|
Home About JGCG Vision & Mission Advisory Board Editors Contact Us Current Issue Archives Book Reviews Bookshelf Commentaries GCGI: - Arabic - Chinese Mainland - Chinese Traditional - English - German - Japanese - Persian - Turkish Common Good - Conferences - Future & Past Conferences Call for Papers Submission Guidelines Paper Review Form Future Issues Related Links Site Search |
|
Steering globalization into a better
future – Frithjof Finkbeiner and Franz Josef
Radermacher
At the beginning of the new century, the world is in an extremely difficult situation. The economic globalization is inadequately regulated by worldwide frameworks. It has unleashed the global economic system and brought down national constraints; a process that is accelerating. Concomitantly, the primacy of politics is lost as the core political structures remain national or continental, but not global. New technologies can substitute more and more manpower and, together with the growing integration of parts of the labour potential of poorer countries into the world market, threaten the jobs of less qualified workers in rich countries. These feel like losers of globalization, and with reason. In its current form, the globalization process does provide certain chances for development, but it runs contrary to the goal of sustainability because international standards and means of regulation are lacking. The current development is undermining the social and cultural balance as well as the ecological stability of the world. This situation is aggravated by the fast growth of the world’s population toward 10 billion people and the push of hundreds of millions more into resource-intensive lifestyles. Any sustainable solution must deal in a global perspective with the central issue of limiting the consumption of non-renewable resources and the ecological damage. Technological progress can reduce environmental stress per unit produced (dematerialization, eco-efficiency). In total, however, the burden on our ecological systems grows rather than lessens, due to the so-called boomerang effect. Yet every call for limitations, i.e. of carbon dioxide emissions, is foredoomed by the global issue of distribution that remains unresolved to this day. There are two approaches to distribution: a „grandfather" option that ultimately seeks to maintain the status quo (refusing the poor countries the same right to pollution that allowed for the standard of living in industrialized states), or »equal allocation per capita« of pollution rights and their trade. In a global perspective that includes the next 50 years, the current situation holds three possible scenarios for the future (in terms of attractors). Two of these are extremely threatening and incompatible with sustainability. Central to the scenarios is the question if two big postulates of global importance can be attained: (1) protection of our natural environment and resources, and (2) respect for the dignity of all people. If (1) fails, if we continue as hitherto, the collapse is inevitable. If (1) succeeds, the question is „how?" Through power, to the benefit of few and the detriment of many? We would end up with so-called brazilianization: massive impoverishment of large parts of the population in rich countries; a process that has already started. Only consensus can lead to a model with perspective: an Eco-Social Market Economy; the global establishment of the European market system. Eco-Social Market Economy The solution is to advance on a global economical level the basically ordoliberal approach of eco-social, regulated markets that is typical for Europe (social market economy) and some Asian economies (network economies). One current model for this is a Global Marshall Plan that links the establishment of adequate structures and the enforcement of standards with co-financing of development. The efficiency of such an approach is evident from the successful enlargement processes of the European Union. On a regional level, these processes benefit new members as well as the old ones, and Germany and Austria in particular. Following the same logic, the Montreal Protocol proves the success of the model on the international level. In this view, the European model seems to be the only promising option for peace and a sustainable development. It contrasts sharply with the market-radical model of an unleashed economy (turbo capitalism) that imposes neither environmental nor social responsibility. However, the market-fundamentalist view is deeply engrained in many heads through media manipulation (Lackoff), a fact that encumbers any counter strategy. Forced to operate under false preconditions, double strategies are necessary: We must develop a sensible design for the global economy (active shaping of globalization). As long as an acceptable global framework is lacking, we must focus on organizing intelligent distribution processes in Germany and Europe. A Global Marshall Plan/Planetary Contract represents an intermediate step towards a worldwide Eco-Social Market Economy. According to authoritative sources, 980 Billion US-Dollar will be needed on top of the current international development aid until 2015. Moreover, the usage of these funds must follow different mechanisms than currently applied, and in close interaction with the world’s civil society. Some countries have already made pledges, which reduces the amount of money needed additionally to about 860 Billion US-Dollar from 2006. Under an adequate regime, and focusing on developing countries that are willing to meet the requirements, this sum could be raised from 2008 through instruments such as Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund, a worldwide levy on financial transactions (Tobin tax), a worldwide levy on trade (Terra tax), a worldwide