Comments on Poverty as a Violation of Human Rights

Comments by
Joseph K. Ingram
Special Representative to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization
The World Bank

on Paper presented by José Bengoa entitled "Poverty as a Violation of Human Rights"

at the World Forum on Human Rights
Nantes, France, May 16 to 19, 2004

Nantes, May 19, 2004

I would like to thank UNESCO, the French Government, and the City of Nantes for having organized this Forum and for having invited me to represent the World Bank.  The Forum comes at a critically important moment in history, when the forces of globalization find themselves confronted by the reactions of those who are either not its beneficiaries, or who fear that globalization will lead to the erosion of an established order that benefits them.  The confrontation between these forces, as Jose Bengoa describes, has produced not only violations of human rights in the form of widespread poverty, disease, unemployment, threats to our natural environment, and widening inequalities, but also violations of political and civil rights by representatives of governments ostensibly committed to providing global leadership on human rights standards and compliance.

Mr. Bengoa's paper presents a well argued case for considering poverty as a violation of human rights and holding governments and other actors deemed as contributing to poverty creation, legally accountable for their actions.  It also argues for policies by governments and international agencies to directly target the poor and in so doing, facilitate a redistribution of wealth both within and between countries.  We very much share that view and our President, Jim Wolfensohn, has spoken frequently and forcefully of the need to correct a world out of balance, as has our new Chief Economist, Francois Bourguignon.

Mr Bengoa's arguments in favor of poverty alleviation being based on a "right" rather than only on "need" are also compelling, especially when the view prevalent amongst some governments is that development aid has become synonymous with public entitlements and should instead be replaced by the private sector, either in the form of investment or charitable transfers.  In our view, both needs-based and rights-based approaches are needed if the MDGs are to be met.

We also share the author's view that poverty is not "an insoluble problem". Indeed, the World Bank's continued existence and contributions to the development process in China, India and other parts of Asia that have progressed developmentally, are testimony to that view.

The recent declines in foreign aid flows reflecting the disappearance of a cold war threat and the almost dogmatic belief amongst some in the efficacy of private capital flows also presents a serious challenge to the poverty alleviation effort and we share the author's concern that the question of how to increase aid levels and its effectiveness is critical.  We do not, however, feel that holding states and international institutions legally accountable is the most effective means for securing higher and more effective levels  of aid targeted at the poor.  While increasing aid flows may be the ethical thing to do, governments have rarely, and given human nature, probably will rarely form their foreign and trade policy decisions primarily on the basis of ethics or even international treaties and protocols.  Governments act on what they perceive as being in their national self-interest - the fight against terrorism and rebuilding the nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti are today high on the list of national priorities amongst the OECD group of donors.  Therefore, convincingly demonstrating to them the link between peace/security and poverty alleviation will certainly do more to increase their aid flows and its effectiveness than largely unenforceable international legal obligations, desirable though they may be in the "progressive realization" of poverty alleviation.

Where we more fundamentally disagree with Mr. Bengoa, however, is in his view of the state of development globally and the impact of globalization.  Framing this view of the state of the world accurately is fundamental, since to a great extent it determines the relative significance of the range of measures that need to be applied in alleviating poverty, including holding governments and international agencies legally accountable for failing to alleviate poverty through  their actions.  Although he contends that globalization and the spread of market economies are producing greater poverty in the world, he fails to present statistical proof to back up his contention. 

Indeed the paper in a footnote states that  "it is not the purpose of this work to repeat world poverty figures and statistics…."   This is unfortunate since the most recent world development indicators clearly show that historically, remarkable progress has been made as a result of globalization.  The number of people living in extreme poverty (poverty level of below USD 1 per day in 1993 purchasing power parity) fell from 1.45 billion in 1984 to 1.1  billion in 2001.  As a proportion of the population of developing countries the decline was from 39.5% in 1981 to 21.03% in 2001.  The cause of these reductions in poverty and global inequality was due primarily to rapid growth in China, India and other parts of Asia.  Between 1981 and 1999, the proportion of people in the East Asia and Pacific Region living on less than USD 1 a day fell from 56% to 16% and in China from 61% to 17%.  In South Asia too, the fall was rapid from 52 to 31%.  Only in sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Central Asia and Latin America, where growth was not sustained, did the share of poverty increase; most sharply in sub-Saharan Africa, from 42 to 47%.

We also do not share the author's view that the increase in African poverty levels was in any way due to the international financial institutions supporting government economic and financial sector policies which counteracted social policies or were conceived in isolation of them.  Since the introduction of the comprehensive development framework in 1993 and the more recent use of the poverty reduction strategy process by most governments in sub-Saharan Africa, poverty has been addressed by the Bank as multi-dimensional in nature, and its prevalence and characteristics systematically identified through poverty profiles, living standards and household budget surveys.  These in-depth analyses usually undertaken in collaboration with local institutions, form the basis of national strategies and actions which we and others support.

While we concur with the author's view that the "imaginary of social integration", is less prevalent amongst some governments than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, we do not share his view that the priority given to social cohesion has been abandoned in favor of a "neo-dualism" which stresses the primacy of philanthropy in sustaining financial flows to the countries.  This may be the wish of some in the current US administration, but it certainly is not in many European states, Canada, nor in the World Bank. The priority given to civil society consultation and empowerment in the PRSP process, and the shift in World Bank support from projects financing "bricks and mortar"  to social and institutional development projects reflect our concern with ensuring that states provide basic social services to the poor on a sustained basis and that social capital is created in the process. Rather than the exclusively state-driven "social imaginary" which dominated development thinking and policies in the 1970s and 1980s, however, today's social cohesion is more of a bottom-up process driven as much by civil society empowerment as by governments.  In other words, though many of socialism's instruments may have been discredited, its values have not.

Nor do we agree with the author's assertion that the governments of African and other poorly performing countries have been deliberately weakened by the prescriptions of the I.F.I s.  On the contrary, the Bank and the IMF have called for a transformation of the state's role, including strengthening its capacity to deliver social services and public goods.  Certainly chronically poor performers like Cameroon, Togo, Gabon, Kenya (under President Moi), Zimbabwe, the Ukraine, Moldova, Uzbekistan, and Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in India are not characterized by weak states.  They have, however, been affected by poor governance and by a failure to exploit the opportunities afforded by globalization.  Encouraging governments to reduce military  spending, to rationalize veterans' benefits and to stop financing endemically loss-making state-owned industries, while at the same time strengthening government capacity to effectively provide basic social services, serves to strengthen not weaken governments.

As indicated earlier, whilst we accept that in the long-run the "progressive realization" of poverty alleviation can be helped by establishing extreme poverty as a human rights violation, we do not share the view that it is "the only possible approach" for righting the current global imbalances.  Not only would it be difficult to hold institutions and governments legally accountable in the absence of legitimized institutions for doing so, but except in the most egregious of circumstances,  it would be difficult to assign blame to governments and leaders, let alone international institutions, for policies which though conceived with good intentions, proved ineffective or produced poverty in the short-term.  For example, should the "Ujamaa-village" approach applied in Tanzania during the time of President Nyerere have been considered a violation of human rights because it in fact resulted in even greater levels of poverty over time?  President Nyerere and his authorities had noble intentions, were not part of a corrupted elite and were driven by a "social imaginary" - the problem was, as Nyerere himself acknowledged later in retirement, that the policies were basically ill-conceived and not grounded in contemporary economic theory and empirical experience.

Nor am I sure that the legal abolishment and subsequent eradication of slavery and apartheid is transferable to the alleviation of poverty through legal accountability, as the paper advocates.  Both slavery and apartheid were "institutionalized" as deliberate policies of governments.  Poverty is not generally the result of deliberate government policies nor is it institutionalized.  Rather it is the consequence of ill-conceived policies (both national and international), poor governance, neglect and international shocks.  This being so, while it cannot hurt to view poverty as a human rights violation in a legal sense, (though some say that the war on drugs has been a singular failure)  it alone is unlikely to be effective in changing the behavior of governments and international institutions. Systematically holding political leaders accountable for corruption and gross mismanagement would be much more effective.

Where we do concur with the author is in recognizing the critical importance of bottom-up actions such as educating people so that they realize that global poverty reduction and greater equality in development are in their self-interest. Succeeding in this will ultimately result in the election of political representatives who are serious about global poverty alleviation and more equitable development.

In conclusion then, it is important that we agree on the state of today's world subjected as it is to rapid globalization.  Jose Bengoa views it as a glass half empty and emptying.  We in the Bank, based on available data, view it as half full and filling.  Where I am sure we can agree, however, is that if it is filling it is not doing so nearly fast enough.

Given our view that the effort to alleviate poverty is slowly succeeding - albeit too slowly to meet the MDGs - the question becomes how to accelerate and spread the factors of success seen in Asia and provide the financial means to poorer countries to achieve that same degree of success?  While we are not against holding governments and international actors accountable for the creation or worsening of poverty through corruption or mismanagement, we are of the view  that effectively demonstrating the link between peace/security and poverty alleviation is a more effective way of inducing governments to increase aid volumes and quality.

Finally, based on the progress of Asian and other countries to date, we do not see the need for a radical change in the policy instruments being used today, as Jose Bengoa is suggesting.  Instead, we see poverty alleviation being accelerated through a process based on broad-based consultation and involvement of civil society, including the poor themselves, and clear country ownership of the process.

Thank you.