Doug writes:
I should have added that part of the impulse behind the development
of the HDI was to reduce pressure for redistribution - to shift the
focus from economic to social indicators. Of course, there are
virtues to foregrounding social over economic indicators, and lots of
people use the HDI complex for those purposes, but at the higher
levels, the more sinister spin applied.
My source on this is a former long-time UN press officer, and it was
subsequently confirmed by someone very close to Mahbub ul-Haq, the
Pakistani economist who guided the development of the index.
Doug
Very relevatory (pays to have good sources?).
In this specific case the sources (and the individual they cite) may not
accurately reflect what drove events (the HDI and the HD Reports began in
1990 when the pressure for global redistribution from the North to the
South was long gone) but no doubt this accurately reflects what your
sources felt and/or Mahbub said to them. Above all, the comments DO
highlight an important aspect of global economic politics for decades
before 1990 and that history is relevant today.
In the '60s and '70s, the third world elite was pressing for the New
International Economic Order (North/South redistribution) and SOME people
in this camp (maybe including your sources?) saw the movement for the
poor/basic needs (and the later human rights, gender and environmental
movements) as attempts by Northern 'liberals" to avoid allowing the third
world governments to construct autonomous states with their own
elites. Hence the suspicions and possible confirmations.
Conversely, SOME involved in the human needs movements viewed the 3rd world
elite and their "economic" crowd as unlikely to be willing to redistribute
the wealth (and the rest) within their country, and likely to 'take the
money and run' if given the chance. These splits were very real and central
at the time.
In retrospect, I think it is fair to say that there WAS some of the "worst"
in each group and that once the neo-liberal era began this group quickly
left their old ideals and objectives behind. And this is not news to
readers of this list - ironically, today the "worst" are mostly close allies.
But new opportunities for 3rd world/progressive 1st world links will emerge
(as they are already). What lessons should be learned? But what happened
to the "best" in each group? What prevented "the best" from forging
stronger links as neo-liberalism emerged as a threat? How does one learn
to better distinguish the worst from the best? Is there any common cause
with any of today's 3rd world economic\political elite (Malaysians?
Brazilians? Koreans? Russians? Vietnamese?)?
I wonder...where is Doug's source today?
Paul
