Class Notes (807,170)
Canada (492,645)
SOCI 254 (101)
Uli Locher (67)

International Development Actors

6 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Sociology (Arts)
SOCI 254
Uli Locher

International Development Actors The United Nations System - Born out of WWI/II, politicians got together, great disaster + slaughter of civilians - Created federation of nations, idealistic concept, loc Geneva - Worked as a forum for exchanges, then collapsed - 1 thing that had everlasting significance, taken care of ppl who had become stateless b/c of war - Millions of ppl after WWI: no nat identity, no place to leave - The Charter of the UN - Purposes:  Maintain internat peace + security  Develop friendly relations among nations  Achieve internat cooperation in solving internat problsm of econ, soc, cultural, humanitarian character  Centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attainment of these common ends - Problem: simply b/c it was so much needed, gave incredible variety of tasks to his internat body  UN had to do e/thing  1 purpose: already very problematic  Security Council responsible for this partic purpose, contains ppl who supp Syrian gov, other ppl rep who supp rebels in Syria  How can this internat body settle, be useful in case of Syrian conflict?  Conflicts are built in, incapacity settle conflict right there in structure of UN rd  3 purpose: is there any part of humanity not in there?  UN has to be involved in e/thing  recipe for disaster  Recipe for doing many thing many ppl do not like OR remaining inactive - Who pays for all of this? - US pays by far the largest share  seems in poli actuality to counteract, sabotage UN whenever it can esp when it has Repub gov - ¾ of bills are paid by US, Japan, Ger, UK, Fr, It, Cda, Spain, China, Mexico - What is the money used for? (2006-9 averages) - Assessed + voluntary contribs fr/member states - Annual operating budget (2B), peacekeeping missions (5B), UNICEF (3B), UNDP (5B), WFP (3B) - For comparison, WB loans = 257B - The positive record of the UN - In 65 years in existence, UN has been powerful force for good lives of 100Ms of ppl all over world. Whether protecting refugees, eradicating diseases, feeding hungry, promoting justice or keeping the peace, UN + UN agencies are responsible for many achievements that have made this world a better, safer, more prosperous place to live  No doubt: true, world would probably be worse place if no UN - Critique of UN - Sources of crit:  Isolationists, anti-glz movements, imperialists, lobby of the rich - Content of crit:  Unmanageable, inefficient, nations vs. gl probs - Overall, more opposition against UN (may have to do w/way communication works today)  S/things are so quickly in news, way of presenting them in news = can longer be influ  Modern media = make possible the spreading of bad news about UN  Ex: recent epidemic of cholera in Haiti, killed thousands, still raging  UN soldier fr/Ethiopa brought disease to Haiti  PR disaster that this brings, hostility fr/Haitians to UN  want to get rid of them  If kick them out, need another peacekeeping force b/c peace is not what this nat has w/totally disfunc state can’t have peace  Accusation is justified + terrible mistake in supervising + selecting peacekeepers, consequences grave for nat  Multilateral intervention should be scrapped?  If anything, have to replace w/another peacekeeping body - Deep divide developing/developed nats  Ex: over human rights or what econ devel is/should be, how peace should be kept  These differences in opinion directly affect what UN could/should do - Even if consensus is reached s/where that UN should intervene, (ex . in Balkans after break up of Soviet Union) had several small scale, cruel civil war  take long time to intervene - Worst of examples = genocide in Rwanda  UN was there when killing started, instead of intervening  folded + retracted  Instead of what army should have done to insert itself b/w various combatants  Genocide happened there under eyes of UN, UN = totally powerless - Problem of biggest donor = US, being totally ambivalent on many of funcs of what UN is doing Development Efforts of Past 50 Years - Q: why eradicate poverty? - If we have higher productivity, reduce poverty  healthy edu labour force - Want to lower fertility (population explosion = big problem), high quality children - Environmental protection: poor esp in agricul, cause massive environ damage - Poverty leads to social stability (Marx) - US poli argument: reduce poverty to reduce terrorism (one-sided argument)  9/11 attacks, terrorists not poor, financed by Al-Qaeda  3000 died needlessly, about 10,000 die e/day in Afr - Many good reasons H: watch out  diagnostic will determ which cure to prescribe - Permanent cure = depends on many factors, outside + inside poor regions - Approaches of the past - 1960s: economic growth arguments, great dream of trickle-down effects  Bring econ growth to a region, s/how e1 will profit  Empirical evidence seemed so obvious didn’t seem to need point out econ growth = more $ floating around in nat, even if rich put $ in own pockets first, trickle-down effect hoped for that much of $ coming fr/econ growth would eventually find its way of level of poor agricul producers, low-level soc - 1970s: idea growth may not automatically lead to trickle-down effects + prosperity for poor  Have to redistribute  growth w/redistrib of resources  Many ways of redistrib resources:  Taxation sys: tax incomes in progressive way, state takes $ + pays for subsidies to poor (transfer payments for social security, health, edu etc.)  1 partic redistrib mechanism preferred = market (invisible hand)  If not bothered, market would redistrib resources (similar to trickle-down argument)  Entirely new way of thinking connected w/term of satisfying basic human needs for e1  1) def of needs very much def as seen in capitals of rich nats (outside definition)  Wealthy bureaucrats decide what the poor need  2) tendency to bring in technocratic solutions - 1980s: scientific capitalism  strong affirmation that market should work itself out  Any barriers of free market would be inefficient in the end (ppl less prosperous)  Led to Washington Consensus, then structural adjustment programs  SAPs brought in as condits for World Bank providing loans to poor nats  Loans were large in proportion to finances of poor nat  Condits were imposed b/c prev felt much of devel $ stolen, lost, used ineffic  Need instit apparatus makes sure $ is well spent  Loans were always unbelievable favorable condits  Wouldn’t start paying even interest for 10 years  H: 1 of imposed condits = want rich in nat to pay for taxes  Another condit: civil service had grown by 1980s enormously  Gov by far largest employer in nat usually, gov employees were getting paid  Did only gov employees get paycheck? Not always, other ppl cashing in cheques for dead employees even if pay very low  Example of extractive state: elite using state apparatus for own purposes  SAPs not problematic b/c content, ea/1 of content items probably agree with  What turned out to be truly bad:  Speed of implementation (shock treatment)  Fulfilling these condits hardly touched elites  Implementing SAPs w/out implementing serious protection poor = terrible effects - 1990s: perspective changed under influ of Amartya Sen  Index of Human Development  Whole way look at devel shifted  now look at econ growth + MDGs
More Less

Related notes for SOCI 254

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.