 172Seville Summit (2002) 206

Index 257

Sharon, Ariel 127Shell Corporation 223Short, Clare 186–7Sierra Leone 59–60, 209Singer, Hans 112Slovenia 172, 200So, A. 120Somalia 102South Africa, Children’s Charter

172South Korea 88, 116, 120, 127Spaak Report 43Spain 45, 48, 206Speth, J.G. 28Spratly Islands 127Statement of Forest Principles 219Stephen, Andrew 69Stinger anti-aircraft missiles 129Strange, Susan 234Strong, Maurice 220structural adjustment programmes

(SAPs) 4, 143, 144–8, 150and educational budgets 165and export-led growth 147–8,

221and natural resources 147, 221–3,

225–6social impact of 83, 146–7, 153,

162sub-Saharan Africa

aid required 98–9debt repayment 100impact of free market 162

Suharto, President Raden 12, 127–8

Sukarno, President Ahmed 12sustainable development 14–17,

27–8, 217–25, 227, 229–30and change in lifestyle 219–20education for (ESD) 179, 191–3and investment 225UK government and 97, 188

Sweden 19, 185, 206Switzerland 202System for Stabilisation of Export

Earnings from Products(STABEX) 47

Taiwan 120, 127, 129

Tampa 207Tanzania 147, 151, 154–5terrorism 68–71, 128, 213Thomas, Mark 69Tojo Hideki 60Tokyo Tribunal 60, 61, 71trade

as agent of development 111–23between EU and developing

countries 42comparative advantage 111–12,

113, 119and competitiveness 115–16controlled by TNCs 117–18Heckscher-Ohlin model (H-O)

113–14liberalisation 2, 5, 7, 44, 48, 49,

50, 241policy approaches 115–16protectionism 115–16, 120–1sociological approaches 116–18unequal terms of 112–13, 205,

226, 227and world systems theory 117,

118–19trade justice movement 13–14, 17,

19, 228Transnational Corporations (TNCs)

5–9, 240–1and cultural domination 184democratic accountability 13and environment 223, 224, 225,

226, 228, 229and EU–ACP relationship 49and globalisation 2, 8, 178, 232,

236, 238and human rights 59impact on children 163and intellectual property rights 7,

117and Ireland 122and public–private partnerships

(PPPs) 229and unequal terms of trade 113

Trilateral Commission 238Trócaire 102Truman, Harry 10–12Tutsi 209


Uganda 148, 151, 163UNICEF 162Union Carbide 229United Kingdom

accession to EC membership 45,46

and aid contributions 51–2, 98,187

arms sales 128, 130, 135and child participation 171–2development education 185,

186–9, 190, 193, 194and ICC debate 64poverty 160, 161–2, 164–5and refugees and asylum seekers

200, 206, 210, 211–12, 213United Nations

Committee on Trade and Devel-opment (UNCTAD) 100

Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) 192,219see also Earth Summit

Convention on BiologicalDiversity 219

Convention on the Rights of theChild (UNCRC) 159, 169–70,172

Declaration of Human Rights 133Department for Disarmament

Affairs (UNDDA) 134–5and development education 180Development Programme

(UNDP) 27, 31, 33, 134–5, 162Division for the Advancement of

Women 89and establishment of ICC 63–4Framework Convention on

Climate Change 219and global good governance 103High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR) 65, 70, 199, 202,203, 204, 208, 213

Human Development Report 2, 10,31, 32, 99, 142, 184

and ICC debate 61, 64Millennium Summit 98Mine Action Service (UNMAS)

134

Office for Drug Control andCrime Prevention (ODCCP)134

Refugee Convention 202, 203,204, 205, 208–10, 211

and trade justice 6, 13and war crimes tribunals 62, 63and women in development 81,

89United States

aid expenditure 98arms sales 128, 130, 135coalition against terrorism 68–9development education 185, 193and environmental issues 15,

219–20, 223–4financial contributions to UN 67and ICC debate 60, 64, 65–8, 69,

70and immigration 199, 200, 213intervention in developing

countries 11, 12, 201investment in Ireland 122missile defence plan 69and protectionism 6

Universal Declaration of HumanRights (1948) 202

Uruguay Round (1986-94) 5, 7, 8,49

Uvin, Peter 34

Venezuela 143Vogler, John 47, 50

war crimesand justice 59–63, 64, 65, 72and responsibility 61see also crimes against humanity

Ward, K.B. 78weapons

conventional 125–8, 130–4light 128–9, 132–3of mass destruction 125, 126, 130

‘Weapons for Development’initiative 134–5

Whitehead, A. 90Wolfensohn, James 151, 241women 4, 52, 76–91

activism 86–90

Index 259

and dependency theory 77–8, 81and education 79, 82genital mutilation 88

women continuedand modernisation theory 77, 79,

80–2and paid employment 84–5, 86,

90in politics 86–7raising status of 79–80, 81, 82–3,

90–1and rural development projects

83and structural adjustment

programmes 83, 87, 147and subsistence sector 79, 80,

83unvalued work 79, 83–4, 86violence against 87–8and world systems theory 78

Women’s World Bank 89World Bank 3–4, 9, 13, 49, 116,

222–3, 235, 242African poverty assessments 90and children 162and debt crisis 49, 141, 144–5,

148–55and good governance 100–1, 102,

103and Gross National Product

(GNP) 26, 29and health and education 146impact of programmes 4, 10, 165,

220, 227and Lesotho economy 35–6

rejection of debt relief schemes150

World Development Report 26, 146,148, 159

World Commission on Environ-ment and Development seeBrundtland Report

World Conference on Women,Beijing 89

World Development Movement(WDM) 9, 236, 244

World Economic Forum 238World Health Organisation (WHO)

9, 88World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD), Johan-nesburg 14–17, 192, 217, 225,228–9

and business interests 16–17,228–9, 230

world systems theory 78, 117,118–19

World Trade Organisation (WTO)5–7, 49, 103, 235

environmentally damagingagreements 226–7

impact of rules 162, 205, 220,226–8

and intellectual property rights117

Seattle meeting 13, 148, 182The World’s Women 2000 report 82,

84, 86, 88Wright, Robert 70

Yaoundé Conventions 44–6


Documents

From the Local to the Global