|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Political Economy of Globalization (PEG)
DAWN's first global analysis provided a strong critique of the dominant economic model. DAWN's theme of Alternative Economic Frameworks, which provided the focus for the network's continuing work on the economic growth model until 1995, was renamed Political Economy of Globalization in 1996. Under this theme, DAWN monitors and analyses the systematic processes of economic globalization and trade liberalization and their impacts on poor women of the South, working closely with other global development networks for greater accountability and radical restructuring of institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations system and (from 1999) the World Trade Organization. Through the years, DAWN had gained much insights on how the Bretton Woods Institutions worked from its participation in short-lived accountability processes and mechanisms set up as a consequence of women's criticisms of the World Bank at the Beijing Conference (Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative - SAPRI - and the External Gender Consultative Group - EGCG); realized the huge challenges in engendering with a south feminist perspective mainstream institutions and large development networks, including the United Nations Systems; and increasingly strengthened its commitment to develop feminist and heterodox economic literacy programs on globalization as well as undertake collaborative global and regional advocacy with civil society organizations in the South and global feminist networks (e.g. WWG on Financing for Development; Trade-Finances Linkages Network).
PEG Analysis Team: Marina Durano, Gita Sen and Gigi Francisco
See DAWN resources
Back to HOME
|
Reconstructing Governance Towards an Equality of the Highest Standards by Marina Durano
|
Let me begin with a quotation from Prof. Peter Evans who wrote on the role of institutions in development. He said that, “The better part of human needs and desires are culturally constructed. Enabling people to construct and reconstruct their aims is as basic a task of institutions as enabling people to satisfy the needs and desires that have been constructed[1].”
This last phrase of enabling people to satisfy their needs and desires is at the core of the Millenium Development Goals. The outcome document that is currently being negotiated devotes several paragraphs on ways of improving our abilities to achieve the MDGs.
On the other hand, the idea of “[e]nabling people to construct and re-construct their aims” receives much less attention. And, by this neglect, we accept the perpetuation of a type of disempowerment. There will be people who are unable to construct and re-construct their aims. When this neglect occurs in the presence of social hierarchies, be they based on gender, caste, ethnicity, then there will be difficulties in overcoming these inequalities and exclusions.
I raise these issues because our subject is accountability. It is difficult to discuss accountability without discussing issues of power and empowerment[2]. So that today, as we account for our performance we must also account for our powers.
Accountability among Unequally Powerful States
Letʼs take MDG 8, a global partnership for development. Progress with this goal, and more broadly, in the area of financing for development is important for gender equality and womenʼs empowerment because of its potential for expanding fiscal space. In order for gender-related indicators to catch up with the progress of others, more resources are needed. The additional resources for MDG 3 and MDG 5 will not come from a re-allocation of existing budgets because the overall shortfall for the rest of the MDGs is still very large. In addition, a re-allocation of resources places gender equality goals in competition with other MDGs. Thatʼs a losing proposition. The expectation here is that the global partnership for development will create an enabling environment for the expansion of fiscal space.
An accountability question arises. What happens if MDG 8 falls short of these expectations? One response in a state centered multilateral system is to change the configuration of political alignments as way of shifting the balance of power and influence. In between, for example, G-20 and the UN, the Global Governance Group or the 3Gs came together seeking consultation, inclusion and transparency.
It is an imperfect response because it is never clear how the attempted shift in balance of power translates into a new policy directions. A heavy burden is on the presumably sovereign but very likely weak state. A partnership on MDG 3 and MDG 5 needs to be based on new policy directions. Some of these are: a sovereign debt workout mechanism and exit strategies from aid can help to lower dependence on unpredictable, volatile, and politically-weighted external financing sources. Ensuring that public financial management reforms integrate gender-responsive budgeting recognizes the value of efficiency and accountability while seeking to improve the balance of outcomes among beneficiaries of public finances. Putting in place a system of automatic macroeconomic stabilizers along with flexible use of counter-cyclical policies and capital controls recognize that macroeconomic conditions are subjected to external events that are beyond the control of many governments, particularly those who are not systemically-significant.
Contested Powers of the Nation-State
The expansion of fiscal space and policy space does not bring guarantees of success as the experience of Nigeria suggests. Nigeria is one of the biggest beneficiaries of debt relief arrangements. It is also receiving additional aid for the MDGs. Nigeria established an Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on the MDGs, which manages funds for various MDG-related projects. In addition an institutional infrastructure is present, including the involvement of state governments and two Millenium Villages. Despite the high-level attention, the extensive infrastructure, debt relief, new aid, and economic growth, progress in poverty reduction remains slow.
