Economic Globalisation and Paradoxes
[1]
|
“The net transfer of financial resources to developing countries has been negative each and every year since 1997, according to what Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, reported to the General Assembly in 2002. In other words, money is being taken from the poor to give to the rich. The world economy is functioning like a reverse Robin Hood.” [2] “We believe that the main challenge we are facing today is to ensure that globalisation remains a positive force for all people in the world.” [3] Summary Technological development, market integration, and free movement of goods, capital, and labour have resulted in enormous opportunities for human development and the uprooting of many maladies of humankind such as poverty and hunger. Current trends in the world, however, indicate that the benefits of economic globalisation are unevenly distributed and that they stimulate discrimination and inequality. Thanks to neoliberal politics based on gathering profit at any cost, paradoxes in the form of bigger gaps between the rich and the poor are intensified. Key words: globalisation, neoliberalism, poverty, poverty feminisation, labour force feminisation, human rights based development. Introduction Despite more and more numerous theories and concepts about globalisation, one of the topics most discussed at the beginning of the 21st century, agreement on a clear and generally acceptable definition of this phenomenon has still not been reached. Various authors approach consideration and analysis of this process from various standpoints and fields, such as economics, politics, political economy, sociology, culture, technology, communication, information, etc. [4] What is common to these approaches is the understanding that globalisation refers to the intensification of social and economic relations across state borders, the consequence of which leads to tighter and higher mutual impact of global and local events. In this paper, globalisation will, above all, refer to the economic aspects resulting from the economic integration of nations, regions, and markets characterising today’s world globally and regionally. Dominant political trends shaping economic aspects of globalisation include trade liberalisation, the deregulation of various activities of nations and other players, the privatisation of state functions and services, and the appearance and intensified impact of new powerful international players at the economic level, such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation, transnational corporations, multinational companies, and informal groups such as G7 and G8. Basic trends that currently shape macroeconomics start from the neoliberal point of view, meaning complete freedom of movement of goods, capital, and services, the decrease in public expenditures for social services, deregulation in any area that may contribute to profit decrease, privatisation, and the elimination of the concept of public property. Globalisation is driven by neoliberal economic policy, which is the current political choice of international financial institutions, governments, and other international players. Globalisation and Poverty Statistical indicators and UNDP studies [5] in recent years indicate that the prevailing trend of economic globalisation resulted in the extension of the gap between the rich and the poor – both between developed and underdeveloped countries, and among particular social classes within individual countries and regions, including the richest parts of the world. The ratio of income between the top fifth of the world’s population according to income and the lowest fifth was 30:1 in 1960, 60:1 in 1990, and 74:1 in 1999. [6] In the period from 1979 to 1997, the income of 60% of the world’s population decreased; 20% of the population achieved a modest income increase; the 20% at the top income levels achieved a drastic income increase. In 1999, 68-86% of the world’s gross domestic product, goods and services exports, and direct foreign investments, belonged to the richest group, while the lowest one-fifth achieved only 1%. In this year, the index of humane development applied in the UNDP Report of Humane Development for the first time decreased in 30 countries of the world, illustrating the trend of the increase of absolute poverty. In the late 1990s, the 200 richest people in the world doubled the value of their property in only a few years. The income of the three richest people in the world exceeds the GDP of all of the poorest countries of the world with a total population of over 600 million. The richest 1% has more income that 57% of the poorest. In this period, the fifth of the world’s population living in the highest-income countries had: 82% of the world’s export markets – the bottom fifth just 1%; , 68% of foreign direct investments – the bottom fifth just 1%; 74% of world telephone lines – the bottom fifth just 1,5%,and were 93% of Internet users – the bottom fifth just 0,2%. On the other hand, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty. [7] Poverty as a Violation of Human Rights The analysis of globalisation’s effect on poverty first requires definition of poverty. Poverty used to be defined as the lack of material property or of resources for the acquisition of property. Today, poverty is viewed in much wider terms, which also include the lack of opportunities to achieve dignity in life, such as involvement in decision making and the availability of resources and mechanisms for achieving and protecting human rights. The concept of poverty is not explicitly included in the main international human rights conventions that are the basis of international human rights law. However, it is certain that poverty reduce the opportunity of people to enjoy their basic human rights. Illiterate or insufficiently educated people, who have no housing and inadequate food are unable to be involved in decision making regarding their destiny