SID Lecture Series 2010- 2011

Global Values in a Changing World:
Synergy of State and Society in a Globalized World

In an attempt to establish a world in which people’s basic rights and needs are provided for, International treaties, conventions, and declarations have been developed, and an increasing number of states, including those in the South, have ratified them and incorporated them into national legislation. These global norms and standards are relevant for international development, as they provide a necessary framework of underlying principles and values for citizens to live together in a globalizing world. The international community via the UN and its various institutions has adopted the responsibility to set global norms and standards such as Human Rights, Democracy, International Law, and Decent Work. They seem to reflect international values, systems and convictions, but an international mechanism for implementing these agreements or to hold states accountable for not doing so, is still mostly lacking. In reality, states are responsible, but slow in implementing these agreements.

Social Contracts: Interplay of State, Market and Civil Society

Implementation of such norms and standards seem to occur, where social contracts are established within states: where communities and societies as a whole decide to adopt these globally agreed norms and systems, and translate them into concrete rules, regulations and enforcement mechanisms. A weak social contract is often a basis for non-compliance to these global standards. The problem of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the violations of human rights in Guatemala and Sri Lanka are related to the weakness of the social contract in these societies. The same is true for development cooperation. With all our beautiful goals and shared international norms and values (like the Millennium Development Goals), it is the social contract in societies and communities that is decisive for the extent to which these are implemented.

SID’s previous lecture series made it clear already that states are no longer the only actors which shape the global community and which can offer the necessary institutional arrangements. We thus have to see how social contracts (between state and society) come about, what it is that makes people unite and to commit themselves to shared values, and how the broader society (state, market, and civil society) cooperates in formulating and implementing global values. Social contracts are an expression of the relationship between different actors in society: the triangle of the state, market, and civil society as the three fundamental institutions for a society in today’s globalized world.

Within the triangle state-market-civil society, states still have an important role to play. Fukuyama has argued that rule of law and basic political institutions should be put in place first, before social capital can be built. This is clearly a responsibility of the state. However, governments cannot do much to generate this social capital, which is a prerequisite for sustainable social contracts. Fukuyama furthermore argued, that “states can have a negative impact on social capital when they start to undertake activities that are better left to the private sector or to civil society (…) If the state gets into the business of organizing everything, people will become dependent on it and lose their spontaneous ability to work with one another”[1]. William Easterly also warned against the potential crowding out-effect of too many government-interventions. He argued that an intervening state could be impeding to the development of talents, creativity, problem-solving capacity and entrepreneurship of citizens. National governments should therefore focus on how to promote and facilitate these dynamics of creation and cooperation rather than to impede or obstruct this process.

Thus, rather than merely focus on constructing strategies for development at the level of the state (state-building, peace and security, public policy, democracy), we also need to realize the strength of civil society actors and what they create from below. In the words of Easterly: “prosperity is not designed from above, but from below, from the independent actions of many individuals who figure out their own path[2]. Others argue that prosperity happens where forces from above support those from below. In both arguments, citizens are the agents of change. By working together, people change themselves, others, and society.

The implications of social contracts for international cooperation

For the agenda of international cooperation, three areas can be distinguished, in which social contracts have important roles to play:

(1)       In the ‘traditional’ development agenda of poverty reduction

Here, social contracts can be a decisive element for success. Within those social contracts, societies and states have to translate broad global goals (such as the Millennium Development Goals) into concrete plans and bear the first responsibility to implement. Interventions will always be dependent on the strength of that social contract to be effective.

(2)        For the global values which set clear standards and rights (for example through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other international agreements implemented by WTO, IMF, and UN organizations like ILO, WHO, etcetera)

These are meant to be put in practice to benefit people and communities. The strength of the social contract of states with societies and communities is essential. Society needs to believe in them: they have to “believe that the system as a whole is just, and deserving of their support”[3]

(3)       In the domain of global common goods

This has recently been accepted as a new part of the agenda of international cooperation[4]. The responsibilities for implementation lie to a large extent with the ‘donor’-countries. These countries bear to a great deal (although not exclusively) the responsibility for solving the global crises on energy, climate change, and food security[5]. Also with regard to migration there is a clear shared responsibility of donor and developing countries. Perhaps we should speak of a new social contract on a global level for preserving the values that are linked to these global common goods.

SID Lecture Series 2010-2011 analyzes the connection between internationally agreed norms, standards, and goals, common goods, and the way they can be realized in a world that is both globalized and localized. Prominent speakers will be invited to address challenges and opportunities for social contracts in a globalized world. Questions that will be addressed include: Are these norms and values truly ‘universal’ and how are they perceived by emerging powers such as the BRICS? Is there a difference between governments and their population in accepting these global values? What does that mean for the strength of these norms and standards? What works in heterogeneous societies? If people themselves are the main drivers behind development, what does this imply for foreign aid? Which concrete political steps and arrangements should be taken in order to contribute to making these social contracts sustainable, and what are consequences of migration for development “from below”?

