Trade, trade and more trade: That’s the winning formulae for a fulfilled life. But what does this mean for women in the East Africa region? How are their interests reflected in trading activities? Salma Maoulidi investigates.

Trade signifies an assortment of economic activities and transactions. Trade, for many in the Global South struggling to improve their economic status, is the new salvation. It is the magic equation to economic prosperity - do more of it and your Gross Domestic Product (GDP) goes up, winning you points in economic performance.

But like all prevailing economic formulas there is a catch: for any meaningful economic gains to be registered under the present trade regime, external trading must outweigh internal trading. In practical terms this means economies import more at the expense of local production, the latter becoming more prohibitive and less competitive on account of higher production and transaction costs. Conversely, countries fetch lower returns on exports following the devaluation of local currencies, making then too weak to trade competitively on the world market; and also because goods produced locally continue to have the inferior status of “raw materials” or unprocessed goods and are of a lesser value compared to processed goods.

Why sex is a factor in the trade equation

In simple terms, this forms the basic functioning of the current trade regime. Underneath this simplicity, however, lies a complex set of relationships that fundamentally influence the terms and players in trade deals, including women. Universally the world of business is seen to be off limits to women. Just as dominant religious and cultural ideologies persistently deny women proprietary rights, the business establishment has followed suit, recognizing more readily women’s role as producers, and as consumers, but not as owners and managers of productive enterprise.

Political independence has had minimal impact on the national and global economic profile in terms of wealth distribution. During colonial times in East Africa, the trading class was composed mainly of Indians and a few Arabs, who owned the local retail and wholesale shops. The main economic activities were, however, controlled by the settler farmer and colonial administration, mostly Europeans. As corporations take over economic activities, trade monopoly is no longer solely defined by race and ethnicity. Thus the local Indian or Arab retailer in East Africa is being replaced by the Chinese retailer/wholesaler; while an expert labour force from India and other parts of South East Asia take over industries and the service sector. A few indigenous entrepreneurs claim a stake in local and regional business, but for the most part Africans form the bulk of the unskilled labour force and remain the primary consumers.

The sex composition in the business world has remained unchanged, with women registering little success in penetrating global, regional and local markets. Women in trade and economic bodies are still under-represented. In Tanzania, for example, women are underrepresented in virtually all business chambers. The local bourse has very few women traders as do local industries. Regional Trade Agreements offer business opportunities beyond national boundaries but are, for the most part, not integrative of the needs of women. Trade frameworks like NEPAD or the East African Common Markets, while seemingly progressive, are rendered ineffective by constitutional frameworks that preserve gender inequalities at national levels. In many respects, therefore, women remain objects of sale, convenient conduits for furthering materialist aims and gains. They are yet to become the subject of trade regimes and investments.

The miracle of women friendly economic programmes

In view of the persistent exclusion of women in economic enterprise and the widespread belief that economic empowerment is critical towards raising the status of women, some quarters, either pioneering individuals or development organizations, have tried to redress the imbalance of players in economic enterprise. Many implement programmes aimed at the economic upliftment of women, programmes that vary minimally in approach in that they have micro-lending or micro-credit as the basis for women’s economic empowerment.

The theory of women and economic upliftment is, however, flawed as it does not see the woman as an independent economic investor or dealer. Indeed, whereas the imperialist business model focuses on accumulation in order to achieve profit maximization through serious capital injection, prevailing notions of women and entrepreneurship limit women’s economic engagement to the micro, the small business happening outside the margins of real business.

Essentially, the very concept of micro credit is restrictive. Other than suggesting that it is insignificant, and therefore of minimal consequence, in so far as volume and risk is concerned, it does not view women as serious accumulators of capital. Rather, the concern is to give women enough to help them and their families survive. Such an outlook has affected how women engage in business, their overwhelming motivation being aiding their families, not making serious money.

