Economic environments

      The Copenhagen agreements emphasized the need for international and national economic environments which promote productive investment and employment opportunities on a sustainable basis, rather than encouraging undue emphasis on speculation and exploitation of people and resources for short-term benefit. They also emphasized the need to achieve greater stability in exchange rates and financial flows, promote free trade on a fair and equitable basis, and generate sufficient public funds for expenditure on social development.

     A number of priorities for achieving these outcomes should be pursued. International cooperation could enable introduction of a standard tax on financial market transactions (some variant of the so-called “Tobin tax”) which would help to reduce the alarmingly high level of short-term speculation in those markets. Recent experience in Asia has highlighted the way in which this speculation harms genuinely productive businesses and intimidates governments from promoting the long-term interests of their citizens.

     International cooperation is also necessary to adopt and enforce standard rules which will prevent speculators, such as the notorious “hedge funds”, from borrowing dangerously high levels of money and grossly manipulating international markets. There is also a strong case in some countries for temporary restrictions on currency trading and on short-term international transfers of funds in order to prevent excessive vulnerability to damaging speculation and dominance by foreign interests and economic ideologies.

     Another high priority is to focus major trade negotiations on sectors, such as agriculture, where freer trade would tend to benefit developing countries. During the last decade or so, the bias has been overwhelmingly towards negotiating agreements in sectors where lower barriers will benefit the richer countries, especially the United States. Renewed efforts should also be made to achieve international adoption of a firm and enforceable code of fair conduct for international businesses, building on the draft which was prepared some years ago within the United Nations. Certainly any future version of the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment should have to include a code of this kind.

     The above proposals relate mainly to improving the impact of private sector investment on social development. It is also important to improve the capacity and effectiveness of public sector investment. This includes developing new sources of public revenue through international cooperation in levying and collecting fair and adequate levels of tax. A Tobin-type tax, for example, would raise substantial additional revenue for social development purposes which could be shared between national governments and international institutions such as the United Nations. Other international revenue-raising options, which would also promote economic efficiency, include taxes or charges on energy usage (such as a carbon tax), international air transport and space satellites.

     New international taxation standards should be developed to help prevent tax competition between countries that encourages inefficient private investment and deprives governments of essential revenue. This applies especially to taxation of capital. It is also important at the national level to establish revenue targets which allow sufficient public investment in people as well as in infrastructure, and to ensure adequate contributions from wealthy people through taxation of assets (especially land and shares) and financial transactions.

     The ability of many governments in developing countries to promote long-term economic and social development is gravely weakened by crippling levels of debt. Further debt relief initiatives are essential, and renewed pressure should be put on wealthy countries to honour their previous agreements to increase development assistance on a sustained basis. It is also important to continue promoting and trialing the so-called 20/20 initiative by which donor governments agree to provide 20 per cent of their funding, and donee governments 20 per cent of their expenditure, to provide basic human needs.

Political environments

     The Copenhagen agreements emphasized the need to improve the structures and processes for international cooperation and governance in areas of crucial importance to social development. It was agreed that the role of the United Nations in these areas should be strengthened and there should be closer cooperation between it and other international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It was also agreed that governments should cooperate on a regular basis to help promote further social development.

     A very high priority for achieving these goals is to restructure the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations so that it can provide effective leadership and governance in the interests of all countries, rather than only the wealthiest, and of social as well as economic development. It is clear that this need cannot be met adequately by other international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, G7 or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

      In order to fulfil its responsibilities, and to obtain the necessary credibility and power, the composition and processes of ECOSOC will need to be streamlined and more attention and expertise will need to be devoted to macro-economic issues. Some progress has been made since the Copenhagen Summit in developing ECOSOC’s effectiveness but much more remains to be done. The 1995 report of the Independent Commission on Global Governance proposed replacement of ECOSOC with an Economic Security Council. Rather than try to establish a new body, however, it would be preferable, and probably more feasible, to reform ECOSOC’s structures and processes so that they resemble those which the Commission proposed for the new Council.