levy on kerosene, a reasonable trade system for CO2 emission rights, adequate debt relief measures for the poorest countries, and, finally insolvency laws for states. New forms of implementation As important as raising the funds are new forms of implementing the goals, in particular: financing the implementation of the UN Millennium Development Goals on a project basis. The effective allocation of funds for self-directed ways of development is maybe the most difficult aspect of a Global Marshall Plan. The responsible bodies for the implementation could be the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as well as other UN organizations, such as the UNEP environmental programmes, UNESCO or the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). On their part, these organizations should rely more on local initiatives and NGOs than they do today, and support adapted technologies, measures to increase local welfare and private initiatives for development. The latter should compete for co-financing funds, allocated in selection procedures controlled by an independent jury. Besides satisfying basic needs, financial aid should be aimed at empowerment, capacity building and ownership. Practical experience shows that self-directed, self-assured and responsible development is best achieved by promoting participation, education and enforcing the role of women. Guiding principles for the allocation of funds are subsidiary (bottom-up), transparency and control of financial fluxes to reduce corruption. Concrete examples for accordant fund allocation are micro financing and micro credit or the partnership-helper model (help for self-help). Also, there is then pressure towards good governance within countries, making sure all people will have a decent education, some kind of health care and so on. All this will significantly increase the power of people to help themselves. This will also be supported with the significantly increased level of co-financing of about $100 billion a year. In the concept of the Global Marshall Plan this money not just goes to governments, but to a great extend goes into small and medium-sized enterprises, into micro-credits, into regional projects and it goes into improving the ownership situation of poor people. And all use of such funds will fall under strict compliance rules. So, all in all, the Global Marshall Plan will significantly and permanently improve the situation of the poorest. The challenge behind the challenges – The ethical question The Eco-Social Market Economy model and the Global Marshall Plan approach are both based on a clear ethical foundation. This is the world ethos position, common to all great religions, to humanism and also present in the UN Earth Charter. Two principles are basic, which can both be deduced from the golden rule, namely the principle (1) to care for the environment and keep it intact and (2) to take care for the dignity of all humans. These principles immediately translate into corresponding requirements concerning the governance of companies, which are today reflected in concepts such as ethics for business or corporate social responsibility. However, voluntary business codes, as important as they are, are usually not sufficient to address global needs. Internationally agreed upon rules, transparency and compliance mechanisms are the key. This is where an eco-social market approach and business ethics meet. Because under suitable frameworks, markets will reward, what is ethically desirable. We have to work harder to achieve this situation. What do we hope for? Similar to Europe’s economic miracle after World War II, the eco-social reasoning behind a Global Marshall Plan/Planetary Contract will create a gigantic global departure in the right direction, analogous to the EU enlargement processes: economic development, environmental protection, social balance and cultural balance are all promoted simultaneously. The developing part of the globe closes the gap, and positive growth effects show everywhere. The future formula 10~>4:34 indicates that within the next 50 to 100 years, a ten-fold increase of the global gross national product is achievable, at the same time taking care for an efficient environmental protection and the realization of a sustainable development. The effect of a worldwide investment program in the scope required would, in a relative perspective, be comparable to the effect of constructing the transcontinental railway system in the US at its time, and release unimagined powers for a development in the right direction. While growth rates in the rich world may average between 1 and 2 % per annum for about 50 years, they will reach 6 to 7 % in the poorer parts of the world. The rich North and the poor South will profit equally from the resulting boom. At the same time, the imposed social and ecological standards will contain the current polarization within both the rich and the poorer countries. Thus, more global balance is compatible with environmental protection and does not entail less social balance within states. The Global Marshall Plan:A step into the right direction The Global Marshall Plan is a concept for a world in balance. It consists of five strategic cornerstones that are interconnected: (1) The speedy implementation of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals as agreed upon worldwide, (2) To raise an average of US$ 100 billion per annum in the period of 2008 to 2015 for development cooperation. This figure is based on the level of development aid and spending power of the year 2004. If the development goals and with them the goal of global common welfare are to be realized, this is the minimum sum that needs to be added and spent exclusively for this purpose. (3) To implement fair mechanisms to raise the funds