Indeed, women plough back most of the earnings and profits they get from productive activities into their families instead of expanding or diversifying their businesses (a fact a number of agencies have banked on to introduce or intensify micro-credit programmes targeting women). Because women’s economic activity is mainly concerned with improving the household and family welfare it is not perceived as a serious trade venture. Perhaps if women did not assume the greater burden of caring for the household, they would dare trade for profit as some younger unattached women do. They would vie to make money for the sake of making money, and not just for survival.

The terms of engagement under which most micro lending schemes operate are also limiting in that they require women to organize in collectives - in fives or tens - to qualify for lending or credit schemes. Indubitably, it proves more profitable for lending institutions to lend money to communities of women where they can maximize their turnover irrespective of whether women are making any money from the loans: continuous recruitment and policing of group members ensure high return rates. Hence, with very little investments women become effective mediums of cash generation and multiplication.

Women as objects or subjects of trade

In many respects, therefore, women are becoming the objects of trade. Businesses target women using both traditional as well as modern techniques. Economic liberalization has seen an influx of luxury items in Tanzania, the most significant being cosmetics. Images of the modern woman championed by the media, result in the dumping of cheap beauty products such as whitening creams, the health dimension of which is yet to be assessed. The promoters and chief distributors are men, while women are the willing or beleaguered consumers. Similarly, the home, the bastion of womanhood, remains the most effective sales point, luring women with the possibilities of stocking up on the newest and cheapest home gadgets on the market.

This is not to say that women are sitting idly by, oblivious to emerging economic opportunities under traditional and new trade regimes. Women may have been excluded from active trade but they have never shied away from trade. Indeed, in a number of African countries women are revered for their trading skills. For example, food and textile markets in West Africa are dominated by women. It is now customary, even in conservative areas, to see women traders - women running shops and bars in urban and provincial centres; women fish vendors in coastal areas and the Great Lakes areas and Zanzibar; women trading in foodstuffs and cereals in Manyara and Mbeya; women hawking goods in Moshi and Arusha; and women transporters in Tanga and Dar es Salaam. There is also an increase of women participating in national and international trade fairs, many sponsoring their own participation. Increasingly women are trying to build a niche for themselves in fields previously dominated by men.

Women make up a significant percentage of the 85% of Tanzanians engaged in agriculture, the mainstay of the economy. Also they form a sizeable percentage of the self-employed population engaged in the informal sector. Because women’s economic engagement is confined to the reproductive sector - in food production or preparation, hospitality, child caring, education, beauty and hygiene, and handicrafts - areas that affirm a woman’s sexual and reproductive role, they remain excluded from more lucrative productive enterprises like large-scale farming, horticulture or industry.

Even among the fastest growing sectors of the Tanzanian economy, like mining, women are under performing. Whereas there is an association of women miners representing the interest of a sizeable population of women in mines, few are miners or dealers in gemstones or in industries associated with mining. The bulk of the female population working in mines sells food or provides sex services. Women in the tourist industry fare no better. Men dominate the most lucrative services in the sector as tour and taxi operators, travel agencies, hotel owners and managers. Women assume low raking service jobs such as telephone operators, waitresses, chambermaids, cleaners, travel agent sales persons, and flight attendants. As is the case of women in the food industry, women in the tourist industry are pushed to prostitution to supplement meager incomes.

Economic success but at what price for women?

Increasing insecurity in their personal lives may make women reluctant participants in commerce. Micro credit programmes are replete with reports of husbands who appropriate loans or earnings, exacerbating levels of poverty among women. Similarly, little attention has been paid to the great physical risk women face on account of their economic success. Necessarily, economic success does not shield women from the threat of violence. A number of women experience acts of aggression on account of their business success. A case in point involves a popular female fish trader in Arusha market, Mama Terry, who was recently robbed in her home. A close male relative jealous of her business success paid the gangsters to “fix her”. Thankfully, when they attacked she had a sizeable amount of cash, in her possession. Distracted by the loot, the thugs left without harming her. Other women are not so lucky, falling victims to both sexual and physical violence after being gang robbed.

