amaric 2000 challenges in the governance of north south solidarity in the age of globalisation

8/7/2019 Amaric 2000 Challenges in the Governance of North south solidarity in the age of globalisation

1/5

Challenges in the Governance ofNorthSouth Solidarit y in t he Age ofGlobalization

The quest for global justice

Renewed global cooperation and solidarity is widely recognized as needed but itis unclear h ow this is to come about . The UN system churn s out reports on th e

state of the world and th e need to act, without being very clear on what is reallyto be done. Concerned individuals only become more overwhelmed by theinevitability of globalization.

Calls for more solidarity have led to a sense of political impasse. Calls forgreater altru ism of the North towards the South, part icularly the calls for moredevelopment a id dur ing the 1990s UN conferences, have oun dered against thereality of shr inking development cooperation bu dgets an d donor fatigue. Callsfor greater solidarity in shaping global institutions and policies with the argu -ment tha t we all share a common futu re an d a common village have ounderedin the face of the realpolitik of national interests. The current process of global-

ization appears antithetical to the expansion of the solidarity that dominatedNorthSouth debates in the era of development, as well as to global expansionin the form of solidarity that dominates the national space.

Behind the political impasses lies the conceptual shortcoming of trying toaccoun t for justice in the context of globalization using concepts derived fromthe nation-state system. More innovative approaches are required. One suchapproach consists in raising th e issue of justice transnationally. As Amartya Sen(199 9) puts it:

Development . Copyright 200 0 The Society for Intern ational Development. SAGE Publicat ions(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), 1011 -6370 (2000 12) 4 3:4; 610 ; 016 340 .

Upfront

FRA N CK A M A L RI C ABSTRACT Franck Amalri c identi es various channels of ext ernal impact t hat link Nort h and Sout h considering i ssues of just ice and solidarit y. He argues there are th ree st ructural challenges for t he Nort h: t ransparency; accountabilit y in decision-making and over- capacit y of product ion.

KEYWORDS cooperation, justice
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/


2/5

A more appropriate alternative, is to pose the issue of justice an d th at of fairn ess in several distinct th oughinter-related domains involving various groups tha t cu tacross national boun daries. These groups need not be asun iversally gran d as the collectivity of all th e people inthe world, nor as specic and constrained as nationalstates. There are many policy issues that cannot bereasonably addressed in either of these two extremistformats (1999 : 22).

We can t ake up th ese issues by looking a t th e chan -nels of external impact of the North on th e Southwithin which different criteria of justice should beapplied, an d with in wh ich different forms of soli-darity can be expressed. While this splitting of theproblem of global solidarity an d justice doesprovide some important insights, there remainsnevertheless some cross-cutting structural chal-lenges for th e North to address: challenge of trans-paren cy; accoun tability in decision-making; an d of over-capacity of production which we discussbelow.

Channels of ext ernal im pact

Taking an ima ge of globalizat ion from the perspec-tive of northern countries as actors, we can seemany ways in which n orthern a ctors have shapedthe rest of the world. The changes and transform-ation of these channels of external impact haveshaped globalization. These various channels canbe grouped in different m an ners. A grouping alonginstitut ional lines distinguishes between th ree clus-ters: multilateral organizations; foreign anddevelopment cooperat ion policies; and the externalimpact of in tern al policies and practices.

The emergence of globalorganizationsEach multilateral organization provides a channelthrough which a country has impact on othercountries. Until the late 1970s, most of theseorganizations were either forums for the provisionof what have been called global public goods such as international standards, or forums forcooperation or technical agencies managingNorthSouth solidarity. The basic principle wasna tional sovereignty, expressed for in stance in theUN process of decision-making of one-country

one-vote, or in the n on-political interference clauseof th e World Ban ks Articles of Agreement (ArticleIV).