and in the rule of their country. The achievement of civil and political rights means much more than satisfaction of basic human’s needs; it includes the availability of information, education, health care, and ways to satisfy cultural needs. Poverty is not the problem of an individual and his/her (in)competence to “manage” but it is the violation of basic human rights, [8] which are the responsibility not only borne by a State, according to traditional understanding of human rights law. This responsibility is also borne by new international actors that have priority in making decisions and in managing global, national, and regional activities. These international actors include, for example, international organisations, transnational corporations, and international financial institutions [9] . The result of this prevailing concept is the formulation of the right to control transnational corporations in the third generation of human rights, which is a formulation contributed by the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, that also created, and in August 2003 adopted, the “Draft Norms of the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises Regarding Human Rights” [10] . Starting from the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993, the promotion and protection of human rights and basic freedoms have been considered to be UN priority objectives in accordance with UN objectives and principles, especially regarding international cooperation. From that date, the connection between the poverty and human rights has been acknowledged. The UN Committee for Human Rights and its Sub-Committee have started to support the human rights based approach to poverty. [11] The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights expressed its regret that poverty reduction policies rarely take into account human rights dimensions of poverty, since such an approach may intensify and make strategies for decreasing poverty much more efficient. [12] The Committee adopted a wider concept of poverty, defining it as “human condition characterised by sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. While acknowledging that there is no universally accepted definition, the Committee endorses this multi-dimensional understanding of poverty, which reflects the indivisible and interdependent nature of all human rights.” (para. 8). [13] In the context of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Committee identified the rights that are directly related to decreasing poverty. Those are the rights to work, an appropriate living standard, accommodation, food, health, and education. Further, the Committee estimated that the basic elements of a successful strategy against poverty are those that create the basis of a normative framework of human rights: non-discrimination, equality, participation in public life, and responsibility. Banning discrimination and achieving the right to equality refer to all rights of individuals and marginalised and socially excluded groups. The above-mentioned presents only the beginning of UN activities to extend the understanding of poverty viewed in the context of human rights. Therefore, Special Rapporteurs, and independent experts have been appointed to research particular issues regarding poverty, such as extreme poverty, income distribution, the programmes of structural adjustment, and globalisation. Poverty Reduction as a Millennium Development Goal The UN have decided that the struggle against poverty is one of the basic activities of the UN, the international community, and UN member countries for the 21st century. [14] One objective accepted is to decrease, to half of the 1990 level, the number of the poor suffering from hunger and living with less than USD 1 of income per day by 2015. In his last UN report on the achievement of Millennium Development Goals, Kofi Annan, UN General Secretary, emphasised that for the first time in its history humankind has the necessary resources and knowledge to reduce poverty and hunger; nevertheless, the realisation of this objective mostly depends on achieving fair development. [15] Despite the current trend of poverty rates decreasing in transitioning countries in contrast to rapid poverty increases in the 1990s, the point of concern is that poverty increased in 37 out of 67 poor countries. Accordingly to the average worldwide trend, hunger in the world is slowly but certainly decreasing; [16] nevertheless, reason for concern comes from the big regional inequalities and the fact that in the 1990s there was both a huge excess of food production and an increase in the number of underfed children in Asia and Africa (up to 50% in South-Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa). This is primarily the consequence of structural effects, such as long-term economic and agrarian policies, the bad and subordinated positions of women, social inequalities, and endemic conflicts. [17] Globalisation, Banning Discrimination, and the Right to Equality In 2000 the UN Commission on Human Rights decided to nominate as Special Rapporteurs [18] to undertake a study on the issue of globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights. In their Report, they concluded that it was fairly evident that the phenomenon of globalization, the processes and institutional frameworks through which it was propagated, and its multifaceted nature have numerous implications for the promotion and protection of all human rights. This implies that there is a need for a critical reconceptualization of the policies and instruments of international trade, investment and finance. [19] Of course, it would be absurd to say that globalisation created inequality and discrimination. However, globalisation has caused global conditions of inequality and discrimination to worsen [20] . To confirm this statement, one only needs to see statistics [21] and analyse, for example, the use of the Internet as the indicator of resource availability