Clearly, the terms under which women can engage in productive economic activity should not surpass social expectation. Otherwise relatives and society at large reserve the right to apply some form of sanction to neutralize a woman’s economic mobility.

It is common for youth traders, frustrated by severe economic alienation, to physically and verbally attack women they perceive as successful. They feel such women “undermine their chances” to make it in a competitive business environment.

Sadly, models of “women of substance” in trade and business continue to be scarce, even among female business graduates. Interestingly, women with business education end up teaching or overseeing less fortunate women in micro-credit and lending programmes. Few actually venture into business. Moreover, instead of being at the forefront of an emancipatory trade and economic agenda, business professionals do very little to emancipate themselves and other women from economic bondage. Rather, they serve the dominant trade framework, becoming brokers for financial interest, urging on poor and less educated women to take on loans and subscribe to economic models that keep them on a leash of economic dependency and exploitation.

A few business savvy women serve as self-appointed advocates for women’s economic justice. They exercise vigilance over global processes that dictate the terms of trade for men and women in the global south. Nevertheless, they communicate via language and process far removed from the realities of women they represent: Their discourse is too technical, aimed at policy makers and academics. Whereas these women would have provided the link between professionalism and creativity in local enterprise, or with local governments, their oppositional stance serves to alienate women further from entrepreneurship, seeing it as too complex and mystical a venture.

Ultimately, women continue to miss out on role models in the business world. They miss being groomed by women with a conceptual and practical understanding of the system. They remain confused and intimidated by the jargon and procedures that restricts their spontaneity to venture and risk. They remain ignorant of terms and processes they can take advantage of because there is little interest all round to acquaint and translate these to women. As long as women’s induction to trade in the region remains microscopic, microminimized and micromanaged they will remain at the margins of trading blocks, earning just enough for their survival and that of their families. How then can such a trade development formula realistically contribute to women’s economic empowerment?

* Salma Maoulidi, is the Executive Director of Sahiba's Sisters Foundation, a women’s development network in Tanzania whose mission is to build women’s leadership and organizational capacity.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Further reading

- Society for International Development, The State of East Africa Report 2006- Trends, Tensions and Contradictions: the Leadership Challenge, 2006

- Khadija Mohammed Hijja, Women and Tourism in Zanzibar, 2005(unpublished)

Far from being bad news for Africa, the July collapse of World Trade Organisation talks aimed at fostering a global free trade regime is actually an unexpected bonus. Out of the breakdown in negotiations should come a new trading system that is beneficial to Africa’s women, says Mohau Pheko.

The Collapse of the WTO Doha negotiations are good for Africa and women. This is an opportunity for Africa to move away from the myth that the Doha Round was a 'developmental round'. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the start, the aim of the developed countries was to push for greater market openings from the developing countries while making minimal concessions on their part. Invoking development was a cynical ploy.

The break down of the talks is a turning point for Africa to contribute to developing a multilateral trading system based on developing Africa, women's rights and sustainable development.

During July, in anticipation of the July 27-28 meeting of the World Trade Organisation's General Council, a major rescue effort was mounted to save the "Doha Round" of global trade negotiations from collapse. The most prominent of these efforts took place at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, where leaders of the world's most powerful economies called for a successful conclusion to the round, painting it as a “historic opportunity to generate economic growth, create potential for development, and raise living standards across the world."

The collapse of the Doha negotiations offers Africa a unique opportunity to review and reconsider the multilateral trading system as a whole, and to start with a new approach to a global trading system that will promote social and gender justice, women's empowerment and environmental sustainability. It also offers Africa some breathing space to reclaim the policy space that has been taken away in the process of negotiations.

