|
Dear
All,
I am back on
line again after spending a much time away, first at the World Social Forum in
Porto Alegre and later at a UN Economic Commission for Africa panel in Lusaka.
The WSF has
developed into the biggest 'network of networks' in the world, and saw a
lot of excellent discussion lead by important social movements. Officially, of
course, bodies like the UN ECA are also working on integrated strategies to
address poverty in underdeveloped and poor countries. I am hopeful
that our working group will eventually contribute to such
processes.
In the past
month, Jeffery Smith, Michael Binder and Male Oliveros have taken forward our
discussion, and I hope the rest of the group is planning to get into the
discussion soon.
I'd like to
agree with the view that a distribution of assets, particularly
income-generating/ social protection assets, is crucial to improving economic
growth (as in Taiwan example given), poverty reduction and coping strategies.
The extremely skewed distribution of assets by race in South Africa explains the
extremely skewed racial distribution of poverty in the country. Further, in
Africa, the poor's lack of assets means that people are very vulnerable to
climatic shocks and bad harvests, and have little else to fall back on during
such bad spells. Addressing this underlying distribution of assets, something
that is ignored in neo-classical economics (which focuses mostly on
productivity), is therefore a crucial strategy. This points to the need to bring
distribution mechanisms and redistribution back onto the policy agendas.
I'd like to
also agree that education (also an asset) is crucial. And has one of the
participants has stated, privatisation is a factor. Indeed education, in most
countries mostly a publicly delivered basic service, is generally being
privatised or commercialised through rising fee-for-service models. This tends
to entrench the education gaps. It would be interesting to hear how some
poor 'countries' (like Cuba and Kerala - a state in India) managed to
dramatically improve education indicators, and achieve a Human Development
Index far exceeding their GDP per capita.
Thus far our
discussion has focused on an exploration of asset and capability poverty.
We have not had much discussion on ways to address income poverty, which is a
subject of growing debate in the more developed countries (for example, the
issue of basic income). Our focus on assets and capabilities may be because
poor countries have as much to do to create wealth as they have to
distribute it. That said, there are middle-income countries which have
considerable resources and high levels of inequality (another issue that we need
some discussion).
I'd like to
again suggest that all of these strategies we talk of will not be
implemented in a power vacuum. Certainly land-owners will not easily agree
to part with land, if history is any guide. The same will be said for any other
asset holder, where that asset is resulting in a disproportionate share of
wealth and income accruing to its owner. It would be interesting to
hear more about how instances where asset transfers were
achieved.
Thus far, there
has not been much to suggest that ESOPs could be a major part of a poverty
reduction strategy, though they clearly have an important part to play in the
formal sector.
Finally,
I am attaching a NALEDI report on "Poverty and economics", written in
1998. It was commissioned by the coalition of trade unions, churches and NGOs in
South Africa for the "Poverty Hearings", a civil society initiative that
coincided with the beginning of SA's "Truth Commission" (into apartheid). The
report's conceptual approach is similar to what we have been
discussing.
best
regards,
Ravi
Naidoo
Dear All,
Thanks for the inputs.
I have drawn two sets of questions based
on the contributions thus far. These questions may serve
as starting points as they are broad enough to let us branch out to
other areas that you may feel are important. I suggest in addressing
these questions you do so from a relatively empirical perspective,
where you put forward 'evidence' (i.e. good examples) to back up
your view. Of course where there is no good example you may still
put forward a purely theoretical argument, though I strongly suggest
you address the issue of agency (who will make this happen and
how) since we all accept that any proposal cannot start from
a clean slate, but rather 'from where we are'.
[Ravi Naidoo] Mark
Levin asked: What role can ESOPs play in
poverty reduction in developing countries. Neither Ravi Naidoo nor Juan
Guillermo Espinosa's papers to the COG DC Conference were very optimistic on
this score. The current structure of employment and ownership in developing
countries was identified as a major constraint to the development of
ESOPs. Does this mean that ESOPs are (and will remain) a "rich country
phenomenon"? Are there good examples to contradict this
view?
Michael
Binder suggested that poverty could be reduced
through seven paths including 'evolutionary' ones. This
presents us with an opportunity to explore those examples
where 'evolutionary' capitalist economic development has succeeded
in reducing what Austin Muneku
referred to as 'multi-dimensional' poverty. In which developing
countries has this happened? What were the necessary preconditions for this
development? (historical, institutional, govt interventions, etc.) And,
what role did ownership distribution strategies play in
this? How could such strategies be replicated in currently
developing countries?
Please through a couple of
paragraphs talking to each of these questions or feel free to suggest a few
succinct questions for discussion. Please note I will be not responding to
this group until the end of January, as I will be attending the World Social
Forum in Brazil.
cheers!
Ravi Naidoo
|