| Links | Feedback |
By Anoop Sukumaran*
August 2001
At a time when neo-liberalism is in crisis, the UNDP Human Development Report 2001 has made a pathetic attempt give credit to policies and practices drenched in neo-liberal values. The report --which, short of having advertisements, is an exercise in corporate sales -- has stirred a hornet's nest among civil society groups.
While the report goes around in circles, often in contradictory in terms, the message is clear: embrace technology as it is the key to the future. The report states that "technology is not inherently good or bad" (1). In other words the report represents technology as being value neutral, a position which, at the very least, is highly debatable. Technology in all its forms has never been value neutral and the value neutral position can be used to justify anything from nuclear bombs to the gas chamber at Auschwitz.
As the report deals with emerging technologies, it is of the opinion that information technology (IT) is a very important tool to integrate the world and to reap the benefits of globalisation. In bullish tones, the report says that
"Global business to consumer e-commerce is projected to grow from $25 billion in 1999 to $233 billion by 2004, business to business e-commerce range from $1.2 to $10 trillion by 2003. Developing countries that can develop the requisite infrastructure can participate in new global business intermediation, business process outsourcing and value chain integration." (2)
Interestingly the report does indicate that many countries in the third world which have been riding the crest of the IT wave, such as India, have indeed lost more than they have gained. The report for instance says that the average loss for India from "brain drain" is close to two billion dollars a year. Countries such as India spend millions training people who then work for the TNCs in the metropolises of the world. But yet, globalisation is good and the onus to stop brain drain falls on the countries who are victims to this brain piracy.
THE COST OF CONNECTING THE UNCONNECTED
In the 1999 Human Development Report the disparities in access to the most common
information technology, i.e., the internet, was highlighted. In 1999, 91 per
cent of all internet users were from the OECD countries while the remaining
81 per cent of the world population remained overwhelmingly "unconnected".
Three years later the situation has barely changed. Undoubtedly the internet
has revolutionised the way people communicate with each other. Indeed the e-mail
has played a significant role in organising people and uniting people across
the globe to specific causes. All that said, the vast majority of the world's
people know nothing of the internet.
It is all very well to talk about connecting people, but at what cost? Will this be at the cost of basic infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, drinking water and electricity? Even if governments do invest in the infrastructure to be part of the "network of knowledge," there is no mention or even a passing reference to the danger of technological obsolescence. Indeed the prices of technology have fallen rapidly, but one cannot invest in obsolete technology. Given the rate of obsolescence ("Moore's law" is that computing power doubles every 18-24 months) the investment in technology would be a never-ending process. Given that 95 per cent of software used to run most computers is either sourced from or licensed to TNCs and almost all the hardware is produced by TNCs, the push for the development of IT infrastructure looks like a great new market opportunity for the TNCs.
Moreover, there is a long way to go before the language barrier on the internet can be breached and even more before the illiterate could meaningfully use the internet, experiments like the Simputer not withstanding.
The report calls for "creating innovative partnerships and new incentives for research and development" and promotes the combining of strengths of the private sector, government and academia in research and development. In this section the report highlights some examples such as Novartis' insect-resistant maize crop and the virus resistant sweet potato developed by Monsanto which have transferred (or partially transferred) the patents to government institutes. Not exactly the best examples given the history of bio-piracy of the two TNCs. On the other hand, the report totally ignores community efforts that have come up with much better solutions using traditional know-how.
A FAIRER, KINDER TRIPS!
The report then goes on to talk of "managing intellectual property rights".
This is more an exercise in philosophy rather than pragmatism. The report recognises
that TRIPs is often unfair and manipulated against the interests of the third
world, but it believes that it is possible to make TRIPs fairer! How this might
be done remains rather sketchy. Importantly the report acknowledges that "governments
gain leverage in the global economy on the coattails of their most powerful
corporations, so they have a vested interest in their success. As a result industry
has tremendous influence on the framing of regulations and incentives, with
industrial representatives accompanying governments and delegates to negotiate
agreements like TRIPS." (3)
In conclusion, the HDR 2001 is useful as statistical reference but the recommendations are at best confused and unashamedly neo-liberal.
(1) UNDP Human Development Report 2001, page 27
(2) ibid. page 36
(3) ibid. page 116
* Anoop Sukumaran is a research
associate (communications) with Focus on the Global South.