Africa can expose the hyprocrisy of the lopsided trade in agriculture. Even if the United States had conceded to the terms of the WTO Director General's compromise on cutting its domestic support, this would still have left it with a massive US$20 billion worth of allowable subsidies. Even if the European Union had agreed to phase out its export subsidies, this would still have left it with 55 billion euros in other forms of export support. In return for such minimal concessions, the US, and EU, and other developed countries like Japan wanted radically reduced tariffs for their agricultural exports in Africa and developing country markets.

If these talks had been brought to a conclusion on such lopsided terms, it would result in African countries slashing farm tariffs while preventing them from maintaining food security. This is a recipe for massive expanded hunger and threatens to further impoverish millions of Africans.

The current deadlock was caused by developed countries, mainly the US, who were not willing or able to come up with steeper cuts in farm subsides. The collapse of the Doha negotiations creates a momentum for Africa to review the past negotiations and analyse the flaws in the WTO system in its entirety. The current neoliberal approach to the multilateral trading system subordinates the needs of African women and men to corporate-driven interests.

The bias of the Doha negotiations serves the private interests of the biggest corporations instead of benefiting the majority of Africa's people. Recent World Bank [1] and other studies such as that from the Carnegie Endowment Centre [2] highlight the fact that the current trade liberalisation agenda is not working for the majority of women and men, particularly those living in impoverished African countries, and that especially women “tend to be among the most vulnerable to adverse impacts” [3].

Trade can be a medium of development, but trade liberalisation is not a panacea to development, poverty eradication and gender equality. The time has come for Africa to take leadership and start with a new approach to a multilateral trading systems that will genuinely promote equitable, gender just and sustainable societies that benefit all women and men.

For this, international trade policy must be constrained and bound by existing international agreements that promote human rights and women's rights, ecological sustainability and human dignity and must aim to end poverty and promote well-being.

Trade policies can no longer be dictated by the interests of big corporations. Any further WTO negotiations should not undermine governments' commitments to implement domestic Bills or Rights and United Nations Conventions.

* Mohau Pheko is coordinator of the Gender and Trade Network. For Further Information: Write to: [email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Notes:

[1] A series of devastating reports on the potential outcomes of the Doha Round were published by the World Bank, the UN, and several think tanks including "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda", Kym Anderson and Will Martin et. al. World Bank Report, Nov.1, 2005

[2]"Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries", Sandra Polaski, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC, 2006

[3] "Global Overview Trade Sustainability Assessment of the Doha Development Agenda" from the EU, final draft report

Africa has faced ten years of unfettered liberalisation that, argues Cheikh Tidiane Dièye, has left the continent on its knees. Women, more than any other group, suffer the weight of the constraints of poverty largely brought about by the world trade system. It is women that must play a crucial role in winning the struggle for a better trading system.

Even though over the last twenty years many African nations have adopted sometimes draconian economic reforms, the benefits of trade liberalisation that were promised have not materialised. On the other hand, developed nations have enjoyed 70% of the wealth generated by trade liberalisation. In some respects, world trade regulations, defined for the most part by industrialised countries during the Uruguay Round agreements between 1986 and 1994, have only increased Africa’s economic problems.

Before an “ambiguous consensus” [1] was reached at Doha, which was at the heart of the launch of the round of multilateral negotiations that tool place at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the “battle of Seattle” or “Seattle showdown” [2] revealed to the world the growing dissatisfaction of developing countries with regard to the WTO, whose way of working did not appear to respond to their profound desire for economic progress and development.

With the support of powerful groups of NGOs, they then put into practice their power to block negotiations by refusing to submit to a potential consensus. With this action that was previously unheard of, developing countries, and particularly those in Africa, managed to draw the attention of the international community and the representatives of multilateral institutions to the stark inequalities brought about by inequitable globalisation, whose consequences have been hundreds of millions of human beings being reduced to near total destitution and the almost irreversible destruction of the environment.