      An alternative, or perhaps additional, option is to counter-balance the G7 countries by developing a grouping of fifteen or so countries which are in the second-rank of economic strength. This would include some of the smaller developed countries and some of the larger developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and Nigeria. A group of this kind was recently established on a temporary basis in response to the international financial crisis and operated effectively. There could also be provision for rotating membership of a few representatives of smaller developing countries.

     A related priority is to strengthen political structures and processes at regional and sub-regional levels around the world. This would enable some forms of cooperative action which individual governments cannot effectively implement on their own against the wishes of international financial markets, major industrial countries or large transnational corporations. It would also enable international policies and cooperation to be more attuned to local circumstances than is likely to be provided from the global level. Perhaps most importantly, it would strengthen the ability of developing countries which are in similar circumstances to combine more effectively in global negotiations that are currently dominated by the major developed countries.

     The number and strength of regional and sub-regional groups of governments has grown considerably in recent times. They range from long-established groupings such as the European Union (EU) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to much younger ones such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and Mercosur. It is important, as was recognized by the ESCAP Ministerial Meeting on Social Development in 1997, that groupings of this kind are persuaded to give as much attention to social development as to narrowly economic issues. The EU is moving in this direction and there are some signs of movement in ASEAN, for example, with the recent decision to establish a regional working group on social safety nets in response to the financial crisis.

      Another emerging trend of great significance is towards inter-regional negotiations. For example, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is really an inter-regional rather than regional process, as are the annual meetings between Asian and European governments (ASEM). It is important, however, that this trend does not unduly undermine fully global processes through the United Nations and other world-wide institutions. One way of reducing this risk would be for the Economic and Social Council to begin convening an annual regional consultation conference which includes not only its own regional commissions but also regional groupings which are currently outside the UN system.

      These questions of international political structures and processes are of crucial significance to the future of social development. Increasing internationalization of economic activity and power, unmatched by commensurate international regulation in the economic and social interests of all countries, is greatly reducing the space within which individual governments can reflect and promote the social development of their own people. This is especially true in relation to developing countries, yet their leaders have tended to be insufficiently focused and pragmatic in their efforts to build international influence on the issues, and in the forums, which have the greatest impact on them.

Legal and cultural environments

     The Copenhagen Summit emphasized the importance of establishing enforceable human rights as a means of enhancing and monitoring social development. It especially endorsed the importance of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which, for example, establishes rights relating to food, education, shelter, employment and social security. It urged ratification of the Covenant by those countries which have not yet done so and also more effective enforcement of it.

      Economic, social and cultural rights have tended to be the poor relations of the international human rights regime, especially by comparison with rights relating to freedom of speech, movement and association. Yet they can add valuable strength to the fight against poverty and hardship. The highest priorities here are to achieve more widespread ratification of the Covenant and to promote the use of specific internationally-agreed targets (for example, provision of universal basic education by a specified date) as guides to whether the vaguely-expressed rights in the Covenant have been honoured.

      Civil society organizations can strengthen the effectiveness of the Covenant by insisting that governments honour their obligations to report on their compliance with it and by presenting their own independent reports to the UN monitoring committee. They also could campaign for the right to an investigation by the committee of their specific complaints about breaches of the Covenant and for the committee to be given sufficient resources for its task.

     Economic, social and cultural rights are also recognized by some regional treaties and national laws. In general, however, these rights suffer from the same problems of vagueness and inadequate enforcement as apply at the global level. Much remains to be done if they are to make a major practical contribution to the fight for social justice. This applies especially to the establishment of effective monitoring and enforcement agencies, and to development of specific measurable criteria for assessing whether vaguely-expressed rights have been sufficiently protected, promoted and fulfilled. These goals may be more readily achievable on a regional or national basis than at a global level.

      The Copenhagen agreements especially emphasized the need for human rights systems or other legal measures to prevent discrimination on grounds such as race, gender and religion. There can be no doubt that these forms of discrimination have been, and remain, major causes of severe hardship and even death in many parts of the world. While useful progress has been made in relation to gender discrimination in some countries, it remains a huge problem in many others. The same is true of racial and religious discrimination, which often becomes worse when general economic circumstances become more difficult.