2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
Project Outline (2001 01 05)
Olav Stokke, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo
International Development Assistance: The UN
Contribution
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
ABSTRACT:
International Development Assistance: The UN Contribution
Olav Stokke, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo e-mail: olav.stokke@nupi.no
This study is part of the United Nations Intellectual History Project (UNIHP). It is expected to
result in a volume with the above title (working title) to be published by Indiana University
Press as one of the 14 volumes in the UNIHP series of books.
The main objective is to produce a reference book on international development assistance,
with particular emphasis on the role of the United Nations in generating and following up
ideas within this policy area. It will, therefore, address itself to a variety of audiences: as a
textbook to be used in universities, as a reference book for politicians, administrators, media
and NGOs at national and international levels – and generally to people with an interest in
international affairs.
The main focus will be on central institutions of the UN system dealing with development
assistance, with particular reference to the UN General Assembly, ECOSOC, the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the special agencies. The interaction between
these UN institutions and their interaction with member governments and other major
international actors in this field will be of particular interest.
The International Advisory Council of the UNIHP has emphasised that the volumes,
although focusing on ideas, should not isolate them from the real world to which ideas are
exposed when implemented. It is expected that the volumes should be ‘reader-friendly’ and
interesting to a wide audience. Admittedly, it is a tall order to combine analysis with
entertainment. The present study will approach this legitimate challenge through a two-track
strategy: the analysis will be cast in the ‘traditional’ style of academic studies, which may be
considered demanding (but not necessarily dull) for a wider audience. However, boxes and
extensive footnotes will be used for narrating small stories, events and more specific data that
may illustrate or give background to the main text.
This study of the role of the United Nations in cultivating and promoting the idea of
international development assistance takes as its point of departure a combination of theories
of international relations with evolving theories of development, with particular emphasis on
shifting development paradigms. Organisational theory, although not exposed, will direct the
steps. The emerging ideas and policies will be analysed within two major frameworks: it is
assumed that they will be an integrated part of international politics and that they will relate to
development theory. The ideas and policies will, accordingly, be analysed against the
background of the evolving international situation. This analysis will depart from
predominant paradigms for the study of international relations and alternative paradigms as
well, taking account of the specific characteristics of the particular policy area.. The evolving
ideas will also be related to evolving development paradigms.
The main basis for the study will be key document (reports, resolutions, debates, etc) of the
relevant institutions, mainly the UN system. Such sources will be supplemented with
interviews of key actors. Secondary sources, a vast and varied literature that deals with the big
issues as well as particular aspects of them, will be used, too.
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
1.
2nd session: The UN system
Introduction
This study is part of the United Nations Intellectual History Project (UNIHP).[1] It is
expected to result in a volume with the above title (working title) to be published by Indiana
University Press as one of the 14 volumes in the UNIHP series of books.
The project will be carried out at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)
with partial funding from the Research Council of Norway, Environment and Development.
The main objective is to produce a reference book on international development assistance,
with particular emphasis on the role of the United Nations in generating and following up
ideas within this policy area. It will, therefore, address itself to a variety of audiences: a
textbook to be used in universities, a reference book for politicians, administrators, media and
NGOs at national and international levels – and, generally, for people with an interest in
international issues.
The main focus will be on central institutions of the UN system dealing with development
assistance, with particular reference to the UN General Assembly, ECOSOC, the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the special agencies. The interaction between
these UN institutions and their interaction with member governments and with other major
international actors in this field will be of particular interest.
The International Advisory Council of the UNIHP has emphasised that the volumes,
although focusing on ideas, should not isolate them from the real world in which ideas are
exposed and implemented. It is expected that the volumes should be ‘reader-friendly’ and
interesting to a wide audience. Admittedly, it is a tall order to combine analysis with
entertainment. The present study will approach this legitimate challenge through a two-track
strategy: the analysis will be cast in the ‘traditional’ style of academic studies, which may be
considered demanding (but not necessarily dull) for a wider audience. However, boxes and
extensive footnotes will be used for narrating small stories, events and more specific data that
may illustrate or give background to the main text.
In this tentative (and incomplete) outline, the problem area will be identified, the approach
and perspectives indicated, and the problems to be addressed presented in general terms.
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
2. Problem area, perspectives, and problems to be addressed
International development assistance became a public concern in the second half of the last
millennium. Its flavour has shifted with changes in the political and economic international
environments and with evolving predominant norms. It emerged at a time when Europe was
in the process of recovering from more than five years of warfare. A new bipolar international
system was in the making: the victorious allies were splitting up and divided most of Europe
and the industrial North into two blocks, which both were aspiring towards global hegemony.
An even more radical system transformation was underway in the South; former colonies
were in the process of becoming independent states or had already acquired that status.
1. The Legacies
Although the new activity came as a political response to international developments in the
late 1940s and early 1950s, it has a variety of different roots. The colonial legacy – relations
over a wide spectrum developed over a long period – represents one such link, with particular
reference to the colonial powers: all relations between the two parties were not cut on
Independence Day. Independence often started with a commitment by the ex-colonial power
to ease the new start and strengthen future links, involving some sort of development
assistance.
Humane internationalism[2] is emerging from several traditions, representing legacies of a
different kind from that above. One of these is religious missionary in the South involving
religious societies in the North. In addition to spreading the gospel, this activity included
components associated with development assistance - transfer of technology, selected
expertise, and also funds for development activities. More importantly, this legacy represents
a moral commitment to assist people across national boundaries. The humanitarian legacy,
related to relief operations and associated, in particular, with institutions such as the Red
Cross movement, is based on similar norms. Add to this family the political ideology of
international solidarity, associated with various brands of socialist and social democratic
political movements and trade unionism.
These various roots will be explored, with particular reference to their impact when
international development assistance was first conceived of (Chapters 2 and 3). The problems
posed:
·
What events and interests triggered the idea of international development assistance
within the UN system?
·
Who were the main actors in initiating and promoting the idea?
·
What were the primary motives, objectives, targets, strategies and guidelines indicated
for this activity?
·
To what extent and in what ways were the legacies identified reflected in the idea of
international development assistance as first conceived of?
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
2. The UN Contribution
The various legacies may influence development assistance in different directions. The
definition of the concept opens up for an almost unlimited variety of activities and
recipients.[3] In this study, focus will be on the United Nations (UN) contribution in
conceptualising and cushioning the new idea of international development assistance and in
influencing its conceptualisation, direction and impact along the road.
The global organisation is not the only actor on the scene; the interaction with other actors
therefore becomes an important part of the study. As a membership organisation, relations
between the UN and its member states attract particular attention. International organisations
may be considered an arena for the member states; however, they may also perform a role as
actors in their own right and exert an influence on policy outcomes beyond that of their
separate members (Cohen et al., 1972).