This is why in Seattle, while the United Nations and Europe were seeking to enter into a “Millennium Round” of large-scale negotiations concerning new and complex issues, particularly in relation to investment policy, competition, electronic commerce and standards in the areas of labour rights and the environment, a large number of African countries advocated a “Development Round” which would allow interlocutors to discuss the implementation of regulations from the Uruguay Round directly concerning developing countries and to urge industrialised countries to honour their commitments. In this way, these nations hoped finally to succeed in opening developed countries’ markets to their exports, eliminating other structural imbalances that were unfavourable to developing nations, removing tariff, non-tariff and technical barriers imposed on the exports of less developed countries, and developing and making official WTO technical aid and capacity building programmes.

From this perspective, the group of African countries proposed to renew and apply the “special and preferential” measures from the Uruguay agreements, which aimed to facilitate the integration of developing countries into the world trading system.

After Seattle failed, the fourth WTO ministerial conference was held in November 2001 at Doha, Qatar, and the members had a common desire to correct the malfunctioning of the multilateral trading system. The developed countries made promises, among which were to reduce or remove subsidies causing imbalances in global markets, to remove obstacles blocking developing countries’ products entering their markets, to recognise and make effective special and differential treatment, to facilitate poor countries’ access to essential drugs and to create the conditions necessary for the greater participation of these nations in trade negotiations through technical aid and capacity building.

On the other hand, the dogged will of the developed countries to defend the interests of some of their privileged citizens and their multinationals straight away took priority over ethical considerations and concerns for the survival of African populations: access to essential drugs for millions of sick Africans is still being blocked due to market interests; millions of farmers sink into poverty each day as a result of the North’s illegal subsidies [3]; and the pressure to increase the liberalisation of basic social services such as water, education, energy and healthcare is about to destroy what remains of African economies.

One of the most tangible characteristics of African poverty is its “femininity”. Statistics show that African women, more so than any other category, suffer the damaging effects of poverty and all the constraints brought about by the current structure of global economic and trade relations. In healthcare as well as education, access to land and economic resources, etc., African women have remained well below world averages.

In such a context, it is not difficult to establish a link between the situation of women in Africa and the world trade system, which, even if it is not the only explaining factor, is at the very least an important factor. The financial collapse of agriculture and African industries, caused by the combined effect of liberal policies imposed by international financial institutions and WTO rules, affects both rural and urban women, as it subjects them to chronic food insecurity, begging and the dangers of the informal economy in African towns and cities.

Greater liberalisation does not give rise to human development

Many studies have tried to establish a correlation between the level of openness to trade and increased economic growth and human development. In effect, there is no proof that the liberalisation of exchanges leads automatically to economic growth and human development. In a study [4] looking at the relationship between trade and sustainable human development, the UNDP drew an interesting comparison between two countries, in relation to their level of openness to world trade, to demonstrate such an assertion. These countries are Vietnam and Haiti.

Since the beginning of the 1980s, Vietnam has undertaken a progressive approach to reform. It is not a member country of the WTO. It has organised world trade at the level of the state, has maintained a monopoly over imports, and has preserved quantitative restrictions and high customs duties (30 to 50%) on imports of agricultural and industrial products. However, despite these measures being contrary to the “formulas” often advocated by those who hold neo-liberal doctrines, Vietnam has had spectacular success by achieving a growth rate higher than 8% per annum since the mid-1980s, which has earned the country a 12% increase in trade, a considerably reduced level of poverty, including in rural areas and in vulnerable groups (women and young people), and has attracted high levels of foreign direct investment.

Haiti, on the other hand, has become involved in an ambitious road to liberalisation and total openness since 1994/1995. The country has brought its customs tariffs down to a maximum of 15% and has removed all quantitative restrictions. For all this, Haiti’s economy has not evolved. Social indicators have even deteriorated and poverty has, in places, reached worrying levels. Although a member of the WTO, Haiti is one of the most marginal countries in terms of integration into world trade.

