---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:19:20 +0000
From: Bob Deacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Global Social Policy Code
WHO SHOULD DEVISE AND OWN THE PROPOSED GLOBAL SOCIAL POLICY CODE?
The UK government, through the intervention of the Chancellor Gordon
Brown, has made a significant contribution to the debate about how to
regulate the global economy not only in terms of financial flows but also
in terms of the social dimension of globalization.
He has argued for a GLOBAL SOCIAL POLICY CODE. This would be a "code of
global best practice in social policy which will apply for every country,
will set minimum standards and will ensure that when IMF and WORLD BANK
help a country in trouble the agreed programme of reform will preserve
investments in the social, education, and employment programmes which are
essential for growth" Moreover this code "should not be seen in narrow
terms as merely the creation of social safety nets. We should see it as
creating opportunities for all by investing more not less in education,
employment and vital public services".(Speech entitled Rediscovering
Public Purpose in the Global Economy, Harvard, Dec 15th 1998.)
It is suggested by him that this code should be agreed at the next meeting
of the World Bank meeting in spring1999. The question, therefore, is posed
as to who and how will this code be devised. It has fallen to Robert
Holzmann as Director of the newly created Social Protection division of
the Human Resources Network of the Bank to formulate this. Some initial
thinking was provided by the Social Development Section of the DFID of the
UK government. It suggested that best practice in social policy involved
a)equitable access to basic social services health, education, water and
sanitation, shelter; b)social protection enabling individuals to reduce
their vulnerability to shocks: and c)core labour standards.
Two questions arise. First what does the track record of Bank policy
making in this field suggest might be the slant of this new global code if
left to them?
For a final answer we must await the articulation within the next few
months of the World Bank's Social Protection sector strategy paper. Some
clues as to its orientation already exist. The social protection section,
in the terms of its own publicity material, says it is meeting the
challenge of inclusion by focusing on risk management by 'helping people
manage risks proactively in their households and communities'. Within this
remit it is working on labour market reform, pension reform and social
assistance strategies including supporting NGO and community social funds
in many countries. This suggests a strategy which emphasizes individual
responsibility to insure themselves against the increased risks and
uncertainties of globalization rather than one that puts emphasis on
governmental responsibilities to pool risks and to universalize provision.
Holzmann concentrates on pension policy (1997a,1997b,1997c,1997d) and has
lent his support to the multi-pillar approach to pension reform (1997b)
which would reduce the state PAYG schemes to a minimal role of basic
pension provision, supplemented by a compulsory and fully funded and
individualized second pillar and a voluntary third pillar.
Second how should other global actors with a right to a view on this code:
ILO, UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO, UNDP, the UN Economic and Social Secretariat,
global trade unions, global civil society etc. have their say? If we are
to build a global economy that takes the social dimension seriously then
we need forms of global social policy formulation that stand in the
tradition of consensus politics and tripartism. The initiative by the UN
Social Policy and Social Development Secretariat to formulate a policy for
the social dimension of globalization needs to engage with this GLOBAL
CODE OF SOCIAL POLICY . The ILO and other UN social agencies need to make
their input. A wide ranging discussion is needed , not a quick fix at the
next meeting of the Bank. A code owned by all could be agreed at the
Copenhagen plus 5 meeting scheduled for June 2000.
A code for best practice in social policy should not slant too far in the
direction of targeting and privatisation. It would have to explicate what
the alternative poles of universalism and public responsibility might mean
for countries at different levels of development. At the same time such an
approach of universalism appropriate to the level of development needs to
be coupled with explicit pro poor development polices to avoid the charge
that the poor countries should settle for less.
Chen and Desai (1997, pp 432) reminded us recently, having reviewed the
positive experiences of those countries that combined economic growth
with conscious social development (Botswana, Mauritius, Zimbabwe, the
Indian State of Kerala, Sri Lanka, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
Barbados, Costa Rica, Cuba) that.
The key ingredients to successful social development appear to be
responsive governments, socially friendly economic policies, and
the universal provisioning of social services. In all these endeavours
the role of government is central.
Here are some initial ideas for a global best practice in social policy
code that are born of what we know from history, research and comparative
study about what kinds of polices best meet human needs.
Universal entitlements to a share in one of the main means of livelihood
of the society: land, paid employment, micro-credit,
Entitlement to income compensation when these are not available
Government regulated and citizenship contributed compulsory social
insurance provision to pool risks and to cover for all risks.
(unemployment, sickness, disability, survivorship, old-age)
Equitable access to the level of health care and education affordable at
the level of development
Mechanisms to ensure universal access to adequate water, food,
sanitation. (food subsidies of basics in a market economy even if the
subsidy also benefits the middle class remains an important mechanism of
social solidarity)
Tax and benefit processes that win the universal commitment of all to
their funding and provision,
Involvement of civil society institutions, local NGOs in the articulation
of needs and in aspects of social provision without undermining
governmental responsibility for the standard and regional distribution of
services
Provision for the regulation of private and not-for-profit services which
discourage market skimming and dumping higher risks on the state,
Governmental mechanisms which enforce core labour standards, UN human and
social rights, and regional social charters where they exist
Economic development strategies which are pro-poor and encourage labour
growth with adequate remuneration
BOB DEACON Director Globalism and Social Policy Programme (GASPP).
http://www.stakes.fi/gaspp
Chen, I and Desai, M. (1997). Paths to Social Development: lessons from
case studies, in Mehrota, S. and Jolly, R. (1997). Development with a
Human Face, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Remaining bibliography can be found in Deacon, B (1998) Towards a Socially
Responsible Globalization, GASPP Occasional Papers No. 1 which can be
downloaded free as ocpap1.doc from the news page of the gaspp web page.