and ask who is in the loop, as UNDP did [22] . Yet even if telecommunications systems are installed and accessible, without literacy and basic computer skills people will have little access to the network society. In 1995 adult literacy was less than 40% in 16 countries, and primary school enrolments less than 80% in 24 countries. Current access to Internet runs along the fault lines of national societies, dividing educated from illiterate, men from women, rich from poor, young from old, urban from rural. National Internet surveys in 1998 and 1999 revealed that income buys access, ethnicity counts, educated, men and youth dominate. [23] This also refers to telecommunication presenting the framework for modern globalisation. Important characteristics of telecommunication use and availability are gender, language, geographical coordinates, and income levels. Apart from these indicators, globalisation also creates a gap between urban and rural populations and further contributes to the intensification of the gap between those who have and have not. In the areas with a majority of rural people, such as is the case on the African continent, the fact is that globalisation has not resulted in improvement of the quality of life. [24] Opening markets, removing customs barriers, and liberalizing trade do not guarantee that everyone will gain benefits from these changes. On the contrary, current trends and effects of these policies indicate that they benefit the big and rich (markets, states, regions, individuals, etc.) to the detriment of the small and poor (markets, states, regions, individuals, etc.). It is a paradox that growing integration, one of globalisation’s features, is of very little benefit to those who provide significant contribution to the creation of property and resources: workers and especially migrants. Today, migrants represent an “invisible state” within the European Union and the industrially developed countries of North America. Uniting the EU market has stimulated the mobility of labour in the entire territory of Europe. Despite the fact that EU member states’ economies are based to great extent on the use of this cheap, flexible, and available labour force, these workers are an unprotected population, whose rights are protected neither by the legislation of their states of residence nor by their home countries. Migrants are more and more faced with various limitations: they may not vote in local and national elections; they may not establish their associations; and in many countries they may not be employed in the public sector. [25] The lack of relevant legal protection increases the insecurity of work in formal positions; therefore, more migrants move from the field of formal work to the informal sector or to temporary and part-time jobs without any security regarding appropriate salaries and adequate safety at work. The fact that the majority of migrants do not belong to the white race clearly indicates the racial and discriminatory nature of this issue, invisible in the official policy of those countries [26] . Globalisation has not only reinforced traditional inequality between North and South, but also within the North, in the countries which are traditionally supposed to be the main beneficiaries of globalisation. In Canada, at the top of the UNDP human development index, the income of the 5 million poorest families decreased by 5% on average during the 1990s, while the income of the richest increased by 7%. Similar trends have occurred in Germany, Italy, and other developed economies, while Scandinavian countries face stronger pressures for decreasing expenditures on welfare and social activities. As for Western countries, poverty is most widespread and present in the USA. As many as 68 million Americans, i.e. every fourth one, lives in poverty; 2 million Americans are homeless; in the 1990s the income of the richest one-fifth of Americans increased by 83%, while the income of the poorest one-fifth decreased by 14%. [27] It is a paradox that increasing wealth and improvement resulting from globalisation and integration leads to growth in inequality and discrimination. Globalisation’s Impact on Women’s Positions The paradoxes of the globalisation are nowhere more apparent than in relation to the impact of globalisation on the gender relations and on the plight of women in particular. This is the observation that was particularly stressed in the Preliminary report of special Rapporteurs, J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama on the impact of globalisation on achieving and enjoying human rights. [28] In order to analyse this impact, particular factors related to globalisation should be determined and observed regarding their impact on women’s positions, including isolation of other factors that also produce changes and effects, but are not directly related to globalisation. Numerous studies [29] in this field still unambiguously indicate that globalisation has impacted women’s positions, where the effects have varied depending on nation, region, and social class. The general impression is that the impact of globalisation on women has both positive and negative aspects. For example, the foundation of new factories in export-oriented branches may create new opportunities of women’s employment and thus create their income sources and basis to achieve economic independence. On the other hand, the significant increase in women’s share of the labour force in developing countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Philippines has been followed by average salaries decreases, less favourable labour conditions, and rising insecurity, thus creating conditions for the increase of poverty. [30] Globalisation has both positive and negative effects on women in developed countries, too (Bakker, 1999: 32). Dominant policies that shape globalisation have been barely successful in stimulating economic development and decreasing inflation in many rich countries, while, on