Looking at Africa, an analysis of the evolution of world trade over the last twenty years shows that the continent has unfortunately not profited from the benefits [5] that were granted and that, despite all the agreements and preferential schemes, Africa’s share of world trade has dropped significantly from 6% in 1980 to 2% in 2004. In effect, since 1980, African exports have increased at the average annual rate of 1.5%, whereas for the world as whole this increased by 5.8% per year.

The social consequences of such economic decline no longer need to be explained. In sub-Saharan Africa, women in certain areas produce up to 80% of basic food products and therefore play a decisive role in food security at the level of both the family and the nation. And in areas where cash crops predominate, reduced earnings resulting from reduced tariff protections and the large-scale entry of imported goods into national markets has exacerbated the vulnerability of women insofar as they have no other option other than to add to the swelling populations of shanty towns to work in order to survive in informal jobs and small trade.

In the industrial sector, WTO agreements concerning rules for market access for non-agricultural goods have imposed drastic cuts in customs duties, which was the only instrument there to protect African industries. This subjects a growing, and consequently vulnerable, African industry to direct confrontation with big corporations from the developed countries, which has quickly worked to the advantage of the latter. The most edifying example today is the African textile industry, in which countries with a definite relative advantage were obliged to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs even before the agreement on quotas was reached in December 2004. And since 2005, China’s powerful entry into the world textile market has heightened the pressure in this sector. Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Ghana, Senegal and other countries are today experiencing the full force of the crisis in this industry, which has a high potential for employment, including a female workforce.

Even if the liberalisation of the textile industry has increased and diversified the supply of goods in African markets, where prices have also tended to drop, such an outcome cannot compensate for the long-term losses that the de-industrialisation of Africa will bring about. This de-industrialisation has only increased the informalisation of the economy by developing trade around goods produced elsewhere.

The WTO ten years on: economic opportunities or fresh risks?

The ten years of liberalisation under the aegis of the WTO needs to be assessed. Disregarding doctrine and squabbles between different schools of thought, it has been widely accepted that for African countries, trade liberalisation has not produced the results one hoped for.

Even if one has to admit that it is often difficult to measure the real impact of WTO rules on the situation of women in Africa, specific studies, of which there is a real shortage in this area, have concluded that this impact is most worrying when compared with the overall assessment of WTO rules on African populations.

Studies conducted into the liberalisation of the water sector in many African countries have shown that it is mainly women who carry the burden of the fresh constraints brought about by the privatisation of these strategic sectors. In the field of work, liberalisation has certainly increased the opportunities available to women in certain countries, but this usually takes place in very poor conditions and often pays much less.

It is remarkable that the mediocre results achieved for African nations after ten years of liberalisation under the aegis of the WTO has not led developed countries to reassess their positions and objectives. If the negotiations have today become bogged down in differences of opinion such that they have been indefinitely “suspended” by the Director of the WTO, this is not because the organisation is trying to take better account of the interests of developing nations, and Africans in particular. The present crisis is mainly down to the battle between the United States and the European Union on the one side, and the G20 [6] on the other. The battle is over the issue of parallelism [7] of forms. The developed countries are calling for the developing countries to impose drastic cuts in customs duties on industrial goods and to commit to the liberalisation of the trade in services, whereas the developing countries are calling for the other nations to reduce their agricultural subsidies.

Given the present crisis and the gloomy prospects at the WTO, the logical conclusion of an evaluation of its ten years of action should be “mission unaccomplished”.

And the question to ask now is what should be the alternative to the WTO? And what would the consequences of a long-term crisis at the WTO be for African people, and women in particular?

It is extremely tempting to respond in a simplistic way by saying that the failure of negotiations at the WTO could only be to the advantage of African countries due to the unfairness of the current rules. However, if one looks at the power relations at the WTO and in the system of world governance, it shows that such a stance does not stand up easily to clear analysis. The failure of trade negotiations would allow the status quo to gain acceptance once and for all, and would reinforce current trade relations, which are mostly to the detriment of African nations.

