INTRODUCTION

Creating An Enabling Environment

The economic environment

The agreements made at the World Summit for Social Development gave considerable emphasis to the importance of creating an international economic environment that is conducive to social development throughout the world. During the preparatory process, most civil society organisations (CSOs) concentrated their efforts in this area on seeking increases in official development assistance, and on general critiques of the impact of globalised capitalism. It is essential, however, that greater energy and rigour is now devoted to identifying and pursuing detailed proposals for improving the long-term effectiveness of the private sector from the viewpoint of both economic and social development.

     One of the major problems which needs to be addressed in this area is the excess of short-term speculative activity in international financial markets which diverts resources from genuinely productive enterprises and deters governments from pursuing long-term policies that would enhance sustainable economic development as well as foster social cohesion. A related problem of great importance is the tendency for loopholes and distortions in taxation systems to discourage long-term private and public investment in ventures which would provide jobs and strengthen communities. A third problem, to which somewhat more attention has been given by CSOs, is the extent to which recent movements towards freer trade have tended to be in areas which advantage wealthier countries, while neglecting areas which are more likely to assist the poorest ones.

     Pursuing these and other macro-economic issues will require CSOs to become familiar with areas which may seem especially complex and uncongenial, to adopt a constructive approach towards the potential benefits of economic development and private enterprise, and to develop interaction with those sectors of private enterprise which seek to be genuinely productive and to help strengthen the communities in which they operate. It will be especially important for some of the best-resourced and best-known CSOs, which tend to focus principally on alleviating the pain of economic and social damage that has already been caused, to call for economic policies which will prevent the damage from occurring, even where these policies may be unappealing to those of their donors who profit handsomely from the current regime.
CSOs will need to strengthen the scale and rigour of their attempts to influence major economic policy processes, especially at the international level through the Group of Seven/Eight (G7/G8), ministerial meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the regional or sub-regional groupings (such as the European Union, Asia Pacific Economic Community, Mercosur, Southern African Development Community, Association of South East Asian Nations, and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) which are becoming such major influences on the economic and social policies of their members.

     CSOs will need to redouble their efforts to improve the supply and use of public resources, not only by continued campaigning about official development assistance but also by seeking to reduce the tendency for excessive tax competition to deter governments from raising sufficient public revenue for necessary public services and facilities. But they will also need to give more detailed attention to improving the patterns and impacts of private investment, especially from the viewpoint of the poorest countries and people.

The political environment

     The Summit agreements gave considerable attention to some aspects of the international political environment, principally in relation to strengthening the involvement of the United Nations system in economic and social issues. This included attempts to strengthen interaction between the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) system and the World Bank, IMF and WTO. Except in relation to the World Bank, most CSOs gave little detailed attention during the Summit process to proposing improved structures and processes within the UN system. However, some ambitious changes were proposed by several independent commissions, such as the Commission on Global Governance.
If the central organs of the United Nations system are to play a major role in global governance on economic and social issues, radical reform of their structures and processes will be necessary. At present, however, the developed countries generally have no interest in diluting the power which they currently exercise through non-UN groupings such as the G7/G8 and OECD. At the same time, developing countries insist that organs such as ECOSOC and Commission for Social Development must be so large that, in reality, they are too unfocused and unwieldy to be effective on major issues.

     It is difficult to see that there is even a remote chance of these organs playing a leading role unless they, like the Security Council, are much smaller, meet much more frequently, have strong leadership, and are constituted in a way which recognises to some extent the realities of relative national power. A version of this approach was recommended by the Commission on Global Governance.

     ECOSOC and the Commission for Social Development were vested by the Summit, and subsequently by the UN General Assembly, with the main responsibility for coordinating and stimulating Summit follow-up. They have made regrettably little progress and prospects of them doing so are questionable. Some more useful progress was achieved through the three Interagency Task Forces on key aspects of the Summit commitments which were established by the Secretary General’s Administrative Coordination Committee.

     In the two years since the Summit, ICSW has been the principal CSO voice arguing at meetings of ECOSOC and Commission for Social Development that they should develop their role in global governance on issues relating to an enabling environment and other major Summit issues. In the absence of substantial responses, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify devoting ICSW’s resources to pursue this avenue further. Two other avenues may prove more worthwhile.

     The first possibility, which ICSW has also been pursuing, involves encouraging the regional commissions of ECOSOC to adopt the Summit suggestion that they convene biennial meetings of governments in their region in order to monitor and facilitate Summit implementation. Given the breadth of the issues covered by Summit commitments, vigorous pursuit of this approach could constitute a significant development in international governance.

     A second alternative is to focus on structures and processes which are outside the central UN system, such as the G7/G8, the Bretton Woods institutions, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the array of regional and sub-regional bodies which were established mainly to consider trade policies but (following the path to some extent of the European Union) are gradually developing influence across a wider range of national and international policies. In general, these institutions and processes appear more likely than ECOSOC and its commissions to play major roles in international governance across both economic and social fields.

     A crucial aspect of improving the international political environment in order to achieve Summit goals is to strengthen the opportunities for CSOs to interact effectively with intergovernmental institutions and processes. This will require close attention by CSOs to the detailed mechanics of interaction, such as achieving timely access to key draft documents and government negotiators, rather than concentrating unduly on mass accreditation, rigidly unified submissions, or formal addresses to emptying rooms. It should be emphasised that mass accreditation of national or local CSOs to intergovernmental processes, at least at the global level, may have the effect of weakening the overall legitimacy and effectiveness of CSOs. For example, that can be the consequence of giving a number of CSOs, each of which basically represents one or two forceful people from one country, the same access and legitimacy as global CSOs with well-established member organisations in every region of the world.

     The Summit and other major conferences in the last few years appear to have kindled interest in establishing global or regional organisations which would formally represent the whole of civil society, or at least convening a “representative assembly” of civil society as a parallel perhaps to the UN General Assembly. Great care must be exercised, however, lest crucial and distinctive strengths of civil society (namely its diversity and flexibility) are thereby lost. Another major danger is that efforts to develop and preserve democratic and responsive governments will be weakened if advocates emerging from uncertain CSO processes are treated as if they are equally or more representative of “the people” than those who have won government through general and democratic elections.