International organisations are different animals with regard to membership and the rights
and duties of their members, objectives and how they are organised and work.[4] Such
differences, it is assumed, also affect both the kind of ideas that are generated within an
organisation and its selection of ideas generated elsewhere. Thus, different ideas may emerge
from an organisation ‘owned’ by the industrialised countries, such as the Bretton Woods
institutions (BWIs), and a global organisation like the UN system. In the first, the relative
influence, in terms its governing structure and voting rights, reflects the ownership structure
in terms of capital instalments. In the second, a government has one voice and one vote
whether it is representing a tiny country or a major power when developmental issues are
involved. Although the relative influence of governments by no means is reflected in the ‘one
country one vote’ regulation, it is assumed that the self-identity of organisations is affected by
differences in objectives and formal structures. The assumption is that the two systems will be
receptive to and themselves generate different ideas.
Against this background, the main problem posed in this study is the following:
·
What are the main ideas related to development that have been generated or cushioned
in the UN system?
·
How does international development assistance, as conceptualised and implemented by
the UN system, relate to these development paradigms?
·
In what ways and to what extent differ the ideas and policies within this area generated
or cushioned by the UN system from those of other major actors (bilateral and multilateral) in
the field?
·
How have the ideas cultivated and pursued by the UN system within this policy field
fared in the competition with ideas generated and cultivated elsewhere – by other international
and bilateral major players?
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
Ideas and development paradigms evolve over time. The main questions raised here will
therefore be further developed and related to sequenced time periods (see sub-section 4).
3. The International Power Play and Development Assistance
The UN system has been identified both as an arena for government politics, involving theory
on international relations, and as an actor in its own right, involving theory on international
organisations. The concept of power, and the balance of power between the main competing
actors, is crucial in both settings.
In the arena framework, member governments are, according to the realist paradigm that
has dominated analysis of politics among nation during most of the post WW2 era, seeking to
increase their influence and ensure vested national interest, their security interests in
particular.[5] Since its core unit is the state and its focus is on interactions between states,
actors at other levels are neglected. This applies to actors at the sub-national level.[6] As
noted above with reference to organisational theory, it also applies to actors at international
levels (regional and global), where a multitude of organisations operate and (fragments of)
international regimes have been established. These actors may play an independent role above
the state-to-state interaction even within areas where the residual powers, in a formal sense,
belong to the participating governments. Besides, participation in such settings may in itself
influence the policy position of a participating government vis-à-vis the issues involved.
The perspective of classical and neo-classical realism has been challenged also from other
quarters, with particular reference to the issue area to be analysed in this study. Political actors
do not always act with the sole purpose of furthering their own individual or collective selfinterest. Interests may be given a long-term perspective with a focus on future rewards as
opposed to immediate gains. Long-term interests are, of course, part of the concept as defined
by the realist school – although how well it is integrated may depend on how long a
perspective is taken and what kind of interests are involved. Interests may also be given a
broader interpretation than the individual or collective interest of the community concerned.
This, too, may be contained within a realist national-interest concept, but makes little sense in
such a context if long-term interests are not at least vaguely affected in a negative or positive
way.
From the very beginning, development assistance became an instrument in the international
power play of the emerging superpowers in the bipolar world system of the post-WW2 – both
with a hegemonic aspiration. During the late 1940s and early 1950s this was stated quite
openly by Western powers: promotion of democracy and an open market economy and
containment of communism in the South were used as the prime arguments for development
assistance. At that time, the United States stood out as the most generous provider of
development assistance not only in absolute terms, but in relative terms as well. Also the
Soviet Union (USSR) and the East used aid as a foreign policy instrument, targeted at
strategically important governments and social structures (Young, 1991). From the
perspective of the power play between East and West during the heyday of the Cold War,
foreign aid, including development assistance, may be best analysed within the paradigms of
Realpolitik.[7]
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
The two superpowers, and other major powers with global or regional hegemonic
aspirations, were not the only actors on the international scene during these initial years.
However, they held a hegemonic position within their security systems and (the US in
particular) were setting the agenda in the multilateral institutions concerned with foreign aid.
The UN membership confronted a large number of Western small and middle powers without
a colonial past with conflicts that arose when former colonies aspired to become independent
states. Several of these countries found themselves under cross-pressure between an
alignment to one or more of the colonial powers, through security policy arrangements
(NATO) and/or other loyalty bonds on the one side and commitments to the norms on which
the de-colonisation process was based on the other. Development assistance, especially when
given a ‘neutral’ UN stamp, became an impeccable response. Several of these countries had a
tradition associated with the humanitarian roots identified above – this applies also to some
Western middle powers with a past as colonial powers, the Netherlands in particular.
Paradigms of the realist international-relations tradition failed to capture these basically
altruistic features of development assistance. From this recognition, an alternative paradigm
emerged for the study of the foreign policy of this group of countries, their aid policy in
particular, that of humane internationalism (Stokke, 1989, 1996; Pratt 1989, 1990). The core
of humane internationalism is an acceptance of the principle that citizens of industrial nations
have moral obligations towards peoples and events beyond their borders and this, in turn, has
a bearing on the duties of governments.[8] It is distinguished between its various brands –
liberal, reform and radical internationalism. An ethical thrust is combined with, and
considered to be instrumental for, the promotion of the longer-term, overall interests of the
countries in the North.[9]
The emergence of development assistance from idea to practice within the United Nations
arena is to be analysed from the paradigms both of Realpolitik and humane internationalism.
Attention will also be directed towards to the ‘independent’ role of the United Nations system,
in terms of its institutions.
The following questions are to be addressed:
·
The evolving ideas in terms of objectives, strategies and norms set by the UN system
for international development assistance and their actual implementation, as sequenced: to
what extent did they reflect expressed and tacit interests of the major actors in international
politics, the superpowers in particular? Who were their main architects? In what ways and to
what extent were other multilateral actors and bilateral donor governments involved? What
was the role of Third World institutions and governments?
·
In what ways did the UN policy and performance within this area, as sequenced,
deviate from those of other major multilateral and bilateral actors?
·
What was the independent role of UN institutions in designing and implementing these
policies, as sequenced?
·
In what ways and to what extent influenced the UN system the policies of other
multilateral and bilateral actors within this policy area, as sequenced?
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
These general questions will be addressed, along with those raised in the previous sub-section
and further developed in sub-section 4, in Chapters 3 – 10.
4.
Development Paradigms and International Development Assistance
Development paradigms constitute part of the political environment when ideas involving
development and international development assistance are moulded and cultivated. This
setting is not necessarily disconnected with that of international politics outlined above. A
development paradigm varies over time and with the ideological setting; it may itself be a tool
in a foreign policy strategy. As pointed out, ideology may, within a realist paradigm, serve as
the superstructure for vested interests of competing powers with security concerns and
economic interests at stake. Development paradigms often represent, in a condensed form, the
prevailing political ideology of donors. A hegemonic development paradigm may function as
a gatekeeper that decides what kind of ideas are feasible and may be picked up and developed,
and what ideas are not. It may also influence the way ideas are transformed into practice.