Therefore, on the contrary, we must relaunch multilateral negotiations and fight, so that the principle of special and differential treatment for African nations is put in place, made effective and made obligatory, in accordance with the Doha mandate in all areas of the negotiations.

Even if the negotiations have still not really advanced the cause of Africa, they at least allow African populations to hold an interest in them, place more popular pressure on governments and negotiators, provide a platform for African states and civil society organisations (NGOs, producer organisations, trade unions, women’s organisations, etc.) to denounce current trade rules and schemes, and reduce the pressure of governments in the North and multilateral institutions who advocate liberalisation in the interests of the rich.

Conclusion

The way in which trade is governed in today’s world leads to necessarily unfair results. But could it be otherwise in a game whose players are not equal?

Whilst the rules that have been set do not allow African nations to develop the means to compensate those who have been damaged by international trade, developed nations have implemented mechanisms to protect themselves from the dangers brought about by liberalisation.

In such a context, the Doha development agenda could only really achieve its goal of creating a framework for development if it allowed the creation of an international environment that guarantees African countries enough flexibility to implement national standards and policies. This would have the effect of helping these nations protect their populations, markets and institutions from the effects of the market.

Such an approach calls upon African leaders to act responsibly. If it is understood that the system governing world trade should take greater account of the opinions of vulnerable populations, one also needs to recognise that this task must first be carried out at the national level. Greater participation of various types of stakeholder, including politicians, NGOs, producer organisations, women, consumers, the private sector, etc., in the development of trade policy is without doubt a pre-requisite in order to make national interests known at WTO negotiations. From the perspective of gender [8], however, even though efforts have been made for years, there remains a serious shortfall that is holding back African negotiation strategies.

* Cheikh Tidiane Dieye is a socio-anthropologist who has been involved in trade and multilateral negotiations on behalf of Enda Tiers-monde, a member of the Africa Trade Network (ATN). He is co-editor of "Footbridges between trade and durable development", a news bulletin on the trade negotiations.

* This is a shortened version of the original French article, which was translated by Timothy Cleary. Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Notes

[1] See Passerelles n° 2 vol 3, November 2001 – January 2002
[2] From a book by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke (“Global Showdown: How the New Activists are Fighting global corporate rule”, 2002), recounting the demonstrations of global citizens’ movements which prevented the launch of the WTO’s “Millenium Round”.
[3] Interesting studies conducted by NGOs such as Enda Third World, Oxfam and the ICSTD have shown the disastrous impact of American subsidies on the African cotton trade. On this, read the “White Paper on Cotton”, Enda Diapol, 2005.
[4] “Making Global Trade Work for People”, UNDP, 2003
[5] Among these relative benefits, one can cite in particular the unreciprocal trade preferences between the EU and the ACP which characterised the Lomé Convention, the flexibility offered to LDCs at the WTO and, more generally, to the generalised system of preferences.
[6] The G20 is a large group of negotiators based around the big developing countries exporting agricultural goods, such as India, Brazil, Argentina, China and South Africa. The group emerged just before the Cancun Confernece in 2003 and is fighting against subsidies in the North.
[7] This is a concept defended by the EU in particular in its commitments. Each group stands firm and asks the other groups to make the first commitments.
[8] Few African delegations at the WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong included women.

Reinventing Development: Translating rights-based approaches from theory into practice. Paul Gready and Jonathan Ensor (eds) Zed Books £16.95 ISBN 1842776495

In the aftermath of the Second World War, mass mobilizations swept the African continent, as people in villages, farms and cities demanded the right of self-determination and an end to colonial subjugation. The independence governments that were subsequently swept into power proposed that the path to self-determination should be through what Western governments described as ‘development’, seen as the universal panacea for the problems of ‘underdevelopment’.

