Globalization - and the poor

Opportunity or threat? It depends on what you make of it, says Clare Short, Britain's Secretary of State for International Development. She is talking about globalization, the process that brings everyone within one global economy. But does it? What about those who are left out? A new White Paper - a document that presents the UK Government's policy for International Development - has just been published. 'Making Globalization Work for the Poor' sets out how the British Government intends to spend money and use its influence in development assistance. Currently, some £2.5bn per annum is spent but that amount is planned to increase to £3.6bn by 2003/4, and assistance will continue to be targeted towards alleviating poverty.

On the face of it, being part of a global economy is not something that the poor, especially those in rural areas, are particularly concerned about. The increase in international trade; the rapid, global movement of capital and manufacturing production in pursuit of profits; these are things which subsistence farmers - unconnected to a good road let alone the Internet - must find surreal. And yet why should they remain poor when others gather the 'gold' that globalization generates? Many would argue that globalization follows the golden rule - 'those that have the gold make the rules'. Clare Short is adamant that this need not be the case. "It's very worrying that so many people feel powerless and think globalization goes on and you can't control it. If everyone in the world decides they are powerless, then they will be. It will be left to the owners of wealth to control everything."

So it is a matter of choice. Globalization is not in charge. The benefits of economic growth which globalization brings can be shared in a way that could give the biggest reduction in poverty for the largest number of people that humanity has ever seen... or not. It is equally possible that the fruits of globalization benefit only the elite, and that the poor become more marginalized and more impoverished. The world would then see more conflict, more environmental degradation and more suffering. Either future is possible. So what is the British Government's Department for International Development offering as a positive way forward? And why, to put it bluntly, is it any business of the British Government to try and influence policy outside its own national borders?

"All governments go to UN meetings and vote that the poor must be given priority and there must be more progress. We, the UK Government, are happy to work with any government that means this. We are not imposing anything on anyone," says Clare Short. "Our condition is that the systematic reduction of poverty is the point of the development relationship." And that message is repeated at the World Bank, in UN agencies, in the Asia Development Bank, the Africa Development Bank, the EU and the IMF. Exerting influence in international circles is essential. As it is, the West has a reputation for offering assistance with one hand held behind its back, clenched tightly on agricultural subsidies and regulations to protect its own industries. The White Paper explains: 'There are substantial inequities in the existing international trading system. Developed countries have long preached the virtues of openness: but practice lags behind the rhetoric... The UK will continue to press for a pro-development EU negotiating position in a new (WTO) Trade Round, which includes substantial cuts in high tariffs and in trade-distorting subsidies, particularly for those sectors of most importance to developing countries (i.e. agriculture, textiles and clothing).'

In a further effort to make development assistance more effective, UK aid will be 'untied' from the obligation to use only UK suppliers, and local procurement will be promoted. Debt relief will continue and greater effort will be made to harmonize aid delivery amongst development agencies. This should please those who have long complained about the bureaucratic 'cost' of dealing with a multiplicity of donors. But will the poor in rural areas feel the benefit?

In a remote village in India, there is not one adult woman who can read - but every little girl is in school. A clear example of what can be achieved. Those children will grow up able to take part in the global economy, perhaps bringing greater livelihood security to their village and creating more opportunities for themselves and their children. In a remote village in Africa, a new, properly constructed dirt road has linked the population to a market, a health clinic, a secondary school - and a computer linked to the Internet. Globalization is with us all and we should all have the chance to make the best of it.

Back to Menu