LECTURES :

Lecture 1 (18 October 2010) (Introductory Lecture):

‘Universality of Human Rights: The Way Forward’

Speaker: Willem van Genugten (Tilburg University, AIV)                                          Moderator: Lars van Troost (Amnesty International)

When the universal declaration of human rights was adopted in 1948, it was presented as a self-evident framework for the relation between the state and individuals and communities. The Chinese model of rapid development together with an authoritarian political system presents a different view toward human rights. Middle-Eastern countries with authoritarian rulers use a language of democracy as window-dressing, and in Africa rulers, like Museveni, Kagame, and Mugabe, are increasingly looking for presidency-for-life. Do these developments challenge the universality of human rights? What is the future of the universality of human rights in this context, and how does the West respond to this emerging trend of authoritarianism in other parts of the world?

Lecture 2 (8 November 2010)

‘Meeting Global Challenges: Regaining Sovereignty’

Speaker: Inge Kaul (Hertie School of Governance, Berlin)                                           Moderator: Anton Hemerijck (VU, Dean Faculty of Social Sciences)

It often seems that the world is caught in an ever denser web of global crises—climate change, energy insecurity, new and resurgent communicable diseases, excessive financial volatility, war and conflict, with migration, water and land scarcity and other challenges already looming on the horizon, set to grab the political spotlight in not too distant a future. Are policymakers losing control? Yes, national policymaking sovereignty has been squeezed is the answer that will be offered for debate in this lecture. But, the good news is: Policymakers are in the process of regaining control. Policymaking is gradually—too slowly, perhaps, but steadily—adjusting to today’s new policymaking realities, notably to the growing importance of global public goods.

Lecture 3 (13 December 2010):

‘Country Ownership when there is no social contract: towards a realistic perspective’

Speaker: David Booth (ODI) Moderator: Jan Jaap Kleinrensink (PLAN Netherlands)

If the idea of ‘country ownership’ is to help improve aid for development, it needs to be realistic about the likely political drivers of development effort in poor countries. Too much of the current approach to aid effectiveness is based on wishful thinking. This lecture will discuss reasons for not expecting the early emergence of a social contract of a liberal-democratic type in the poorest developing countries, and therefore for rejecting a ‘best practice’ approach to governance improvement and so-called democratic ownership. Instead, more effort needs to be devoted to recognising more and less developmental types of neo-patrimonial regime and to supporting development in a politically intelligent way. Research from the Africa Power & Politics Programme (www.institutions-africa.org) will be drawn upon to illustrate what this might mean and why it provides the best basis for directing aid towards country-owned development efforts.

Lecture 4 (17 January 2011):

‘Social responsibility in a context of change: from corporate and organizational to networks, markets and territories’

Speaker: Patricia Almeida Ashley (Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil and current holder Prince Claus Chair, ISS)                                                                                 Moderator: Teresa Fogelberg (Global Reporting Initiative)

Most research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) lies in the knowledge and research areas of Business Administration or Production Engineering, and focuses on the analysis at the enterprise level – the firm level as the center of the issue of CSR to be based on voluntarism initiatives and business practices, seeking for innovations in models and management tools, apart from training on social responsibility leadership. Ashley proposes that the research and policy perspective on CSR should be reframed from corporate and organizational levels to a broader one of multi-actor and multi-level social responsibility in a territorial level of analysis. The model presents three levels of ethical challenges, core issues of social responsibility, and degrees of political commitment applicable to the governance and multi-actor social responsibility of networks of stakeholders in specific territories, that are politically oriented to sustainable development.

Lecture 5 (7 February 2011):

‘The Role of External Interventions Redefined’

Speaker: Paul Collier (Oxford University)                                                                      Moderator: Erik Thijs Wedershoven (Worldconnectors)

If it is societies (and people) themselves who should develop by their own authentic way and if, on the road to this process of self rescuing, foreign assistance is needed, than additional questions arise: where is external assistance facilitating, and eventually stimulating? What should be the primary task of the government itself, and where are the worst practices of external interventions of spoiling own initiatives of civil society, taking away responsibilities from governments? The actual debate about relevance and desirability of budget aid is a point in case; the – sometimes dominant and patriarchal – role of western foundations and intermediary institutions another one. Here lies one of the central questions in international cooperation.

