---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:07:54 -0500
From: Africa Action <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Africa: Human Development Report, 2002
Africa: Human Development Report, 2002
Date distributed (ymd): 020729
Document reposted by Africa Action
Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List: an information
service provided by AFRICA ACTION (incorporating the Africa
Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American
Committee on Africa). Find more information for action for
Africa at http://www.africaaction.org
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
AFRICA ACTION REMINDER TO READERS
See job announcement for a Washington-based field organizer:
http://www.africaaction.org/faq/orgjob.htm Please bring this to
the attention of potential candidates. Although the position will
remain open until filled, the first round of review of applications
will begin soon.
*********************************************************
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +economy/development+
SUMMARY CONTENTS:
This posting contains material drawn from the just-released Human
Development Report 2002 and related press releases.
The full report and press releases are available at:
http://www.undp.org/hdr2002
HDR 2002 focuses on the "democracy deficit" at both national and
global levels. Among its themes are "deepening democracy" at
national levels by other measures that go beyond periodical
elections and beginning reforms in structure of multilateral
institutions to allow for more democratic input.
Included in this posting, in addition to excerpts from UNDP press
releases, are (1) excerpts from the section of Chapter 5 focused on
changes needed in the governance of multilateral economic
institutions, and (2) data on public expenditures by African
countries, taken from Table 17 in HDR 2002.
Notably, this table shows that, among 50 African countries, as of
the latest data available, at least 29 still spent more on debt
service to foreign creditors than on health, and at least 13 spent
more on the military than on health.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2002
UNDP Press Release
New Wave of Democracy-Building Urgently Needed
"Democracy deficits" in many countries put human development and
security at risk
Manila, 24 July 2002 - The wave of democracy-building of the 1980s
and 1990s has stalled, with many countries lapsing back into
authoritarianism or facing rising economic and social tensions,
warns this year's Human Development Report (HDR), commissioned by
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and released today.
In response, it calls for a new emphasis on giving ordinary people
a greater say in both national and global policy making.
"Development policies since the early 1980s have focused largely on
economics and markets," said Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP
Administrator. "Those things are important. But the big lesson of
this period is never ignore the critical role of politics in
allowing people to shape their own lives. Political development is
the forgotten dimension of human development."
Going beyond arguments for 'good governance' that call for
regulatory transparency and management efficiency for growth, HDR
2002 lays out a broad conception of what is good governance. It
means not only ridding societies of corruption but also giving
people the rights, the means, and the capacity to participate in
the decisions that affect their lives and to hold their governments
accountable for what they do. It means fair and just democratic
governance.
The Report looks at the advance of democracy in the 20th Century
and how it has affected developing countries and poor people. It
argues that democracy is neither a luxury nor a panacea for poor
countries. It is intrinsic to the process of human development, the
freedom and the choice that allows an individual or a group dignity
and fulfillment within any society. ...
********************************************************
UNDP Press Release (excerpts)
International Institutions Need Injection of Democracy
Global civil society campaigns an opportunity, not a threat
Manila, 24 July 2002 - Protesters in both developed and
developing countries in recent years have been motivated by concern
that poor people and countries are losing out in the way that
global affairs are managed. Whether it is the trade barriers and
subsidies that keep poor country farmers out of rich country
markets, or the slow response to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa,
the leading global powers and institutions stand accused of being
unfair and out of touch.
But it doesn't have to be this way, says this year's Human
Development Report, commissioned by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and released today. The Report calls for concrete
reforms to increase the role of developing countries in
international institutions and make them more open and accountable
to the people and countries whose lives they affect. Nearly half of
the voting power in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund
(IMF) rests in the hands of seven countries. And though all
countries have a seat and a vote in the World Trade Organization-
in practice, decisions are taken in small group meetings and
heavily influenced by Canada, the European Union, Japan and the
United States. In 2000, 15 African countries did not have a single
trade representative stationed at the World Trade Organization
(WTO).