Although a development paradigm may have been the predominant one within the ‘donor
community’ at a certain point in time, with variations involving donor governments, there
have always been alternatives around. Such alternative development philosophies (or models)
reflect theories of development, or more broadly world-views, that differs from the
predominant (hegemonic) one. Their real influence may vary extensively; they will carry most
influence, in the present context, when cemented as ideologies of established power
structures, such as major donor governments or multilateral agencies. Most of the hegemonic
development paradigms have emerged from experiences in the North, in recent time, from a
discourse close to the aid providing ‘community’, reflecting a ‘Western’ ethnocentrism.
Development paradigms tend to have long lives. As noted before (Stokke, 1996), they also
live parallel lives. A paradigm that may be the predominant one at a certain point in time
continues to influence the minds of a generation of policy-makers and administrators after its
heyday. And in the period it held a hegemonic position, there were alternative paradigms
present or in the making. Old paradigms are adjusted to more recent development experiences
and new realities, and in this way prolonging their lives. Any sequencing, therefore, runs the
risk of portraying a too simplified picture. There are two additional factors at work that also
affect this picture. First, multilateral institutions are conservative bodies; unlike democratic
state systems, there are no periodic elections involved that may lead to a shift of regime at
regular intervals. Second, with alternative paradigms around, politicians (the administration)
may construct their agenda à la carte, picking components from several paradigms. As noted
with reference to the BWIs and the UN system, it is assumed that the ideological menu
composed is not disconnected with the type of organisation and its objective. The focus of this
study will be more on ideological and strategic patterns than on theoretical frameworks.
The prevailing development paradigms in the years when development assistance emerged
as an idea that gradually materialised reflected, in the first place, European experiences and
theories and models emerging from these experiences. They varied extensively across the
East-West dividing line, with various (capitalist) models associated with the main Western
powers, representing one pole, and various (socialist) models associated with the Eastern
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
powers representing the other. This dichotomy makes sense, particularly in an international
relations context; however, a continuum between such poles may probably give a more
correct description of the actual situation, given the variety of national systems, especially in
the West, with regard to the major dimensions involved. The main conflict dimension, at the
theoretical and ideological level, concerned the role of the state. In the economic room, the
ideological poles were the liberal mini-state, leaving ‘decisions’ to the market, and the
socialist central planning state. In the political room, there were similar poles: states pursuing
liberal values versus states in pursuit of authoritarian values.
The various models had evolved in different historical settings. The liberal model,
associated with the industrial revolution, relied on market forces, industrial growth starting
with light industries, private investments resulting from high profits to which low wages
contributed, and a process of continuous technological innovation, in combination with a free
international trade system. Latecomers did not find free trade equally useful; in order to catch
up, they designed the alternative model of state capitalism in combination with protective
measures, especially with regard to infant industries. The first of these competing models was
associated with developments in England, the second with, in particular, Germany and Russia.
However, in actual practice, mixed economies – with varying degrees of state intervention
and participation – evolved in the West. This mix also included Social Democrat
governments.
The Soviet model represented a qualitative difference from the evolving, predominantly
liberal development strategies of the West, although there was some similarities with the state
capitalism of the early stages of the industrial revolution. The authoritarian state used coercive
powers to enforce capital accumulation and five-year plans set quantitative objectives to be
fulfilled during the plan period. Emphasis was on industrialisation, with priority to heavy
industry; technologically advanced methods were utilised and large-scale industries
developed. Resources were transferred from agriculture to industry and in this process also
agriculture was collectivised.
*
In the bipolar international system, already in existence when the idea of international
development assistance was conceived, these development models were instrumental in the
competition for global hegemony between, in particular, the two powers with a hegemonic
position within their respective systems. This competition took place at the level of nation
states (with particular reference to the South) and in regional, international and multilateral
institutions. The evolving idea of international development assistance and its transformation
from idea to practice in terms of justifications, objectives, development strategies and aid
mechanisms, will be analysed against this background.
During the early, formative years of international development assistance (the 1950s and
1960s), development thinking in the West was dominated by economists indebted to
Keynesian theory and its emphasis on the intervening state. Focus was almost exclusively on
economic growth and capital accumulation was seen as the prime factor to create such growth
– in stages. Although trade was ascribed great importance by development economists closer
to the neo-classical tradition, development was conceived of as basically a national process.
Foreign trade would, in addition to capital accumulation, serve the diffusion of new
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
technology, skills and capital to the benefit of the latecomers. The modernisation paradigm
dominated Western development thinking – development was conceived of as the process by
which a society would move from one stage to another, higher stage as quantified in
economic, political and economic terms.[10]
Within this paradigm, the main function of aid would be to fill in gaps in terms of capital and
knowledge and to overcome bottlenecks inherent in a process of unbalanced growth to
facilitate a take-off of the recipient economy.
The 1960s were important, formative years for international development assistance, both
at the level of global organisations and at the level of individual governments, with particular
reference to countries without a colonial past and without global hegemonic aspirations. The
UN development strategy for the first development decade (DD1) came to play a crucial role
in this regard, setting out the justifications for international development assistance,
establishing international objectives and targets as well as strategies and norms (guidelines)
for this activity. Special attention will therefore be directed towards the process that led to the
adoption of this development strategy. Questions to be addressed (Chapter 4) include:
·
To what extent does the strategy set for the DD1, and the philosophy on which it was
based, reflect the modernisation paradigm and to what extent are other development
paradigms reflected as well?
·
Who were the main actors involved in formulating the strategy set for the DD1?
·
To what extent and how was the strategy set for the DD1 followed up?
·
To what extent and how did the strategy set for the DD1 influence the aid policies of
UN member governments?
·
Questions related to the international power play and national interests of major actors
(identified above).
In the 1950s and 1960s, the mainstream development paradigm was contested both from the
‘right’ and the ‘left’. The wisdom of state intervention in the market was contested by neoclassical traditionalists. And scholars from other disciplines, although under the spell of the
modernisation paradigm, focussed on other dimensions of the development process: in
addition to economic barriers to development in the traditional sector, they identified cultural,
sociological, political and psychological constraints, providing a more complex framework.
The development optimism of the 1950s and 1960s was not matched by results: the gap
between North and South, in terms of indicators of aggregate economic growth, was growing
even wider, and the actual development in the South was skewed. This gave raise to the
dependencia perspective on development, bringing the global perspective to the fore,
confronting mainstream Western perspectives: development could not be conceived of within
the framework of the nation state. Development in the South depended on relations with the
industrial North: these structural relations developed dependence and underdevelopment in
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
the South, as most consistently argued by André Gunder Frank, with particular reference to
Latin America (Frank, 1967). The centre-periphery model (Galtung, 1971) interpreted core
processes involved in a new way: integration of the South in the capitalist North would further
deepen its dependence and increase its underdevelopment – except for the elite (the centres in
the South) which served as bridgeheads for Northern exploitation. Implicitly, if not explicitly,
this school argued for the de-linking of the South from the North.[11]
The development strategy for the second development decade (DD2) did not carry with it
the novelty of its predecessor. This applies even more to the strategies for the subsequent two
development decades (DD3 and DD4), although they represent important milestones, taking
stock of past developments and on this basis attending to the challenges ahead, as perceived.