the other hand, they have contributed to growing income polarisation, social exclusion, and growth in unemployment rates. The decreasing role of state welfare and social security systems have resulted in the transfer of these roles from the public (governmental) sector to markets or families. This has gradually resulted in the increased burden on women to perform these activities, including a growing trend of transferring women from the formal to the informal economy. Economic systems based on profit often gain it at the expense of women’s labour. [31] In many studies, globalisation is also related to growing exploitation of women in the form of trafficking of women for prostitution, especially in the countries characterised by accelerated transformation in order to adopt a market economic model. [32] Thanks to the increased number of feminist researchers, it has been shown that all aspects of economic globalisation, such as international trade, unemployment, employment, global management, international resources, foreign debts, and poverty, have gender dimensions, i.e. that they produce different effects on men versus on women. This is reflected both in their economic and social positions in societies and families and in their opportunities for achieving and enjoying civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights and protection. One study by the UN has confirmed the fact that industrialisation under the umbrella of globalisation is oriented as much to using women’s labour as it is to exporting. [33] Women have taken over the labour market in the majority of countries that have accepted a liberal economic policy. The overall economic activity rate of women between ages 20 and 54 in 1996 approached 70% in paid work [34] . Among the newly industrializing countries, where manufacturing has been heavily oriented toward export, the share of women workers in such industries has increased substantially. [35] This is especially the case with export areas and special economic areas where labour-intensive industries have moved into developing countries to find cheap labour thanks to foreign investments and free movement of capital. In branches, such as leather, textiles, footwear, and computer production, that require semi-skilled labour, investors have, as a rule, given advantage to women when employing people. At the same time, those are labour-intensive branches with low salaries. Compared to the growth of industrial products exported from the Northern, more developed countries, the employment growth recorded in developing countries had been proportionately greater in the labour-intensive, low-salaried industries. Racing to attract foreign capital, many countries, especially developing ones, decrease their legal minimum wage, working standards, and work safety, while also introducing tax deductions for investors that have negative effects on the baseline regarding the possibility for employees and job seekers to achieve economic and social rights. When creating comparative advantages that would attract investments, labour force costs decrease. States loose their standards in the field of labour legislation; therefore, full-time employment is more and more replaced by temporary and part-time jobs explaining this as labour flexibility designed to increase employment. The truth is, however, that such policies benefit large capital owners who in this way get facilitated access to cheap labour, cost decreases, and high profit gains. In this sense, a tighter connection is created between trade liberalisation and cheaper labour, which becomes mostly a women’s labour force. [36] The phenomenon of demand for a cheaper labour force results in the increase of internal and external women’s migration, and their vulnerability makes them easily available for exploitation, both in work and sexually. A high number of under-educated and rural women, especially young ones, migrates to towns and developed countries in search of work. Within a migrant population, which is already a marginalised social group, women make up the most vulnerable part for whom almost all mechanisms of human rights protection are unavailable. In Asia, where there are large population migrations, the ratio of women to men among Philippines migrants is 12:1, and among Indonesians it is 3:1. Many of those women are housewives, nurses, shop assistants, restaurant and shop workers, and entertainers in sex and other entertainment industries. Despite the fact that they get the opportunity to earn more than at home, these women are unprotected and exposed to high rates of exploitation and social and working insecurity. To high extent, this is facilitated by the countries that accept migrants, for they do not provide the possibility for enjoyment and protection of economic and social rights. The growth of the informal economic sector magnifies the problem that the traditional mechanisms protecting equality, rights, and benefits enjoyed by employees within the formal sector are not applied to those working within the informal economy. Insecure market conditions cause family incomes to decrease, often because men lose their jobs, putting more pressure on women to find or keep jobs in the labour force even when they prefer not to do so. Those who may not find a job within the formal economy, often because they do not possess relevant education and working experience, are forced to turn to the informal sector, where working conditions are even worse. Transnational companies who enter new markets characterised by high level of informal economy have found out that employment workers in temporary or part-time jobs significantly decreases their expenses. The result of this is another paradox of current globalisation: the growth of poverty among the employed. Conclusions The neoliberal model of economic globalisation further deepens historical and existing inequalities according to ethnicity, gender, , and economics within and among states, thus impeding