needed. The Global Marshall Plan Initiative supports the goal of spending 0.7 per cent of the national budgets on development cooperation. However, these means will amount to considerably less than the sum needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals, even if the most optimistic scenario came true. Therefore, and for reasons of regulatory policy, a large part of the funds required shall be raised via taxes on global transactions and on consumption of global common goods. (4) The stepwise implementation of a worldwide Eco-Social Market Economy and the replacement of global market-fundamentalism with a better regulatory framework for the global economy. A just world contract is needed. The existing global frameworks and institutions for the economy, environment, social welfare and culture must be reformed and combined (for example, those pertaining to the UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, ILO, UNDP, UNEP and UNESCO). (5) A fair cooperation in the spirit of partnership on all levels and an adequate flow of funds are preconditions for the establishment of a sensible regulatory framework. Key elements of a self-directed development are the promotion of good governance, measures to combat corruption and an allocation of funds that aim at the grass-roots level. The Global Marshall Plan provides us with a concept for a future in balance. The growing support from politics, the economy and non-governmental organizations gives us hope, but the road before us is long and troublesome, and success far from certain. The Global Marshall Plan Initiative focuses on a combined strategy of "bottom up" and "top down"; i.e. of raising awareness and reaching a Planetary Consciousness on grass-roots level and among decision makers. People are informed about the goals of the Global Marshall Plan through lectures, information events, and publications, which generate political will for change in the middle of our societies. At the same time, decision makers at national, European, and international levels are directly approached to gain their support. Which are the next steps? A new Marshall Plan must be the result of an international consensus. There are currently many groups and individuals around the world that have made proposals for a Global Marshall Plan. Although their plans have much in common, there are many differences among the groups based on differing depths of research, emphasis on specific issues, political influences, and cultural interpretations. Nor have these groups been actively cooperating to develop a universal consensus to accomplish these goals. There are, of course, many other organizations addressing similar issues, although not under the title ´Global Marshall Plan´, and they too have been unable to reach a unified level of international dialogue and agreement. This lack of international discussion reflects the fact that the global economic system since 1944 has developed an asymmetrical internationalism in which the richer nations control the decision-making process on major global socio-economic and environmental issues, which has an adverse impact on poor nations. This has also affected organizations and individuals attempting to address the interdependence of global issues, including those working to end poverty, achieve social development, solve global environmental problems, and restructure the international economy in support of sustainable development. There is little opportunity for the various international groups and individuals interested in a Global Marshall Plan and similar concerns to meet and discuss their mutual interests because there is no existing forum for international dialogue representing all of the interrelated issues and all of the interested parties. What is needed is an inclusive format or nexus for discussing the issues of global development, environment and economics that involves diverse representation from business, government, civil society, academia, and media from both developed and developing countries and is fully committed to a convergent multilateralism, both in spirit and in practice. Like the American Marshall Plan, which involved a new kind of participatory framework between donors and recipients for development relief and reconstruction, an International Conference for a Global Marshall Plan must be created in which the widest possible group of international stakeholders can convene and reach international agreement on the terms of a Global Marshall Plan. Although this conference has no international authority or power to implement a multilateral program for social development, environmental and economic reform, its purpose is to create a global democratic referendum for a Global Marshall Plan that is universally supported by business, government, civil society organizations, and other relevant groups. With a broad consensus of international representatives involved in identifying the agenda, the timeline, and the agencies required to implement a Global Marshall Plan, the conference will acquire an unprecedented level of global recognition and popular legitimacy. International public demand and political pressure will grow until the designated agencies are authorized by governments and the United Nations to launch a Global Marshall Plan. The creation of this conference will involve several steps: 1. Developing an Agenda through International Consultations 2. Consulting with International Organizations and Experts – January-December 2008 3. Mobilizing Broad Networks of Partner Organizations – January-September 2009 4. Creating Public Communications and Outreach Campaign – September 2009 - April 2010 5. Generating Follow-Up Activities – May 2010 – September 2012 For more details please go to http://files.globalmarshallplan.org/pr/inc_705.pdf
|