They were not alone in setting the development agenda for the decade; this agenda was
governed more by events that were hidden in the future. Global thematic conferences and
reports of high-level international commissions were also instrumental in setting the agenda
when strategies were formed and adopted. This also applies to the DD2 itself; it was preceded
by the work of the Pearson Commission (Pearson, 1969). Still, the strategy for the DD2
deserves attention, with particular reference to the continuity and change vis-à-vis its
predecessor with regard to development philosophy, objectives and targets, strategies and
norms set for development and international development assistance. The main questions to
be addressed are: to what extent was the United Nations system receptive to the perspectives
of the competing development paradigms? To what extent were these various paradigms
reflected in the objectives and strategies of the second development decade (DD2)? Research
questions (Chapter 5) include the following:
·
In what ways did DD2 follow up the development philosophy of DD1? What were the
new features?
·
Who were the main actors in formulating the strategy for the DD2? The Third World
actors?
·
To what extent and how was the strategy for the DD2 followed up by the UN? By other
major actors (multilateral and bilateral)?
·
To what extent and how did the strategy set for the DD2 influence the policy of other
major actors (multilateral and bilateral) in the field of development co-operation?
·
Questions related to the international power play and national interests of major actors
(identified above).
In the early 1970s, governments of the South came up with answers that ran counter to the
dependencia school: closer collaboration with the industrial North was considered the key to a
new international economic order (NIEO). However, the core message was that the existing
relations in terms of economic and political power had to be fundamentally reformed. The call
for reform was, in part, based on normative arguments: a more just international division of
labour and distribution of welfare and power. However, it was also based on a sense of
strength emerging from the experiences of the first oil crisis: what had been achieved within
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
one raw-material sector might be copied in others. Although the perspective was general,
involving most North-South relations, in practice the main focus was on improving trade
relations with particular reference to the primary products of the South.
The NIEO strategy represents an interesting case in the context of this study for several
reasons. The call for a new order emerged from governments of the South using the UN
system as their primary arena.[12] As it turned out, the call met a fertile ground within this
system, which adopted the major claims, not least on normative grounds, and provided an
institutional basis for their further development and promotion, with particular reference to
the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The two-track strategy backfired
for a variety of reasons; this, too, makes it an interesting case in the present study. Still, the
basic idea lingers on; the South Commission (1990) brought the main thrust of the NIEO
programme to the fore again, emphasising its normative case. Although its main perspective
was on broader North-South relations, the NIEO strategy influenced development assistance
in various ways, both the philosophy and practice and both in a short-term and long-term
perspective. These influences will be explored (Chapter 6).
The NIEO strategy called for greater equity and justice in the relations between countries,
leaving equity and justice within countries aside as the responsibility of their governing
structures.[13] Other strategies have focused more specifically on micro-level development
associated with norms that constitute the main justification for development assistance:
poverty alleviation and increased welfare for, in particular, the poorer segments of the
population. The framework of these approaches used to be the state (at national, regional and
local levels), with the emphasis on the social dimensions of development; however, other
social structures at these levels, involving civil society, are also included.
A concern for welfare, even poverty alleviation, was part of the mainstream development
theories of the 1950s and 1960s, too, with their emphasis on economic growth. However, as
increased welfare for all did not ‘trickle down’ from economic growth (Chenery et al., 1974),
additional mechanisms were in demand. In the mid-1970s, the basic human needs-paradigm
emerged as the main expression of the various approaches focusing on the social dimensions
of development. In an aid context, the focus was on improved social services, largely along
lines established in the North.[14]
The paradigm resulted, to a large extent, from craftsmanship within the UN system, with
particular reference to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).[15] In the years
immediately after 1975, it became the dominant paradigm within the bilateral and multilateral
donor community, particularly in the development rhetoric. Its basic weakness became
increasingly clear towards the end of the 1970s when the economies came under pressure: it
presupposes an economy that is able to carry not only the investments in building and
maintaining the appropriate structures but also the recurrent costs involved. The alternative
was continued and extensive aid from the outside. The emergence of the strategy and its
follow up will be explored, with particular emphasis on the role of the UN system (Chapter 7)
.
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
The two development paradigms that dominated the development discourse in the mid-1970s
– the NIEO approach and the basic needs approach – were both developed and cushioned
within the UN system by different arms of the system. However, there were also competing,
alternative development paradigms around – from the neo-classical traditionalist one to
‘utopian’, normative approaches. A series of publications from a group around the Uppsalabased Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation and the Nyon-based International Foundation for
Development Alternatives (IFDA) managed to synthesise this ‘family’ of ideas that were
floating around into an ‘another development’ paradigm.[16]
Development should, according to this normative paradigm, be need-oriented, geared to
meeting material and non-material human needs. It should be endogenous; each society
should define its values and visions for the future, implying that there can be no universal
development model but several. Development should be self-reliant; each society should
primarily rely on its own strength and resources. It should be ecologically sound. And it
should be based on structural transformations with regard to social relations, economic
activities and their spatial distribution, and the power structure, in order to realise the
conditions of self-management and participating in decision-making by those affected by the
decisions. These five basic elements were considered as organically linked to each other; in
isolation they would not produce the desired results (Nerfin, 1977).
The main thrust of this perspective is that there exists no universal road to development:
each society must find its own path, based on its own needs and prevailing conditions in its
local and global environments and with due regard to the ecological imperative. As noted by
Hettne (1995), alternative solutions are generally anti-statist and usually have two, not
necessarily contradictory, points of reference: the local community and the planet earth.
Ultimately, the core concern is the inclusion of the excluded.
The basic needs-paradigm, given a broad interpretation of basic needs, captured some
elements of these ‘utopian’ paradigms. And the NIEO-approach integrated other elements,
inter alia, by transforming self-reliance from the local (and national) to the global
environment, with particular reference to South-South co-operation. Perhaps because
development assistance originates, in part, from traditions rooted in humanitarian values,
‘utopian’ approaches have carried stronger influence within this policy area than normative
approaches usually do. These influences will be explored, with particular reference to the UN
system (Chapter 8).
For most bilateral and multilateral providers of development assistance, the 1970s were
crucial years. The international economic and political conditions shifted in many important
ways during this decade, including the oil crises, stagflation in OECD countries, affluence of
petro-dollars and accumulation of debts in the South. In this international environment, old
and new development paradigms were competing. How receptive was the UN system, and its
various components, towards the development paradigms identified? For each of them
(Chapters 6 – 8), the following are among the questions to be addressed:
·
In what ways did the development paradigm concerned relate to the development
philosophy of DD2 and other development paradigms identified? What were the new
features?
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
·
Who were the main actors in formulating the development paradigm concerned? The
Third World actors?
·
To what extent and how was the development paradigm concerned integrated in the UN
development policy and followed up, with particular reference to international development
assistance? By other major actors (multilateral and bilateral)?