Over th e last 20 years, a ma jor tran sforma tion inthe landscape of multilateral organizations hasbeen the increasing influence of three over the

organization of some of the coun tries with in whichthey operate: the International Monetary Fund(IMF), the World Ban k, and the General Agreemen ton Tar iffs an d Trade (GATT) later tra nsformed intothe World Trade Organ izat ion (WTO). The roles of the IMF an d the World Ban k have increased signi-can tly in th e aftermath of the debt crisis of the early19 80 s, with the reform programmes they have pro-moted throughout the South. The StructuralAdjustment Programmes (SAPs) have been far-reaching and have had profound impacts on thecountries that adopted them. They were alldesigned according to one un ique sketch known asthe Washington consensus, with its emphasis onprivatization, liberalization an d deregulation. Thu sthe global character of the World Ban k and the IMFresides in the expansion of their activities globallycombined with the belief that t here is just one set of adequate development policies.

Unlike th e World Ban k and th e IMF, th e globalcha racter of the WTO resides not in its policies butin its institutiona l design. The function of th e WTOis to administer negotiations over trade rules, andto serve as a quasi-judicial body to settle disputes.Because trade has become so important, andbecause the WTO is the only multilateral body of the kind with binding rules, new negotiationswithin the WTO have become highly politicalissues, as seen in Seattle in December 199 9. Whileformally, decisions in the WTO are made by con-sensus, in practice, at the occasion of MinisterialConferences issues are discussed informally insmall groups made up of 20 to 30 countries, anddecisions reached are then imposed on oth er coun-tries as a fait accompli (Bello, 1999). This processthus subordinates an important national policytool for southern countries trade policy todecisions intrinsically dominated by northerncountries. It is this aspect that qua lies the WTO asa global organization.

Together th e World Ban k, the IMF, an d th e WTOare emerging as the basic governance structure of

Amalr ic: Governance of NorthSout h Solidarit y

7


3/5

globalization. This convergence is the outcome of elaborated forms of coordination between th e threeorganizations following the gu idance of the coun-tries that lead them, as shown by a recent docu-ment produced by the three organizations. 1 Itsbasis is ideological: the belief in and commitment to

tra de libera lizat ion. The role of the WTO is to facili-tate continuation an d institut iona lization of tra deliberalization; the role of the IMF is to ensureoverall macro-economic stability; and the role of the World Ban k is to ma na ge the problems createdin the wake of globalization, in particular to takethe lead in addressing the problem of deepeningpoverty.

Development cooperationThe second, more traditiona l cluster of cha nn els of external impact comprises the policies aimingdirectly at mediating relations with other coun-tries: traditional foreign policies, and developmentcooperat ion policies.

Since the end of the Cold War, developmentcooperation has been in a state of crisis, withdeclining levels of ofcial development aid (ODA)an d questioning of th e role of ODA in the process of globalization (The Reality of Aid Project 2000).Three trends in the evolution of developmentcooperation must be noted: increasing empha sis onthe objective of poverty alleviation; n ew emph asison democracy and strengthening of the concept of partnership.

Global consequences of internalregulations, consumption andpoliciesThe third cluster of channels of external impactcomprises internal policies and regulations of northern countries that have indirect but signi-cant impact on southern countries. While thisphenomenon is not n ew, its signicance has grownwith globalization a s a consequence of th e increasein economic relations across countries and of theshr inking of ecological spaces at all levels.

One subset comprises regulat ions on large actorsbased in northern countries and operating over-seas, such as transnational companies orexportcredit agencies. With the shar p increase of foreign direct investment in th e South over th e last

10 year s, private companies are now th e primarymovers of capital from North to South and East,superseding in this area multilateral developmentbanks and bilateral development assistance. Howthey are regulated and supported is therefore of increasing importance for the South.

Among th e various policies recommended by theOECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, letus note the principle to respect th e human rights of those affected by their activities, to contribute toeconomic, social and environmenta l progress witha view to ach ieving sustainable development, torefrain from seeking or accepting exemptions notcontemplated in the statu tory or r egulatory frame-work related to environment, health . . .. 2 Theseprinciples thu s recognize the great poten tial powerof TNCs, and call not only for respect and self-restrain t, but also for par ticipation in the quest forsocial justice.