From an accountability perspective, there might still be some appeal to this topdown approach because within state structures and in a constitutional democracy, there are internal accountability mechanisms that are fairly straightforward and established. In addition to the usual checks and balances across branches of government, there might be, for example, possibilities of using litigitation as a way of securing rights. Womenʼs organizations in India have used this approach to improve service provision in some states.
But there is more. Accountability mechanisms exist within political processes. These mechanisms mediate political relations among diverse social groups beingserved by state structures. A challenge in this setting of competing demands on state structures is that promoting gender equality and womenʼs empowerment is not a universally-accepted value, even when it is enshrined in formal laws, rules and structures.
It is easy to think of equal and inclusive partnerships for MDG 3 and MDG 5 as increasing the participation of womenʼs organizations and networks in planning and programming and delivery of interventions. Certainly, among the Mexican states, even with differential trends in health provision due to decentralization, there are notable gains where there is high civil society engagement with the state and with the health system. But part of the political work happens to be about defending the gains from being eroded by groups that do not subscribe to gender equality.
At other times, the political work is about stopping social programs[3] from making things worse. Take conditional cash transfer programs. These have been criticized for adding burdens on poor womenʼs time because it relies on her volunteerism to deliver the milk to her neighbors[4] or to bring her children to school. We need to be more conscious of womenʼs responsibilities for care. These impinge upon the time available
Our Task of Empowerment
Our task of empowerment is a crucial element in the building of institutions for development. Where else will we derive the information that we need to improve upon our efforts? Only from the voices of those we claim to serve. Institutions of governance and accountability thrive on empowered peoples. I am tempted to look to the Nordic model of the welfare state for inspiration, which was described by Jon Magnussen, Karsten Vrangbaek and Richard Saltman in this way: “At the core of this welfare model lies the principle of universalism and broad public participation in various areas of economic and social life, which is intended to promote an equality of the highest standards rather than an equality of minimal needs[5].” September is our opportunity to create an enabling environment to construct and reconstruct our aims towards an equality of the highest standards.
***
Presented at the Thematic Session 2: Equal and inclusive partnerships: Accountability in the fight against poverty (Informal Interactive Hearings of the General Assembly on the Millenium Development Goals, 14-15 June 2010, United Nations Headquarters in New York)
Go to: http://www.un.org/webcast/ga.html for the webcast
[1]Evans, Peter B. (2007), “Extending the ʻinstitutionalʼ turn: property, politics, and development trajectories,” in Chang, Ha-Joon, ed., Institutional Change and Economic Development, Helsinki, United Nations University Press, page 49.
[2]Keohane, Robert O. (2003), “Global Governance and Democratic Accountability”, in David Held and Matthias Koenig-Archibugi, eds., Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.
[3]There are several interactions that programs need to take into consideration as Sen (2010) says,“Understanding how gender relations work to define the experience of programmes requires focusing on who gets, or has access to, resources; how roles and relationships of work, responsibilities, cooperation, sharing or conflict define both womenʼs and menʼs living and working conditions within households; how structures and programmes of the state and other actors (private sector, civil society) reinforce or transform those roles and relationships, and how normative frameworks affecting differential entitlements and responsibilities are challenged or reinforced by policies and programmes.” In Sen, Gita (2010), “Poor households or poor women: Is there a difference?,” in Sylvia Chant, ed., International Handbook of Gender and Poverty, Edward Elgar.
[4]See Box 4 in Razavi, Shahra (2007), “The political and social economy of care in a development context: conceptual issues, research questions, and policy options,” UNRISD Gender and Development Paper No. 3, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. for her to participate in social programs, in labour markets, or engage in production using household resources. The time burden is heavier when social policies use this gendered division of work as the instrument and channel for delivering services. A tax is placed on women’s time perpetuating her disempowerment. Limits are placed on a woman’s ability to “construct and re-construct her aims” and we need to account for that.
[5]Magnussen, Jon, Karsten Vrangbaek, and Richard B. Saltman, eds. (2009), Nordic Health Care Systems: Recent Reforms and Current Policy Challenges, Berkshire, Open University Press, page 4.
|
|
DOWNLOAD
EMAIL DAWN VIEW / WRITE FEEDBACK
|
|
The Global Economic Crisis: The View from Asia-Pacific by Marina Durano
|
|
Main transmission channels and the impact on financial flows
In understanding the impact of the global economic crisis on women in the Asia-Pacific region, this paper begins by looking at the changes in financial flows into the region due to the collapse of global demand brought by the crisis. Transmission channels are highlighted in this section. The decline in global demand and the collapse of financial markets in the developed countries immediately made itself felt in the Asia-Pacific countries through a decline in the external sources of financing for development. Each country experienced the impact to varying degrees depending on the importance of a particular financial flow to their economies.