·
To what extent and how did the paradigm concerned influence the policy of other major
actors (multilateral and bilateral) in the field of development co-operation?
·
Questions related to the international power play and national interests of major actors
(identified above).
The development paradigms that had their heyday in the mid-1970s – opting for global
system reform (NIEO) and social, economic and political reform within developing countries
(satisfaction of basic human needs) – were confronted with the harsh economic realities of the
1980. A change of ideology took place, involving governments of major Western powers that
had never been attracted by the ideas of international structural reform, making the prospects
for reform even more gloomy. These new political environments paved the way for the reemergence of the development paradigm of the traditionalist brand of neo-classical
economics, now as a predominant ideology, although by no means uncontested.[17] In this
paradigm, the role of the state as a development agent, and state and inter-state intervention in
the economic sphere, is de-emphasised; such intervention (including development assistance)
is considered a constraint, if not outright detrimental to development.
The main thrust of international development assistance changed during the 1980s. It
became increasingly an instrument in the promotion of economic policy reform in developing
countries, much in line with the neo-liberal orthodoxy. The linking of development finance to
a commitment by the recipient government to structural adjustments in the general direction
of a liberal economic regime (aid conditionality) became the most manifest expression of this
policy in the 1980s. It was driven by, in particular, the Bretton Woods institutions. The focus
in this study will be on responses of the UN system to this development paradigm, with
particular attention directed towards ideas pursued in the dialogue with the BWIs.
Although the attention devoted to the development strategy for the DD3 was not of the
same magnitude as had been the case for its two predecessors, it represents an opportunity for
taking stock of the predominant development philosophy at the close of the 1970s. That
decade had seen turbulence in the international economy that had affected both the industrial
North and the South, with distinct regional differences. A basic question that will be
addressed is how receptive the UN system was, at the beginning of the 1980s and later, to the
neo-liberalism that became an integral ideology of the BWIs and some major government
administrations of the West. Questions to be addressed (Chapter 9) include the following:
·
In what ways did DD3 follow up the development philosophy of DD2? The
modernisation paradigm? The dependencia school? The NIEO- approach? The basic needs
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
strategy? Alternative development approaches? The neo-liberal orthodoxy? What were the
new features?
·
Who were the main actors in formulating the strategy for the DD3? Third World
actors?
·
To what extent and how was the strategy for the DD3 followed up by the UN? By other
major actors (multilateral and bilateral)?
·
To what extent and how did the strategy set for the DD3 influence the policy of other
major actors (multilateral and bilateral) in the field of development co-operation?
·
To what extent were major UN actors influenced by the predominant development
paradigm of the BWIs, with particular reference to the structural adjustment policy?
Consequences for the aid policy?
·
Questions related to the international power play and national interests of major actors
(identified above).
In the 1990s, the neo-liberal orthodoxy, although challenged, remained in a strong but not
hegemonic position. With the dwindling of the Second World, ideas associated with political
liberalism – democracy and political and civil human rights – came to the fore. To first
generation aid conditionality (setting reform of the economic policy as a condition for aid),
second generation conditionality added political, including systemic, reform as a condition for
development assistance (Stokke, 1995).
However, important ideological dividing lines involving, in particular, state - market
relations and related matters (including the social dimension of development), the pendulum
was on its way back. The role of the UN system in making the pendulum swing in the late
1980 and 1990s will explored. Particular attention will be directed to its efforts to influence
the conceptualisation of development (including its measurement – the Human Development
Index) and the development agenda (including several of the thematic global conferences of
the 1990s).
The strategy for the DD4 will be a point of departure for taking stock of the development
thinking within the UN system at the verge of the 1990s – with similar questions posed as
those previously identified related to DD3. In addressing the follow up of this strategy,
emphasis will (as indicated) be on the major global conferences of the 1990s and their
outcomes (Chapter 10). Agenda 21 is an outcome of one of these global conferences and may
be integrated in this chapter. However, good arguments may be given for a separate analysis
(Chapter 11).
5.
Particular Themes
Some themes, although integrated in the general overview analysis, will be given special
attention (dealt with in separate, additional chapters). Development assistance is given a very
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
broad definition that includes a variety of activities to satisfy a broad spectrum of needs. In
the early days (and even today), its main purpose was seen to be to provide resources that
were in demand and seen to be of strategic importance for the development process
(economic growth) – basically (transfers of) financial resources and skills. The notion of
development became gradually broader than economic growth and the strategies to attain
development: contributions (by way of aid) were gradually geared towards generating
resources and skills in the countries concerned rather than transferring them. Still, capital and
skills remained critical resources. Humanitarian aid, although having a problematic of its own,
has always been strongly related to international development assistance.
The following types of aid will be given particular attention (separate chapters) for various
reasons: food aid, technical assistance, and relief aid.
In the early period, food aid made up a large share of total development assistance. Its main
challenge was to transform surpluses of food in the North into development in the South; it
was considered an additional resource in this context. These patterns have, for a variety of
reasons (Clay and Stokke, 2000a,b), changed in the last decades. A focus on food aid may
therefore throw additional light both on general trends in the international development
assistance philosophy and on the financing of these activities. Food aid (and food security)
has in recent years increasingly been considered a part of (and instrumental for) the wider
concept of human security (Chapter 12).
In addition to financial transfers (and domestic saving), transfer of technology in terms of
technical assistance was in the early days seen as the key to development. In the division of
labour between the UN (the UNDP in particular) and the development finance institutions (the
World Bank in particular), the UN system was to carry a special responsibility for technical
assistance, and the development banks for capital. The history of this relationship and how it
developed will be part of this project, as will the complex problematic of technical assistance
(and the broader problematic related to transfer of technology). There exists a vast literature
of the subject matter that needs to be synthesised, starting with theoretical perspectives.
However, given the context of this particular project, focus should be on the grand ideas and
how they have fared, as exposed in the major policies of major UN institutions (Chapter 13).
As observed earlier, international humanitarian assistance was one of the traditions from
which the idea of international development assistance emerged. It has remained part of this
assistance, as defined. Still, it has a rationale of its own and is (often, but not always)
governed and implemented by separate institutions from those handling aid for international
development. There are so many aspects of humanitarian that might deserve our attention, and
(like international development assistance) there are so many types of humanitarian aid. The
focus here will be on similarities and contradictions between these two kinds of assistance, in
terms of norms, objectives, strategies and institutions. Institutions within these two different
major traditions also compete for resources, with particular reference to ODA allocations. The
interaction between the various agencies (multilateral, bilateral and voluntary) dealing with
international development and humanitarian relief calls for special attention, with particular
reference to policy coherence (Forster and Stokke, 1999) – the achilles heel of the multilateral
system. In recent years, this interaction has been growing even more complex, with ‘new’
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
actors (including the military) entering the scene in so-called complex emergencies (Chapter
14).
The financing of international development also deserves particular attention. Evolving ideas
as to how international development should be financed, indicated in the main text, will be
explored and analysed in greater detail. Traditions varied; in some countries, governments
even introduced a tax on personal incomes earmarked for international development. Focus
will be on norms set by, in particular, the UN system and their follow up by the UN system
itself. The influence such norms carried on norms set by member governments and their
performance in this regard belongs to this picture. The targets set for development assistance
(private and public), later on for official development assistance (ODA), combined with a
plan for stepped-up budgetary allocation to meet this target at a certain point in time are core
ideas in this context.
However, there have been many other ideas, such as international taxation of international
commons (on extraction of resources, i.e. mineral resources of international sea-beds), a tax
on international transactions, including foreign exchange transactions, and the several
proposals included in the 1994 Human Development Report (UNDP, 1994). The track record
of these various suggestions will be explored: Who was proposing what for which purposes?
Which interests were involved, systemic and corporate, with the various major actors,
multilateral institutions and governments? How fared these ideas? And what were the
positions of the major actors? A performance overview will be provided (Chapter 15).
The norms that have been established to guide the relationship between donors and recipients
of aid, although integrated in the overview analysis, deserve special attention, too. As
indicated in the main overview analysis, bilateral aid donors may conceive of development
assistance as an instrument to promote national interests. Multilateral aid, in contrast, was
traditionally conceived of as politically ‘neutral’, without strings attached. However,
perceptions have changed over time, along with the experiences of first and second generation
political conditionality (Stokke, 1995). The power relationship between donors and recipients,
although complex, is characterised by asymmetry, particularly involving development
assistance. The major research questions to be addressed here are the following:
·
What norms have been guiding the UN – recipient government relationship involving
development assistance over the years, as stated and implemented? The difficult relationship
between norms and practise.
·
In what ways and to what extent have these norms deviated from those of other major
international agencies and major bilateral donors?
·
To what extent and in what ways have ‘the UN norms’ influenced the norms of other
major donors (multilateral and bilateral) in this area, with particular reference to UN member
governments?
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
The analysis will also assess and discuss implications and effects of these norms as stated and
practised (Chapter 16).
Reference has been made to several major actors in the field of international development
assistance, with particular reference to public sector actors (interstate organisations and
governments at the aid providing and recipient side). Private sector actors, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) in particular, have increasingly entered the scene, both as providers of
development assistance of their own and as channels of ODA. Again, there are so many
aspects involved that might deserve our attention. Given the context of this volume, however,
perhaps the most important question to be addressed is the following: To what extent and in
what ways has the UN system been instrumental in opening up for ‘the third system’ to get
involved in international developmental issues. In this context: What has been the interplay
between the UN system (in a narrow context, the administrative set-up) and the NGOs in
pushing issues – with particular reference to the global conferences (Chapter 17).
Before the summing-up analysis, focus will be directed to another role performed by the UN
system within this policy area as well as in other areas: setting the international agenda and
heralding ideas and policies. After a general introduction of the subject matter (ways and
means of influencing the international agenda and of disseminating of ideas), focus will be
directed to the role in this regard of the various instruments (such as global conferences,
regular and occasional publications and reports, information services, etc.). Their effects will
be assessed (Chapter 18).
The concluding analysis of the UN contribution within this policy area (Chapter 18) will
direct its attention, in particular, to the following issues and dilemmas:
·
The evolving development concept (departing from evolving development paradigms
and the evolving development strategies (for DD1-DD4).
·
The UN system as a norm-setting system involving international development
assistance. This discussion will link on to the theoretical discussion raised in the introduction
and pursued in the early chapters of the volume. With a focus on highlights.
·
The broadening of the perspectives (proliferation of objectives) in the 1980s and the
1990s: what was the role of the UN system in this process?
·
Norms and targets and their implementation. A major dilemma: what when norms are
not followed up (disillusion with the system, as well as within the system)?
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
·
The institutional aspect (inter alia, one country, one vote and one voice): implications
for the generation and fostering of ideas? Initiatives and impact of governments of developing
countries.
·
The changing development agenda: the power aspect (relating the discussion to theories
of international relations, international organisations and regime theories).
·
In spite of all changes in hegemonic development paradigms and priorities: are there to
be found some ‘constants’ (such as an emphasis on poverty alleviation, the ‘social
dimension’) in the UN thinking on international development assistance?
3. Summing Up
This study of the role of the United Nations in cultivating and promoting the idea of
international development assistance takes as its point of departure a combination of theories
of international relations with evolving theories of development, with particular emphasis on
shifting development paradigms. Organisational theory will direct the steps. The emerging
ideas and policies of international development assistance will be analysed within two major
frameworks: it is assumed that they will be an integral part of international politics and that
they will relate to development theory. The ideas and policies will, accordingly, be analysed
against the background of the evolving international situation. This analysis will depart from
predominant paradigms for the study of international relations and alternative paradigms as
well, with particular reference to development assistance. The ideas and policies will also be
related to evolving development paradigms.
The main basis for the study will be key document (reports, resolutions, debates, etc) of the
relevant institutions, mainly the UN system. Most of these sources may be found in Oslo,
where the Nobel Institute is a deposit library for UN documents, but also UN headquarters’
archives will be consulted (Geneva and New York, in particular). Such sources will be
supplemented with interviews of key actors. It goes without saying that a work of this kind
will have to rely on secondary sources, too: a vast and varied literature that deals with the big
issues as well as particular aspects of them.
4. References
Bauer, Peter T., 1971, Dissent on Development, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Bauer, Peter T., 1981, Equality, the Third World and Economic Delution, Camebridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Bauer, Peter T., 1984, Reality and Rhetoric, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Cardoso, Fernando Henrique and E. Faletto, 1969 (English edition 1979), Dependency and
Development in Latin America, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
Carter, Gordon, 1977, ‘The implications of basic services’, in Basic-needs-oriented
development strategies with special reference to UNICEF’s basic services approach,
UNICEF/EADI International Workshop, Vienna, 4-8 December 1977.
Chagula, W.K. et al. (eds.), 1977, Pugwash on Self-Reliance, New Delhi.
Chenery, Hollis and Others, 1974, Redistribution with Growth, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Clay, Edward and Olav Stokke, 2000a, ‘The Changing Role of Food Aid and Finance for
Food’, in Clay and Stokke (eds.).
Clay, Edward, and Olav Stokke, 2000b, ‘Food and Human Security: Retrospective and an
Agenda for Change’, in Clay and Stokke (eds.).
Clay, Edward and Olav Stokke (eds.), 2000, Food Aid and Human Security, London: Frank
Cass, EADI Book Series 24.
Cocoyoc Declaration, 1974, Mexico, in Chagula et al. (eds.), 1977.
Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, 1972, ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organisational
Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1.
Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, 1975, What Now – Another Development, Uppsala.
Deng, Lulal, Markus Kostner and Crawford Young (eds.), 1991, Democratization and
Structural Adjustment in Africa in the 1990s, Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison,
African Studies Program.
Djukanovic, V. and E.P. Mach (eds.), 1975, Alternative Approaches to Meeting Basic Needs
in Developing Countries, A Joint UNICEF/WHO Study, Geneva: WHO.
Emmerij, Louis, 1977, ‘Facts and fallacies concerning the basic needs approach’, in Bacicneeds-oriented development strategies with special reference to UNICEF’s basic services
approach, UNICEF/EADI International Workshop, Vienna, 4-8 December 1977.
Forster, Jacques and Olav Stokke, 1999, ‘Coherence of Policies Towards Developing
Countries: Approaching the Problematique’, in Forster and Stokke (eds.).
Forster, Jacques and Olav Stokke (eds.), 1999, Policy Coherence in Developing Co-operation,
London: Frank Cass, EADI Book Series No. 22.
Frank, André Gunder, 1967, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Historical
Studies of Chile and Brazil, New York and London: Monthley Review Press.
Galtung, Johan, 1971, ‘A Structural Theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol.
8, Oslo: Institute of Peace Research.
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
Griffin, Keith, 1991, ‘Foreign Aid after the Cold War’, Development and Change, 1991: 4,
London: Sage Publications.
Hettne, Björn, 1990, 1995 (second edition), Development Theory and the Three Worlds,
Essex: Longman.
Hoffmann, Stanley (ed.), 1960, Contemporary Theory in International Relations, New York:
Prentice Hall.
IFDA, 1978, A United Nations Development Strategy for the 80s and beyond. Participation of
the ‘Third System’ in its elaboration and implementation. A project description, Nyon,
Switzerland, January 1978.
ILO, 1976, Employment, Growth and Basic Needs: A One World Problem, New York:
Praeger.
Kay, Cristóbal, 1989, Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment,
London and New York: Routledge.
Keohane, Robert O., 1984, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O., 1993, ‘Analysis of International Regimes: Towards an EuropeanAmerican Research Programme’, in Rittberger (ed.).
Krasner, Stephen D., 1982, ‘Structural Cause and Regime Consequences: Regimes as
Intervening Variables’, International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2.
Lancaster, Carol, 1993, ‘Governance and Development: The Views from Washington’, IDS
Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 1, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Lancaster, Carol, 2000, Transforming Foreign Aid. United States Assistance in the 21st
Century, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Lumsdaine, David Halloran, 1993, Moral Vision in International Politics. The Foreign Aid
Regime, 1949-1989, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1532, Il Principe, Firenze (see, inter alia, The Prince, edited by Quentin
Skinner and Russel Price, Camebridge: Camebridge University Press).
Morgenthau, Hans, 1948, Politics Among Nations, New York, NY: Knoph.
Nerfin, Marc, 1977, ‘Introduction’, in Nerfin (ed.).
Nerfin, Marc (ed.), 1977, Another Development, Approaches and Strategies, Uppsala: Dag
Hammarskjöld Foundation.
Pearson, Lester, 1969, Partners in Development. Report of the Commission on International
Development, New York: Praeger.
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
Pratt, Cranford, 1989, ‘Humane Internationalism: Its Significance and Variations’, in Pratt
(ed.).
Pratt, Cranford, 1990, ‘Middle Power Internationalism and Global Poverty’, in Pratt (ed.).
Pratt, Cranford (ed.), 1989, Internationalism under Strain, Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Pratt, Cranford (ed.), 1990, Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension,
Kingston and Montreal: McGill Queen’s University.
Rittberger, Volker (ed.), 1993, Regimes in International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rodney, Walter, 1972, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, London: Bogle-L’Ouverture
Publications.
Rostow, Walt W., 1960, The Stages of Economic Growth, Camebridge: Cambridge
University Press.
South Commission, 1990, The Challenge to the South. The Report of the South Commission,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stokke, Olav, 1984, ‘European Aid Policies: Some Emerging Trends’, in Stokke, (ed.).
Stokke, Olav, 1989, ‘The Determinants of Aid Policies: General Introduction’, in Stokke
(ed.).
Stokke, Olav, 1995, ‘Aid and Political Conditionality: Core Issues and State of the Art’ in
Stokke (ed.).
Stokke, Olav, 1996, ‘Foreign Aid: What Now?’, in Stokke (ed.).
Stokke, Olav (ed.), 1984, European Development Assistance, Vol. I, Policies and
Performance, Tilburg: EADI Secretariat, EADI Book Series 4.
Stokke, Olav (ed.), 1989, Western Middle Powers and Global Poverty, Uppsala: The
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.
Stokke, Olav (ed.), 1995, Aid and Political Conditionality, London: Frank Cass.
Stokke, Olav (ed.), 1996, Foreign Aid Towards the Year 2000: Experiences and Challenges,
London: Frank Cass.
Toye, John, 1987, Dilemmas of Development. Reflections on the Counter-revolution in
Development Theory and Policy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
UN, 1949, Technical Assistance for Economic Development. Plan for an expanded cooperative programme through the United Nations and the specialized agencies, Report
prepared by the Secretary-General in consultation with the heads of the interested specialized
agencies through the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination pursuant to resolution 180
(VIII) of the Economic and Social Council, Lake Success, New York: United Nations (May).
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
UNICEF, 1977, A Strategy for Basic Services, New York.
Waltz, Kenneth, 1959, Man, the State and War, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth, 1979, Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.
Weiss, Thomas G. and Tatiana Carayannis, 2000, ‘The UN, its Economic and Social Ideas,
and their Agents: Towards an Analytical Framework’, paper presented at the Thirteenth
Annual Meeting of The Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) in Oslo
16-18 June, Oslo: NUPI.
Wood, Robert, 1986, From Marshall Plan to Debt Crisis: Foreign Aid and Development
Choices in the World Economy, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Young, Cranford, 1991, ‘Democratization and Structural Adjustment: A Political Overview’,
in Deng et al. (eds.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] For a background to the UNIHP project that takes stock of the common platform in terms
of perspectives and literature, see Weiss and Carayannis (2000).
[2] The concept of humane internationalism (and its various expressions) is defined in Pratt
(1989, 1990) and Stokke (1989, 1996). For a condensed discussion of the concept, see Stokke
(1996: 20-25).
[3] For a definition of ODA by the institution that sets and monitors the norms, see OECD
(latest issue of DAC annual report): ‘grants or loans: - undertaken by the official sector; - with
promotion of economic development or welfare as main objectives; - at concessional financial
terms (if a loan, at least 25 per cent grant element).’ There is also a list of countries eligible
for aid.
[4] Regime theory identifies factors of critical importance in this regard. For a mainstream
definition, see Krasner (1982: 185): ‘International regimes are defined as principles, norms,
rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
issue-area.’ According to Keohane (1993: 28) ‘regimes can be identifies by the existence of
explicit rules that are referred to in an affirmative manner by governments, even if they are
not necessarily scrupulously observed.’
[5] The roots of the realist school in international relations may be traced back to Machiavelli
(1532). The classic work in this field is Morgenthau’s seminal book Politics Among Nations
(1948). Important contributions have, later on, been made by, inter alia, Waltz (1959, 1979),
Hoffman (1960) and Keohane (1984). Although emphasis is on security interests, also
economic interests rank high in the national interest concept. It is not limited to material
concerns; the predominant ideology and basic norms are parts of the extended concept.
Within the realist paradigm, ideology may even stand out as the prime national interest in its
own right as well as for instrumental reasons: its potential to steer the actions of those under
its spell.
[6] It is up to the government to define the content of the core concept (the national interest).
In a complex society, interests may be competing and also conflicting. Whereas in the past
(remaining in the post WW2 era), foreign policy was the almost exclusive domain of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), other (sector) ministries have increasingly become actors
also on the international scene in issues for which they carry responsibility, leaving the MFA
with a co-ordinating role. In this way, domestic actors interacting with the sector ministries
become involved in foreign policy decision making – broadening the policy field and also
making it more complex. The private sector and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
have been increasingly involved in the decision-making process and even as direct foreignpolicy actors. Add to this the competing concept of the ‘nation’ with its cultural (‘ethnicity’)
connotations, which may appear as a formal or informal structure within the state or even
transcend state borders.
[7] As argued by several observers (Griffin, 1991; Lancaster, 1993, 2000), the aid policy of
the United States has from the outset been driven by security concerns. A parallel may be
drawn to the economic assistance provided to Europe after the WW2; according to Robert
Wood (1986), two major US objectives may be highlighted: the containment of communist
influence and the reintegration of the economies into an open international economic system.
[8] Cosmopolitan values constitute the foundation of humane internationalism, as defined; it
implies sensitivity to such universal rights as those included in various human rights
conventions. Within the context of North-South relations, humane internationalism implies, in
particular, a responsiveness to the needs of the South as regards social and economic
development, but it does not stop there: civil and political rights are also considered to be
universal. Within humane internationalism, such ethical considerations are combined with
what is considered to be in the best long-term interest of the Northern countries concerned related to cherished values associated with common goods such as increased equity and social
justice (welfare), stability and peace. In a North-South context, humane internationalism
‘implies an acceptance of an obligation to alleviate global poverty and to promote economic,
social and political development in the South; a conviction that a more equitable world would
be in the best long-term interest of Western, industrial nations; and the assumption that
meeting these international responsibilities is compatible with the maintenance of a socially
responsible national economic and social welfare policy. It is, as indicated, associated with a
set of objectives, such as the promotion of economic, social and political development in the
South, including the promotion of human rights over a broad spectrum (also civil and political
rights) and the alleviation of human suffering’ (Stokke, 1996:23,n7).
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
[9] The mix of ethical values and national interests varies for the main expressions of humane
internationalism, establishing a bridge towards realist approaches. Whereas the realist
approach, in its extreme form (and within a core image of states in a system of anarchy), starts
out from naked political (security) and economic national interests, humane internationalism,
in its extreme form (‘radical’), starts out from predominant values and norms. However,
contrary to the classic realist paradigm, these values and norms are not confined to the
national system, and the interests involved transcend those of the nation or state. For another
contribution that emphasises the role of values in international relations, with particular
reference to foreign aid, see Lumsdaine (1993: Chapter 1).
[10] Walt Rostow (1960) was probably the most influential among the economists who
shaped the world-view of foreign policy actors concerned with development issues in those
days. Development was seen as an endogenous process in which developing societies passed
through five stages, starting with ‘traditional’ society. The many characteristics of traditional
society had to be removed during the second stage (the pre-take-off society). Agricultural
productivity increases rapidly as subsistence farming is replaced by commercial agriculture,
the infrastructure is improved and a new class of entrepreneurs emerges in order to establish
the preconditions for the most vital phase, namely the take-off. This third phase is
characterised, in particular, by a high level of investment, resulting in an industrialisation
process in which some sectors take on a leading role. This process, where advanced
technology and skills are diffused from the leading sectors to society in general leads, in turn,
to the next stages: the road to maturity and the mass consumption society.
[11] This brief outline does not pretend to do justice to the various expressions of the
dependencia perspective, rooted in two main traditions – Marxism, in particular neo-Marxism
(Frank, 1967) and Latin American structuralism associated, in particular, with Raúl Prebisch
(Cardiso and Faletto, 1972). For an adaptation to African conditions, see Rodney (1972). For
an overview and analysis of this predominantly Latin American contribution to development
theory, see Kay (1989).
[12] The declaration on the establishment of a new international economic order (Resolution
3201 (S-VI)) and the plan of action (Resolution 3202 (S-IV)) were both adopted in the spring
of 1974 by the UN 6th Extraordinary General Assembly (being devoted to commodities and
development issues). The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States was adopted in the
autumn of 1974 by the UN General Assembly under its ordinary session. And the resolution
on development and international economic co-operation was adopted in 1975 by the 7th
Extraordinary General Assembly (A-RES/3362 (S-VII).
[13] Some Northern governments, particularly the Netherlands and the Scandinavians, made
efforts to combine the two concerns when promoting the NIEO policy (Stokke, 1984).
[14] Basic needs were interpreted in different ways. Some have defined it as what would be
required for mere survival, such as access to food, shelter and health. Others have broadened
the concept to include facilities that allow the individual to take command of his or her fate,
such as access to education and the exercise of civil and political human rights. For overviews
and definitions, see Carter (1977) and Emmerij (1977). Johan Galtung, interviewed in
Mazingira (1978:7), distinguished between four categories of basic human needs, safety,
welfare, liberty and identity, arguing that they should not be ranked, but addressed
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001
2nd MULTI-conference
2nd session: The UN system
simultaneously: material needs should not be given priority except in situations calling for
relief operations.
[15] In the mid-1970s, a large number of reports, declarations and action programmes dealing
with the general problem area associated with the basic needs approach were appearing,
providing ideas for those willing to pick them up. Important contributions include, inter alia,
the Cocoyoc Declaration (1974), and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation’s What Now?
(1975). For institutions with a fertile ground, adapting such ideas to their particular settings,
see, in particular, the studies by ILO (1976), the joint study by WHO and UNICEF
(Djucanovic and Mach (eds.), 1975), and UNICEF (1977).
[16] This group had an explicit intention of influencing the development policy of, in
particular, multilateral institutions. Its first effort, resulting in the report What Now? (1975),
was organised jointly by the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation and the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) as part of the UNEP preparations for the Seventh Special Session of the
UN General Assembly. From the very beginning, environmental concerns constituted the core
perspective. The ‘alternative development’ paradigm was elaborated in several issues of
Development Dialogue, the journal of the Uppsala-based foundation, and in a series of
dossiers (IFDA dossier). See, in particular, IFDA (1978) and Nerfin (ed.) (1977).
[17] The neo-liberal critique of structuralist development economics and the main elements of
the ‘new’ paradigm are summarised by Ian Little (1982). Prominent by the old warriors who
were still going strong was Peter T. Bauer (1971, 1981, 1984). For critical analyses, see, inter
alia, John Toye (1987, 1993) and Björn Hettne (1995).
Vettre, 18-19 January 2001