"Powerful states are always going to have a major role in global
decision-making" said Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator, "But
there is plenty of room to give poorer countries a real say in
helping confront the challenges of a more interdependent world."
The Report highlights a number of reforms that could address some
of the more obvious imbalances in global decision-making. These
include: eliminating the UN Security Council veto, reforming the
selection process for the heads of the IMF and World Bank
(currently controlled by Europe and the United States,
respectively), and new programmes to help the poorest countries
better represent their interests at the WTO. ...
The Report says that recent global civil society campaigns - on
everything from reducing poor country debt to accessing essential
medicines under the TRIPS intellectual property agreement - have
pointed at ways to reach more collaborative solutions to global
problems in an interdependent world. ...
Rather than feeling threatened by such global activism, the
international community should see it as an opportunity to inject
new energy and popular legitimacy into global decision-making, the
Report argues. ...
"Global civil society movements have been behind some of the most
significant global policy shifts of the last decade," Fukuda-Parr
stated. "But civic activism is not a substitute for democratic
principles in formal decision making structures. Just as consulting
with a few NGOs is not a substitute for a parliamentary debate at
the national level, democratic principles require that all
countries get a hearing in global institutions and decisions."
************************************************************
CHAPTER 5: Deepening Democracy at the Global Level
[brief excerpts from section on multilateral organizations]
Although globalization has vastly expanded the demands on global
institutions, it has also heightened a crisis of legitimacy and
effectiveness. Large parts of the public no longer believe that
their interests are represented in institutions such as the IMF,
World Bank, UN Security Council and WTO or that the institutions
are adequately accountable for what they do. Representation and
accountability have always been weak in these multilateral
institutions. But today the weaknesses are glaring because the
institutions are being called on by their powerful members to
intrude much more deeply into areas previously the preserve of
national governments especially in developing countries. Over the
past two decades these institutions have increasingly prescribed
and required structural and institutional reforms. For example, in
the 1980s countries that borrowed from the IMF and World Bank were
required to meet 6-10 performance criteria and in the 1990s, some
26.
Efforts to deepen democracy in international institutions must
confront the realities of global power. Powerful countries will
inevitably invest more energy and political capital in institutions
that enable their power to be exercised. Once they are members of
an elite club, countries are reluctant to lose that power or see it
diluted by opening to new members. This explains why proposals for
reform always encounter stiff resistance. And that is why broad
acceptance of the principle of democratization has translated into
so little progress at the level of specific proposals.
Although developing countries are deeply affected by the decisions
of institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO, they have
little power in their decisionmaking. There is an unavoidable
democratic deficit in international organizations because people do
not get to directly elect (or throw out) their representatives.
This would be true even if all member countries of international
organizations were flourishing democracies. ... That said, however,
the democratic deficit does not rule out improving the
representativeness of international organizations.
The role of developing country governments in global governance
needs to be bolstered through changes in formal representation.
This is a necessary (albeit insufficient) condition to redress the
existing bias in international organizations. ...
What is needed is to rewrite the way seats and votes are allocated
within international organizations, to better recognize the
increased stake of developing countries. Their cooperation and
commitment to international agreements is vital if any
international organization is to succeed in managing globalization.
For this reason the old rules about representation are no longer
viable or desirable. Put bluntly, the IMF and World Bank will not
be able to do their jobs effectively if they remain tied to
structures that reflect the balance of power at the end of the
Second World War. In the past 55 years their roles and duties have
changed beyond recognition, as have the expectations of their
vastly increased membership.
Nearly half of the voting power in the World Bank and IMF rests in
the hands of seven countries [U.S., Japan, France, U.K.,Saudi
Arabia, Germany, Russian Federation] . This voting power is
exercised in the formal decisionmaking bodies the executive
boards of each institution.
Equally important are the informal influences and traditions that
shape the work of these organizations. These informal processes
further weight the scales in favour of industrial countries. For
example, the heads of the World Bank and IMF are chosen according
to a political convention whereby the United States and Europe
nominate their candidate for each, respectively. Other countries
and critics rightly brand the process as undemocratic and
insufficiently accountable.