Lecture 6 (21 March 2011):

‘Disconnected Societies: Rich versus Poor in the Development Debate’

Speaker: Gary Dymski (University of California, Riverside)                                        Moderator: Paul van Seters (Globus)

The 2007-2011 global crisis has increased income and wealth inequality in many countries and regions, even as some of the growth poles in the global South – notably China, India, and Brazil – have quickly returned to pre-crisis growth levels. This growing inequality in wealth and income takes place at every level of the global economy and has compromised development strategy: elites are now more numerous and more connected to global markets; and they are often more interested in meeting their individual consumption and saving needs than in “national development” missions. This process, combined with the ideological opposition to government action, has led to growth strategies based on zero-sum logic; and these strategies not only preclude asset/income redistribution but ultimately undercut development itself. To renew the possibility of global development, equity must be restored as an explicit goal of policy. One crucial step in this restoration is denaturalizing the growth of income-wealth polarization. The financial sector shows that unregulated markets and institutions often lead to the spread of market instruments that privilege the rich, while engaging in exploitation and asset-stripping of the poor. Discussion will encompass the US subprime crisis, the EU crisis, and the debate over financial exclusion and inclusion.

Lecture 7 (18 April 2011):

‘Universal Norms and China’s Complexity in Addressing “Global” Security Challenges’

Speaker: Yinhong Shi (Professor of International Relations, Director of Center on American Studies at Renmin University China                                                                                Moderator: Tom Zwart (Utrecht University)

Several fundamental factors lead to China’s significant progress in addressing the global challenges still much debated as well as in abiding the universal norms so often loosely defined. At the same time, other factors have played their roles and resulted in the remarkable complexity embedded in China’s related postures and policies, requiring assessment based on her particular situation full of dilemmas. As to the primary challenges the world faces in security field, China’s positions are perhaps particularly differentiated in concrete principles and in practice, whether they related to non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, or severe man-made humanitarian disasters including genocide and ethnic cleansing, reflecting the present distance between the “universals” and the “particulars” relating to China. As the most prominent case particularly worthy to be demonstrated for illustration, China’s attitude and policy toward North Korea and its nuclear program since the last two months of 2009 should be elaborated in particular with sufficient details.

Lecture 8 (16 May 2011):

´Migration and development: Policy potentials and policy illusions ´

Speaker: Hein de Haas (University of Oxford)                                                                    Moderator: Heidi Dahles (VU University)

Since 2000, European governments and international development agencies have “discovered” the potential of migration and remittances to stimulate development in poor countries. However, migration and development is anything but a new topic. The debate about migration and development has swung back and forth like a pendulum, from optimism in the post-War period, to deep “brain drain” pessimism since the 1970s towards neo-optimistic “brain gain” views in recent years. While these shifts are rooted in deeper ideological shifts, a review of evidence yields a much more nuanced picture. Although migration often has considerable benefits for individuals and communities, migrants alone cannot remove more structural development constraints and can actually contribute to development stagnation. Despite their development potential, migrants and remittances can therefore neither be blamed for a lack of development nor be expected to trigger take-off development in generally unattractive investment environments.  Recent views celebrating migration as self-help development ‘‘from below’’ are driven by neoliberal ideologies and shift the attention away from the vital role of states in shaping favourable conditions for positive development impacts of migration to occur.

Lecture 9 (20 June 2011) (Closing Lecture and debate):

´We are the world? Global Citizenship and its limits´

Speaker: Kate Nash (Goldsmiths University of London)                                                 Moderator: René Cuperus (Wiardi Beckman Stichting)

Human rights activists argue that, with respect to rights and obligations at least, we are already global citizens. For them alleviating ‘distant suffering’ is not a matter of charity, but of justice.  In terms of the principles underlying human rights, including socio-economic rights, individuals are the bearers of specific, detailed entitlements in international law.  But this construction of global citizenship is complicated in practice by the fact that, while individuals are the bearers of human rights, it is principally states that are obliged to guarantee them.  This has two consequences for universalising human rights: firstly, the value of human rights is almost invariably constructed in nationalist terms – of various different kinds; secondly, obligations to respect human rights are undertaken by states that are fundamentally unequal in terms of economic, social and political resources.  Global citizenship is still a long way off, and requires fundamental transformations in international and national political structures and cultural meanings, just to meet existing human rights standards.

---

[1] From: Francis Fukuyma’s Speech “Social Capital and Civil Society”, prepared for delivery at the IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms, October 1, 1999.

[2] Easterly, William (2009) “The Anarchy of Success” In: The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 15

[3] In: Levy, B. and F. Fukuyama (2010) Development Strategies: Integrating Governance and Growth. World Bank Policy and Research working paper no. WPS 5196: page 7

[4] In the Dutch debate this has been emphasized in the report “Less Pretension, More Ambition” recently published by the Scientific Council for Government Policy. See http://www.wrr.nl/english/content.jsp?objectid=5190 for an English summary

[5] See Berendsen et al (2009) Emerging Global Scarcities and Power Shifts. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers