by Nitin Desai When the Copenhagen Summit for Social Development was held in 1995, everything seemed to be going fine for the world economy. The situation is now very different. One of the major successes of the Summit has been the way in which it anticipated many of the concerns about globalisation that have surfaced over the past five years. As we look ahead to conferences such as the Millennium Summit in September and the High Level Event on Financing for Development next June, I see four priorities for the social development effort. First, is the issue of poverty      One of the most important outcomes of the Copenhagen Summit was that it ensured that poverty eradication became accepted as the central goal of development policy and of development cooperation at the international level. We can see this, for instance, in the reorientation of activities that is taking place in the World Bank. The IMF, also recognises that, in the process of structural adjustment, poverty eradication expenditure needs to be protected. This is illustrated in the renaming of the ‘Expanded Structural Adjustment Facility’ into the ‘Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility’.      In short, Copenhagen has managed to place poverty eradication on the agenda of the influential economic policy bodies of the world. Unfortunately, however, the resources required for poverty eradication are not yet forthcoming. This is one area of the outcomes of Copenhagen that depends on the committed support of the donor community. If poverty eradication is to become the guiding principle of the work on development cooperation in the United Nations system, it will require concessional resources. One of the challenges for social development is to translate the consensus on the primacy of poverty eradication into the commitment of adequate resources for development cooperation through multilateral and bilateral channels. A second area is demographic change      The demographic dimension linked to social development requires much greater attention. One example of this is the increasing concern about population ageing, which was highlighted during the International Year of Older Persons. The importance is obvious: we are talking about a very substantial part of the world’s population.      Another area, linked with demography and health, which is receiving much more attention than it did before 1995, is the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, particularly in poor countries and, most of all, in Africa.      According to demographic projections, perhaps for the first time in modern history, life expectancy in a number of countries will decline. Whereas it is around 55-60 years in most countries of Southern Africa, the prediction is that it will come down to something like 45 years: not in 20 or 30 years’ time, but within the next 5 to 10 years. The raw numbers are shocking but the social impact is even worse. Consider the number of children in these countries who have no parents, no primary care giver. How are we going to operate our programmes for supporting children if there is no primary care giver? Indeed, how will societies function if a large proportion of children have no primary care giver? Third, is the problem of globalisation      One of the characteristics of the past five years has been the growing sense of anxiety about globalisation, that phenomenon of growing linkages between the trading and financial systems of the world economy. These anxieties stem from doubts about whether the process is manageable and the extent to which the process leads to crisis and instability. But there is also a concern about the distribution of gains from this process, the degree to which people are being left out of the process.      The anxieties about globalisation are not limited to concerns about the more than 1.3 billion people in the world who live in absolute poverty. They also relate to the many more who feel left out of this process because they happen to be in countries that are not benefiting from the expansion of trade and financial flows, or are engaged in activities that are not benefiting from this expansion. There are anxieties about employment, about inequality and about marginalisation. These widespread doubts about globalisation have been manifested in a much bigger way in the past five years than previously, though they were anticipated in the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit. So the third great challenge for social policy is whether we will be able to outline for the world a response to these anxieties, particularly those that arise from the impact of globalisation. Fourth is the need for economic policies based on values      The Copenhagen process has made a valuable contribution that we need to build on in terms of the importance of recognising that values must play a role in determining economic policies. Economic policies cannot be based simply on the ideal of free market competition and profit maximisation. Certainly profit is the basis on which the market economy functions. But there is a growing recognition, arising partly out of the concerns about globalisation, that policy needs to temper competition, profit maximisation and free markets with values that reflect our responsibility for the well-being of others, our sense of solidarity with others. This is something that is now being discussed far more openly not just in academic circles but also in policy-making circles. An example of this was the fact that the Finance Ministers of the world called for social principles to guide the work of global financial and other institutions. The challenge for social development is that of giving practical expression to the need to incorporate social values into the management of the economic system, at both the national and the global level.      In sum, the priority challenges for social development are: to push the consensus on poverty, so that it moves from being a consensus on goals to also being a consensus on the provision of resources for realising these goals; to reflect more deeply on the consequences of demographic changes arising from ageing, and from the AIDS pandemic; to see how we can respond to the anxieties of globalisation; and to see whether we can articulate a framework for reflecting values of solidarity and responsibility more fully in the way in which markets operate.      In many ways the Copenhagen Summit was what in publishing circles is called ‘a bit of a sleeper’. People thought then that not much would come out of it. But in practice, as somebody who was involved in practically all of the major processes of the United Nations in the 1990s, I would say that it is remarkable how the concerns that were raised in Copenhagen are now being reflected in the work of a large number of areas, not just in the work of the Commission of Social Development but also in that of other bodies both within and outside the United Nations system.      Copenhagen in 1995 anticipated many of the concerns that today are at the top of the policy agenda. The challenge that faces us is to see that we move beyond the simple review process into an articulation of initiatives that will truly be seen as responding to these concerns. In that sense, I believe that the Copenhagen +5 review process can become as significant as Copenhagen itself. Nitin Desai is Assistant Secretary General of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (ECOSOC) at the United Nations Tel: + 1 212 963 59 58 Email: desai@un.org