Yet more profoundly, the institutions are often criticized by
academics, industrial country NGOs and developing country analysts
for basing their economic advice and policy conditionality on a
narrow world view that reflects the interests of their most
powerful members. In particular, they are widely perceived as being
overly accountable to their largest shareholder, largely through
informal influences such as the location and staffing of the
organizations and their susceptibility to pressure on select
issues.
These concerns about who the IMF and World Bank represent have been
heightened as the institutions have begun to prescribe policies
over an ever broader range of issues. ... The new role of the IMF
and World Bank highlights the need for deeper participation by
their borrowers: developing countries.
A primary source of contention relates to the shares of developing
and industrial countries in decisionmaking. Members of the IMF do
not have equal voting power. Voting weights are based on two
components. Each member has a set of 250 basic votes that come with
membership. The second component is determined by economic power.
Votes accompany country quotas that reflect the economic strength
of countries. Since the formation of the IMF there has been a major
imbalance in the evolution of the two sources of voting power.
Basic votes have declined dramatically as quotas have increased.
The share of basic votes in voting power has declined from 12.4 %
to 2.1% . At the same time, an additional 135 countries have become
members, including many transition economies.
During this period the basic nature of the IMF and World Bank has
changed. They were created at the end of the Second World War as
institutions of mutual assistance. The IMF would provide resources
to any country facing temporary balance of payments difficulties.
The World Bank would help channel investment to countries for
postwar reconstruction and development. This sense of mutual
assistance has changed in the intervening years.
Today the IMF and World Bank lend exclusively to developing and
emerging economies. Furthermore, their loans are linked to
conditions that increasingly impinge on the domestic policies of
the state. The result is a new kind of division between creditor
countries on one hand, who enjoy increased decisionmaking power and
have used it to expand conditionality, and borrowing countries on
the other, who view conditionality as externally imposed. This can
be particularly worrisome when there is considerable division of
opinion on that policy advice, and when the risks associated with
the policy advice are borne almost exclusively by the people of
the borrowing country. ...
There is now greater recognition of the need for the World Bank and
the IMF to increase the representation of developing countries.
They could do so in a number of ways.
First, by increasing the proportion of basic votes allocated to
each member. ...
Second, by enhancing the voice of developing countries within the
institutions. Formally, all members of the IMF and World Bank
executive boards are supposed to appoint the institutions
presidents. But by convention, Europeans select a candidate for
director of IMF and the U. S. government selects the head of the
World Bank. ... A selection committee for such a post would enable
broader participation and transparency.
Another step would be increasing the number of seats for developing
countries on the executive boards. At present executive directors
from developing countries represent large constituencies and have
minimal input on policy formation. ...
Third, by making the institutions more accountable for their
actions, not just to their board members but also to the people
affected by their decisions. Governments are held accountable
through a variety of social, political and legal institutions.
These institutions must also be used to make global financial
institutions more accountable. Specifically, this means ensuring
transparency and monitoring and evaluating their rules, decisions,
policies and actions. ...
To be effective, the results of all of these evaluations must be
published, followed up and investigated, and necessary changes
undertaken. This is particularly important for large organizations
suffering from considerable inertia.
Without publication of independent assessments of what
organizations are doing, it is not only difficult for the public to
judge how well or poorly an organization is undertaking its
responsibilities, it is also impossible for outsiders to offer
support to insiders who recognize the need for change. By
publishing critical reports, institutions can catalyse public
attention and external pressure for change, helping to overcome
inertia or vested interests within the organization. ...
************************************************************
Priorities in Public Spending
This table, taken from Table 17 of the 2002 Human Development
Report, contains estimates of public expenditures by African
countries on education, health, the military, and debt service
to foreign creditors. Each column is expressed as a percentage
of GDP. Although the figures are for different years, and
data from some countries is missing, the table clearly shows
how military expenditures and debt service takes resources
desperately needed for investment in human development.
