2008 Woodie Awards
The liberal development dilemma
Sarah Allen
Issue date: 11/7/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 4 next >
Development is a broad goal which unites a diverse array of activists and interest groups: Environmentalists, women's rights advocates, anti-hunger groups, anti-genocide groups, education advocacy groups, labor activists and anti-sweatshop organizations are just a few of the many assemblies who view their issue as a positive step towards developing a better society. Yet, when the puzzle of development policy is put together and considered in its entirety the answer on what yields real development becomes vague and overwhelming.
It becomes increasingly difficult to find policies that yield change. Economic liberalization plans are frequently suggested by international financial institutions; their alleged goal being not the accumulation of wealth but the advancement of societies. According to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, for instance, opening countries to investment and competition is the best way to cultivate the use of better technology and create jobs.
In reality, however, economic liberalization frequently presents a serious risk to human rights when it does not foster the kind long-term positive change predicted by staunch advocates of unfettered global markets. For instance, economic liberalization often fails to accompanied by a sensitivity to important issues such as education, disease prevention, and alleviating poverty. On the other hand, the classically liberal protectionist and isolationist policies can also present themselves as hindrances to achieving development both abroad and at home. While nations should have the right to regulate health, the environment, and culturally sensitive services (e.g., telecommunication), it is also necessary that policies which serve trade solely should be gradually replaced by cultivation of productive education and training in the long-term.
Protectionism, while in many cases shielding the developed world's low-skill industry, hurts developing countries with only the capacity to produce low-end goods. Therefore, protectionism can present itself as a hindrance on the macro-development of poorer countries who also aspire to build competitive economies in the global market.
It becomes increasingly difficult to find policies that yield change. Economic liberalization plans are frequently suggested by international financial institutions; their alleged goal being not the accumulation of wealth but the advancement of societies. According to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, for instance, opening countries to investment and competition is the best way to cultivate the use of better technology and create jobs.
In reality, however, economic liberalization frequently presents a serious risk to human rights when it does not foster the kind long-term positive change predicted by staunch advocates of unfettered global markets. For instance, economic liberalization often fails to accompanied by a sensitivity to important issues such as education, disease prevention, and alleviating poverty. On the other hand, the classically liberal protectionist and isolationist policies can also present themselves as hindrances to achieving development both abroad and at home. While nations should have the right to regulate health, the environment, and culturally sensitive services (e.g., telecommunication), it is also necessary that policies which serve trade solely should be gradually replaced by cultivation of productive education and training in the long-term.
Protectionism, while in many cases shielding the developed world's low-skill industry, hurts developing countries with only the capacity to produce low-end goods. Therefore, protectionism can present itself as a hindrance on the macro-development of poorer countries who also aspire to build competitive economies in the global market.
Be the first to comment on this story