Two new worlds

THERE are a variety of ways in which the North could supportdevelopment in and by the South. I sometimes refer to them asthe "AT&T- mechanisms": aid, trade and technology transfer.All of these have been on the Northern agenda for decadesnow. The United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment asked at the Rio meet fora reconfirmation of North's commitments to aid, and an additional annualaid for Agenda 21; access to Northerntechnology; and an open climate forfair trade. Since then, the UruguayRound has come to an end, and so hasGATT, and we have had several newconferences, such as the one on population in Cairo, and on poverty inCopenhagen. Where are we now? Let's take a fresh look.

First, trade. The Uruguay Roundshould generate income gains fromadditional trade to the order of $500billion annually, says the Organisationof Economic Cooperation andDevelopment. Out of these, some $160billion will trickle down to the South. Isthat progress? Maybe it is, in terms ofabsolute levels of material income orconsumption. But from other perspectives, it is not. For one thing, expandingthe scale of economic activity and tradehas its consequences in terms of environmental pressure. For another, thisadditional trade.doesn't really help insolving the poverty issue. In fact, thegains from additional trade are distributed in such a way that the ratio of percapita income in the North to that inthe South remains almost exactly whatit was: 233 to I (World Bank data). Weneed something more if we are to tackle poverty sustainably.

Second, the issue of aid. InCopenhagen, the World Summit onSocial Development earlier this yearwas to have identified new sources offunding. UN Secretary General BoutrosBoutros-Ghali even identified that as the prerequisite for thesummit's success. And indeed, a few were mentioned, such asthe "Tobin" tax on international money flow. But at the end ofthe day it was back to square one: a reconfirmation of thedesirability to achieve the 7 per cent of Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) target to Official Development Assistance thatwe have had since 1968, and a recommendation only to applythe 20-20 rule - that is, development funds to be spent onsocial deielopment for 20 per cent if this is matched by governments spending an equal percentage of their public funds on such activities. And on debt relief, there is nothing to report out of Copenhagen.

The Times ofIndia, on March 17, acknowledged that what is called "aid fatigue" in the North may have played a role in this, and goes on to point out that thisrests on totally wrong perceptions inthe USA on how much aid is given. I amafraid that even among the betterinformed people there, and in Europe,there are substantial doubts about theeffectiveness of aid. It is better for theSouth to be fully aware of this, and ofthe fact that these debates are serious.Not only is aid being seen as ineffectiveby many, but these same people pointout a lot of economic developments ina num4er of Southern countries, veryoften without aid having been the trigger. One of the more progressiveand supportive newspapers in theNetheriands even spoke of "a success"when it reported that the 7 per cent target still stands after Copenhagen. Thepaper is-probably right: things couldeasily ha@ye ended up much worse.

So, ET&T doesn't stretch very farthesddays. This will have worseningconsequences as the economicforces are allowed to dominate. InCopenhagen there was much debateabout the market mechanism. There, I belonged to the minority which doubted whether in terms of ensuring socialdevelopment governments would becapable of controlling the forces unleashed.

There's now a growing convictionin the West that the,old North-Southdemarcation is obsolete, and has effectively been replaced by the one betweenmarket economies and the (hopeless)rest. Serious analysts held thatCopenhagen terminated the era ofbelief in the possibility of global socialengineering. I hope that they are wrong. We must againbecome what Aristotle termed as political animals. We mustbecome beings that create and change institutions in order torealise the common good: environmental and social security.

Hans Opschoor heads the Ecological Economics Group, Free University, Amsterdam