The table shows that, of 50 African countries,
* at least 29 spent more on debt service than on health;
* at least 13 spent more on the military than on health;
* at least 9 spent more on debt service than on health and
education combined; and
* at least 5 spent more on the military than on health
and education combined.
In comparision, each of the top 22 ranked countries on
the Human Development Index, from Sweden to Israel, spend
more than 5% of much larger GDP on health.
[To view columns, put text in courier font.]
HDI Education Health Military Debt
Rank Country 1995-97 1998 2000 2000
64 Libya .. .. .. ..
67 Mauritius 4.6 1.8 0.2 12.6
97 Tunisia 7.7 2.2 1.7 9.8
100 Cape Verde .. 1.8 1.3 2.9
106 Algeria 5.1 2.6 3.5 8.4
107 South Africa 7.6 3.3 1.5 3.1
111 Equatorial Guinea 1.7 .. .. 0.4
115 Egypt 4.8 .. 2.3 1.8
117 Gabon 2.9 2.1 0.3 9.5
119 Sao Tome & Principe .. .. .. 9.5
122 Namibia 9.1 3.3 3.3 ..
123 Morocco 5.3 1.2 4.2 10.0
125 Swaziland 5.7 2.5 1.6 1.6
126 Botswana 8.6 2.5 3.7 1.3
128 Zimbabwe 7.1 3.0 4.8 6.4
129 Ghana 4.2 1.7 1.0 9.1
132 Lesotho 8.4 .. 3.1 7.3
134 Kenya 6.5 2.4 1.8 4.6
135 Cameroon .. 1.0 1.3 6.3
136 Congo 6.1 2.0 .. 1.3
137 Comoros .. .. .. 1.3
139 Sudan 1.4 .. 3.0 0.5
141 Togo 4.5 1.3 .. 2.4
147 Madagascar 1.9 1.1 1.2 2.4
148 Nigeria 0.7 0.8 0.9 2.5
149 Djibouti .. 5.4 4.4 2.4
150 Uganda 2.6 1.9 1.8 2.6
151 Tanzania .. 1.3 1.3 2.4
152 Mauritania 5.1 1.4 .. 10.7
153 Zambia 2.2 3.6 0.6 6.4
154 Senegal 3.7 2.6 1.4 5.2
155 Congo, DR .. .. .. 0.3
156 Cote d'Ivoire 5.0 1.2 .. 10.9
157 Eritrea 1.8 .. 22.9 0.5
158 Benin 3.2 1.6 .. 3.5
159 Guinea 1.9 2.3 1.5 4.4
160 Gambia 4.9 2.3 1.1 4.4
161 Angola .. .. 21.2 13.6
162 Rwanda .. 2.0 3.0 2.0
163 Malawi 5.4 2.8 0.8 3.5
164 Mali 2.2 2.1 2.5 4.2
165 CAR .. 2.0 .. 1.5
166 Chad 2.2 2.3 1.0 1.9
167 Guinea-Bissau .. .. 1.3 2.9
168 Ethiopia 4.0 1.3 9.4 2.2
169 Burkina Faso 3.6 1.5 1.6 2.5
170 Mozambique .. 2.8 2.5 2.3
171 Burundi 4.0 0.6 5.4 3.1
172 Niger 2.3 1.2 1.4 1.6
173 Sierra Leone .. 0.9 1.4 6.7
************************************************************
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by
Africa Action (incorporating the Africa Policy Information
Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa).
Africa Action's information services provide accessible
information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and
international policies toward Africa that advance economic,
political and social justice and the full spectrum of human rights.
Documents previously distributed, as well as a wide range of
additional information, are also available on the Web at:
http://www.africaaction.org
To be added to or dropped from the distribution list write to
[log in to unmask] For more information about reposted material,
please contact directly the source mentioned in the posting.
Africa Action
110 Maryland Ave. NE, #508, Washington, DC 20002.
Phone: 202-546-7961. Fax: 202-546-1545.
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
************************************************************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