In suppor ting TNCs, the work and operat ions of exportcredit agencies (ECAs) have receivedincreasing attention (see, e.g. The Corner House,1999). ECAs provide companies with insuranceagainst th e main commercial and political risks of operating abroad, in part icular, of not being paid bytheir creditors. They are now the single largestpublic na nciers of large-scale infrastr uctu re pro-jects in the developing world (Rich 1 99 8: 2 2).

Anoth er subset of issues is the aggregate impactof consumption. Through the demand for goods itgenerates an d th rough ecological chains, north ernconsumption par ticipates in th e process of global-ization. In response, a movement for responsibleconsumption aims to tran sform consum ption intoa domain of political activism in which the con-sumer chooses, not only a product, but also aprocess of production (see Zadek and Amalric,1998), while a movement for fair consumptiontargets overall levels of consumpt ion. Starting fromthe view th at n orthern levels of consumption a reecologically unsustainable, it calls for fairness inthe distribution of entitlement s to consume withinexisting ecological limits (see, e.g. Carley andSpapens, 199 8).

A third subset of issues is the northern policiesconsidered interna l, but wh ich have global conse-quences. The EU policies on agricultu re and on sh-eries are prime examples. These policies have been

Development 43(4): Upf ront

8


4/5

designed for internal purposes, and yet there isample empirical evidence that they have far-reach -ing consequences for people in many different par tsof th e world. 3 The US tax policy on fuel is anotherexample. The vectors th at connect th ese policies toforeign stakeholders comprise prices of good (as in

the case of agriculture), structure of propertyrights (EU fisheries policy), structure of globaldemand for goods (for instance, EU regulation onchocolate), or the biosphere (US policy on fuel).

Three challenges for the North to actresponsibly in the global societyThere a re th ree particularly importan t challengesfor th e North to act responsibly in th e global society.

The rst is tha t of transparency. It is not possiblefor nor thern countries to do this un less they rendervisible the multiple impacts of their actions ou tsideof their borders, following for example the struc-ture of external impacts presented in the previoussection and establishing national external pro-les, as proposed by Kau l et al. (19 99: 467). Todaymost of the work of documenting th ese impacts isdone by NGOs, often with very litt le mean s and verysmall bearing on public or private decision-making.

The second cha llenge is the gap between peoplewho make decisions and people who are affected byit. There are different manifestations of this gap.One stems from the external impacts of nationalpolicy-making. People are affected by decisionsmade by countries of which they are not citizensand that they therefore cannot influence. Theextreme case is decisions that affect future gener-ations. Other manifestations are the differencebetween sha reholders and stakeholders in th e caseof private companies; and the capture of smallinterest groups of nor thern state power in domainstha t are not of primary interest to northern popu-lations at la rge. In these domains, democratic over-sight of state action in its cur rent form fails becausea lack of citizens willingness to exercise their duty.These domains include most of the foreign affairsin which citizens do not h ave any immediate inter-est to defend or promote (e.g. policies towardsmultilateral organizations), as well as some inter-nal policies that affect a small minority of thenorthern populations while having consequencesglobally. Agricultu re is the prime example: farmers

in the North represent around 2 percent of thepopulation while worldwide the proportion isaround 50 percent. Yet, eventually these 0.5percent of the world population are the onesdesigning global rules in agriculture through thenorthern states.

The third challenge is the issue of productionover-capacity. This issue cuts across many of thechannels of external impact presented in theprevious section. For example: the fundamentalproblem of EU agriculture and shing industry isproduction over-capacity, which is addressedrespectively by subsidizing export s and by purch as-ing fishing rights from developing countries.Liberalization of trade, investment, and nancialmarkets is being pushed by the quest for higherreturns by northern nancial interests, which isalso in its way an over-capacity issue: there is toomuch capital and not enough opportunities forhigh returns in the North. Consumption in theNorth is also today largely driven by the need toproduce, and in so doing reproducing capital,rather than by peoples need or even genu ine desireto consume.