The tradable sectors
There seems to be some agreement among analysts that the financial sectors of emerging and developing market economies were not significantly exposed to the US financial markets that would cause serious destabilization. Asian financial markets were robust before the onset of the crisis. This is not to say that governments in the Asia-Pacific ignored this channel but many focused their attention elsewhere. Perhaps, the most immediate effect of the global economic crisis in the regions was experienced by the tradable sectors. (Read more by downloading document)
Note: To cite this material, please ask permission from Third World Network (TWN) Africa: pvpallen@twnafrica.org
See more resources on Political Economy of Globalization here
|
|
DOWNLOAD
EMAIL DAWN VIEW / WRITE FEEDBACK
|
|
DAWN Development Debates: Presentations on Political Economy of Globalization
|
- Financialization and Global Governance: The Way Forward: Does the Stiglitz Commission Report Go Far Enough? by Stephanie Seguino
- Black Economy and Militarized Globalization by Zo Randriamaro on behalf of Adebayo Olukoshi
- New Poles of Accumulation by Yao Graham
See more resources on Political Economy of Globalization here
|
|
EMAIL DAWN VIEW / WRITE FEEDBACK
|
|
Reclaiming Institutional and Policy Space Amidst Crisis by Marina Durano, Gigi Francisco and Gita Sen
|
|
The first decade of the 21st century is ending with the world in the throes of the most severe economic crisis unleashed by an era of unregulated financial capital. The preceding years of economic triumphalism among the neoliberals included a decade of ramplant neoconservative hegemonism and almost three decades of development policies dominated by the There is No Alternative (TINA) syndrome. Although the privatization, deregulation and liberalization espoused by the Washington Consensus led to rapid growth in some countries, their overall impact on may has been sharp increases in poverty, inequality and despoliation of the natural environment. But the severity of the current crisis also gives the world a historic opportunity to move away from failed ideas, institutions and policies towards a more sustainable and rights-based global development architecture. The critical question is not only what should be the content of policies to overcome the current crisis, but also which institutions should play what roles?
Unequal Power and Subverted Mandates
The consolidation of the Bretton Woods Insitutions (BWIs) around the Washington Consensus was helped, in part, by the dominance of their rich country shareholders (who were also the world's principal lenders) in their decision-making structures. The original BWI mandates were thus subverted, and all global institutions governing the key economic issues of finance, development, trade and aid have been affected by this.
*The international Monetary Fund (IMF), originally set up to ensure adequate finance for all countries, even handedness between borrowers and lenders, and stability in the global monetary order, became, instead, from the 1970s on, the standard bearer for finance capital, imposing fiscal discipline on the weak while allowing moral hazard to run rampant in favour of the financiers. The sources of instability in this system were left unchecked for decades. (Read more by downloading document)
See more resources on Political Economy of Globalization here
|
|
DOWNLOAD
EMAIL DAWN VIEW / WRITE FEEDBACK
|
|
Policy Space for Developmental States in a Multi-Polar World: In Search for Social Reproduction and Economic Redistribution by Marina Durano
|
|
The United Nations is forecasting contraction in world gross product for 2009 by -2.6 percent. This is a serious decline from an average growth rate of 3.8 percent between 2004 and 2007. Most of the decline in growth will be felt by the developed economies, the economies in transition and the Latin America and Caribbean region. While the rest of the developing economies will be posting some growth, these figures will be much lower than the previous years. These statistics make for a compelling argument for all governments to respond to the crisis at hand. The scale, depth and severity of the crisis additionally requires that responses be coordinated in order to ensure that everyone benefits from combined action.
Double Standards: Unequal power and unfair rules
Looking at the ways in which the governments of the world have responded demonstrate clearly the unequal capacities of state institutions across the world to deal with the impact of the crisis. One factor is the policy space available to government.
Policy space has been discussed in relation to how international agreements can place limits on the policy options available to a government. In other instances, it is a governments’ dealings with international financial institutions that place limits through, for example, the use of policy conditionalities attached to loans or grants. Behind the policy conditionalities associated with IFIs is a decisionmaking structure based on equity shares controlled by developed countries. These undemocratic structures have become a symbol of the unequal global distribution of political power among nation-states. (Read more by downloading document)
See more resources on Political Economy of Globalization here
|
|
DOWNLOAD
EMAIL DAWN VIEW / WRITE FEEDBACK
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