Despite the haziness of the term, it had a certain progressive ring – implicit in the idea of development was that of emancipation, which had inspired millions to support the movement for independence. And it was in this that the modern missionaries – the development NGOs – found their raison d’être.

By the end of the 20th century, the appeal of development had waned. Twenty years of structural adjustment programmes had reversed nearly all the gains of independence, removing the right of African people to determine their own social and economic policies, rendering their governments less and less accountable.

Development NGOs were experiencing a crisis of credibility as their development programmes came to be perceived as part of the so-called ‘Washington consensus’ agenda. Development had lost its emancipatory appeal. It was in need of reinvention.

Amartya Sen was probably among the first to recognize this in his call to reassert the link between development and freedom. [1] Others gradually took up the cry, until even the World Bank became a proponent of ‘the rights-based approach to development’.

The appeal was obvious: human rights has – as development once had – an association with something that is implicitly participatory and emancipatory. But has the new dogma changed anything in practice? Has it led to poverty being recognized as a massive human rights violation that kills millions prematurely every year? Has it resulted in bringing to account those who are responsible for and benefit from the impoverishment of humanity? Has it resulted in international agencies supporting movements claiming reparations for injustices? Has it meant resources being allocated to popular movements so they can exercise their collective power in support of their claims or defend themselves against attacks? What real difference has it made to the struggle for emancipation – the right to determine one’s one future?

With some notable exceptions, there were few answers to be found in this book. This collection of essays does, however, provide a remarkable insight into the current discourse among international development agencies about something that appears to be the new universal panacea for the poor. It shows that, like the term ‘development’ before it, the human rights approach to development has come to mean anything and everything to everyone.

For UNICEF, it is essentially an effective programming tool; for Oxfam International, it is business as usual, but recast using the new rhetoric. For CARE International in Rwanda, it provides a different analytical framework for its work but the solutions seem drearily similar to conventional approaches to development.

In Afghanistan, the rights-based approach is seen as necessary not so much to defend the rights of Afghanis but primarily as an advocacy tool (and, some might say, for strengthening negotiation for funds).

For ActionAid, the rights-based approach is radically different: they show that rights are fundamentally about enabling the poor and disenfranchised to organize, and thereby use their collective power in their own interest.

Instead of the traditional charitable and humanitarian response to the earthquake and communal violence in Gujarat, they understood the ‘need to take sides unambiguously with the poor’. The need for political action in relation to children’s participation is more cautiously acknowledged in Save the Children’s case study from Nepal.

Two valuable essays in this book seem strangely out of place. Ghalib Galant and Michelle Parlevliet from the South African Centre for Conflict Resolution make a strong argument for why conflict prevention and the struggle for human rights are inextricably linked – though how this relates to the rights-based approach to development is not made entirely clear. An excellent essay by Neil Jarman on human rights and peace-building in Northern Ireland discusses how human rights have moved to centre stage following the paramilitary ceasefire – though the term ‘rights-based approach to development’ is not once mentioned!

In addition to a series of case studies, there are more discursive essays on the concept of the rights-based approach – the introductory essay by the editors, an essay by Harsh Mander, an essay on rights and culture by Jonathan Ensor, and a helpful summary and conclusion by Olivia Ball. I was struck by the fact that none of these essays sought to address the nature and scale of human rights violations taking place in so-called developing countries.

Injustice, crimes against humanity, genocide, gender-based violence, child abuse, war, torture, occupation, the use of state sponsored terror and its mirror image of non-state terror – topics that are the normal focus of human rights discourse – were mentioned at best only peripherally, if at all. Do these subjects have no relevance to the discourse on rights and development? Their absence lends weight to the sense that the discourse on rights-based development is just a new spin on an old, and rather discredited, concept of development.

• Firoze Manji is Executive Director of Fahamu and editor of Pambazuka News.

• This article first appeared in the September edition of Alliance Magazine.
Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Notes:
[1] Amartya Sen (1999) Development as Freedom Oxford: OUP.