The issue is also inherent to the concept of socially responsible business. Innovations in thisdomain propose to complement a companysnormal financial and economic accounts withsocial and environmental accounts. These newaccounts can serve as management tools, and asinstruments to increase the accountability of thecompany to all its stakeholders. But un an swered isthe question as to whether these accounts canbecome binding, in one way or the other. That is,wheth er a company can be closed down because itis deemed socially or environmentally bankrupt.The question therefore is about how a society dealswith production capacities (i.e. capital) when thiscapacity can no more be put at the service of society in the sense of being at the same time econ-omically viable, and socially and environmenta llyresponsible.

Conclusions

Addressing these three challenges will requireinstitutional innovations. It cannot be expectedthat democratically-elected governments will

Amalr ic: Governance of NorthSout h Solidarit y

9


5/5

address the two challenges of transparency anddecision-making: their long-term nature is invis-ible to day-to-day politics. What is needed is thepossibility to change decisions th at a re detrimentalto third par ties independently of the norm al demo-cratic decision-making process, in ways that con-

stitutional oversight or judicial power provides.The creation of mu ltilatera l organ izations was inpar t inten ded to play this role: that is, to limit un i-lateral action by one state when this action isha rmful to other states. But this is not an adequatesolution. As pointed out previously, calls for greatersolidarity in shaping global institu tions do not offera promising avenue for global justice.

An a lternative avenu e to explore is the creat ionof institut ions at th e national level, to some extentindependent of executive power, which wouldembody the principle that society cannot be organ-ized in ways that impose costs on others outsidenational jurisdiction. Such an institutional

arrangement would ensure the responsibility of northern states and individuals towards otherstates and (their individuals) economic, environ-mental a nd social needs. It would replace calls forglobal solidarity by a commitment to give a newdimension to the (national) social contract that isfoun ded on respect for the extern al environment.

Development 43(4): Upf ront

10

Notes

1 The document was released on 21October 199 8, with the titleReport of the Managing Directorof the Inter nat ional Monetar yFund, President of the WorldBan k, and Director-Genera l of theWorld Trade Organizat ion onCoherence. See Amalric (200 0)for an an alysis.

2 On Jun e 27, 2000 the 29 membercountries of the OECD agreed onthese Guidelines, which areintended as volunta ry principlesand standards for responsiblebusiness conduct.

3 With in the growing literatu re onthe topic, see for in stan ce Jadotand Rollan d (1996 ), and Reisen(1999).

References

Amalric, F. (200 0) Pulling the Cover

on t he Global Economic Policy

Framework, Development , 43.2:109113.

Bello, W. (19 99 ) Why Reform of theW TO is the Wrong Agenda .Ban gkok: Focus on the GlobalSouth.

Car ley, M. and Ph. Spapens (19 98 )Sharing the World. SustainableLiving and Global Equity in the 21 st Century . London: Ear thscan .

Jadot , Y. and J.P. Rollan d (1996) LaContradiction des PolitiquesEuropennes lgard des Pays enDveloppement . Par is: Solagra l.

Kau l, I., Gru nberg, I., and M. Stern(1999) Global Public Goods.International Cooperation in the21 st Century . New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

OECD Development AssistanceCommittee (19 96 ) Shaping the21 st Century. Paris: OECD.

Reisen, Van M. (19 99 ) EU GlobalPlayer . London: Intern ationalBooks.

Rich, B. (1998 ) Memorandum:

Export Credit and Investment

Insurance Agencies TheInternational Context . WashingtonDC: Environmental Defense Fund.

Sen, A. (1999) Global Justice.Beyond In terna tiona l Equity inKau l, I., Gru nberg, I., and M.Stern (eds) Global Public Goods .New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 11 6125 .

The Corner House (199 9) Shouts inthe Trough. Export Credit Agencies,Corporate Welfare and PolicyIncoherence. Dorset: TheCornerHouse.

The Reality of Aid Project (2000 )The Reality of Aid 20 00 . London:Earthscan.

Zadek, S. with F. Amalric (19 98 )Consum er works!, Development 41.1: 714.

amaric 2000 challenges in the governance of north south solidarity in the age of globalisation

Documents