|
According to the UN Development Report,
the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty dropped from
29% to 23% between 1950 and 1999. During the 1990s, extreme poverty was halved in East Asia and the
Pacific and fell by 7% points in South Asia. On the other hand, comparing global progress to global fragmentation,
the richest 5% of the world’s people have incomes 114 times those of the poorest
5%. During the 1990s the number of
people in extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa rose from 242 million to 300
million people. East Asia and the Pacific achieved 5.7% annual growth in per capita
income in the 1990s and S. Asia 3.3%, but in Central and Eastern Europe and the
CIS per capita income shrank 2.4% a year in the 1990s; in sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA) it was 0.3%. Twenty
countries in SSA are poorer now than in 1990 and 23 are poorer now than in 1975,
and it has more than half of the region’s people. These figures are taken from
tables on pg. 10 and 11 of the report’s Overview.
Again, comparing the good news with the bad news, internet usage is
expected to grow from today’s 500 million to nearly 1 billion by 2005, but 72% of
internet users live in high-income countries with 14% of the world’s
population, 164 million of them in the US alone. The Overview charts also cover education and health, peace and personal
security, democracy and participation, for those who are interested in more
data, including noting that executive directors representing France, Germany,
Japan, the Russian Federation, Saudia Arabia, the UK and US account for 46% of
the voting rights in the World Bank and 48% in the IMF. Also in the Overview, the report makes the ironic or perhaps paradoxical
claim that “the world has never seemed more free – economically, politically
and technologically – or more unjust.” (pg. 1) “Around the world, discussions on development are placing more emphasis
on institutions and governance.
These debates have focused on the effectiveness of public institutions
and the rules for making markets work and promoting economic growth – from the
professionalism and transparency of tax systems to the capacity of judicial
systems to enforce commercial contracts”. (pg. 2) The UN Report argues that human development can only be
promoted through open governance systems which are fully accountable to all
people, and when all those people participate in the debates and decisions that
shape their lives. It cites Nobel Prize-winner Amartya Sen’s work documenting that states
that vote in multiparty elections and have representative democracies with a
free press build a strong incentive for state politicians to avert man-made and
natural disasters like famines.
Democracies also promote greater political stability, the Report says in
summary. Although riots and
demonstrations between 1950 and 1990 were more common in democracies, there
were more destabilizing in dictatorships. (pg. 3) and wars in non-democratic
regimes were more frequent and more costly. Although democratic governance promotes a “virtuous cycle
of development”, expanding social and economic opportunities (Mexico, Poland
and Indonesia are cited) “many now feel that democracy has not
delivered. During the
1990s income inequality and poverty rose sharply in Central and Eastern Europe
and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)” at sometimes unprecedented
rates. This is where my political eyes zoom in: “When democratic governments do
not respond to the needs of poor people, the public becomes more inclined to
support authoritarian or populist leaders who claim that limiting civil
liberties and political freedoms will accelerate economic growth and promote
social progress and stability. In Latin America, high income inequality and
poverty go hand in hand with low public trust in political authoritarian rule
and violations of human rights.”
(pg. 4) Are we sure they are only talking about Latin America? I’m pretty sure
some disenfranchised Americans feel pretty threatened and unequal right now. “Authoritarian leaders promise better outcomes and argue that democracy
must be sacrificed for economic growth and social progress. But there is no
evidence of such a trade-off. Statistical studies find that neither
authoritarianism nor democracy is a factor in determining either the rate of
economic growth or how it is distributed. Experiences around the world support
these findings. Costa Rica, Latin
America’s most stable democracy, achieved 1.1% annual growth in per capita
income between 1975 and 2000, faster than the regional average of 0.7% and
boasts the regions’ most equitable distribution of income, education and
health. But in Brazil democracy coexists
with economic and social inequalities that are among the world’s largest. More authoritarian Paraguay achieved
the region’s average per capita income growth rate but has also failed to
expand social and economic opportunities.” (pg. 4) The Report essentially states the obvious, that there is no
cookie-cutter, one-size-fits all democracy, that it cannot be imported but must
be built on site – “differently democratic”. I thought a bit of this might be interesting in light of the
IMF discussions online, remarks about democracy & globalization and the
current flap US Sec of Treas. O’Neill made in his comments Sunday about US
worries that IMF monies would disappear from S. America to Swiss bank
accounts. Any comments? From Arthur’s original posting: http://www.undp.org/hdr2002/ US Words Soothe Brazil in
O’Neill Flap: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23436-2002Jul30.html |