the possibility of establishing sustainable and equitable development for all. Multilateral institutions, including World Bank, IMF, and WTO, stimulate the type of globalisation dominated by trade liberalism and the privatisation of everything, including services. Such a globalisation model and way of stimulating economic growth has resulted in the aggravation of economic, social, and cultural conditions in which the most sensitive groups live, and it has contributed to the growth of poverty and social exclusion. [37] The related phenomenon of economic globalisation and poverty expansion is the increased insecurity of individuals, groups, and states in various domains: economic, financial, cultural, employment equality, social, health care, ecological, political, and personal. The liberalisation of finance, trade, investment, and technology since the 1970s has resulted in a faster capital flow than in any previous periods. It has resulted in unimagined economic and technological opportunities for individuals. At the same time, it has contributed to the creation of conditions where less people may enjoy the benefits of economic globalisation. Trade liberalisation produces a series of consequences such as:
Unless care is taken to eliminate exploitation and discrimination, globalisation can result in the marginalisation and social exclusion of whole areas of the world and social groups such as women, the disabled, the aged, migrants, etc. While many people are benefiting from new communication technologies, new levels of wealth through increased investment, trade and capital flow, other are left behind, in poverty, effectively marginalized from the hopes that globalisation holds out. [38] The concentration of financial power results in the concentration of political power held by fewer people. The centres of decision making and creating world policy move from international institutions such as the UN to informal power centres, such as G7 and G8. For many authors, the solution is to move from neoliberal model of economy based on profit and market fundamentalism to human rights based development. [39] Why is this important? Because currently prevailing political trends shaping globalisation further deepen inequality, poverty, and conflicts, and thus disable sustainable development and the achievement of economic and social rights by a large majority of people. Many lose opportunities to take part in making decisions and controlling their own environments and resources. Unless the benefits of social and economic development are extended to all countries, a growing number of people in all countries and even entire regions will remain marginalized from the global economy. A review of the global economy as it functions within the framework of the policies of the international financial institutions will assist in establishing the extent to which an enabling environment supportive of the enjoyment of human rights exists. The global economy is one aspect in the creation of social and international order conducive to the enjoyment of human rights. A just, and efficient social order must also exist at the national level. Therefore, good governance is an essential element. [40] The basic principles that should provide this goal are:
Human rights may not either be achieved or protected without appropriate national and international legal frameworks, including effective institutions and mechanisms at national and international levels and material resources. At the global level, this objective may not be achieved without designing and implementing mechanisms that would provide control and responsibilities for protection of human rights for all state and non-state actors, including corporate responsibility of international financial institutions and multinational corporations. References: 1. Bakker, Isabella. 1999. Globalisation and Human Development in the Rich Countries: Lessons from Labour Market and Welfare States, in: Globalisation with a Human Face, Background paper, Vol. II 2. Beynon, J. and Dunkerley, D. (eds). 2001. Globalization: The Reader, New York: Routledge. 3. Çagatay, N., Elson, D. and C. Grown (Eds.). 1995. World Development, Vol 23 No 11, Special issue on ‘Gender and macroeconomics’. 4. Global Fund for Women. 2003. More Than Money: Strategies to Build Women's Economic Power, Impact Report no. 1: Economic Opportunity Initiative 5. Smith, G. and Naím, M. 2000. Altered States: Globalization, Sovereignty and Governance, Ottawa: International Development Research Council 6. ILO. 1996. Globalization of the Footwear, Textiles and Clothing Industries, Geneva: ILO 7. ILO. 1998. Labour and social issues relating to export processing zones, Report for discussion in the Tripartite Meeting of Export-Processing Zone-Operating Countries, Geneva: ILO. 8. ILO. 2002. ILO Activities on the Social Dimension of Globalization: Synthesis Report, Geneva: ILO. 9. Karadenizli, Maria. 2002. «Instruments for Engendering Trade Agreements», Instruments for Gender Equality in Trade Agreements, July 2002. Brussels: WIDE 10. Preliminary Report of the Secretary-General, Globalization and its impact on full enjoyment of human rights, UN General Assembly fifty-fifth session, A/55/342 11. Skogly, S. 2001. The Human Rights Obligations of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, London: Cavendish Publishing Limited. 12. Social Watch. 2003. Report 2003: The Poor and the Market, Montevideo, Urugvay: Social Watch 13. Stichele, M. 1997. «Gender mapping the EU’s Common Trade Policy», A Women in Development Europe (WIDE) Report, Brussels: WIDE 14. UNDP. 1999. Human Development Report 1999, New York: Oxford University Press. 15. UNDP. 2000. Human Development Report 2000, New York: Oxford University Press. 16. UNDP. 2003. Human Development Report 2003, New York: Oxford University Press. 17. UNDP, UNOHCHR, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. 1998. Human Development and Human Rights, Report on the Oslo Symposium, Oslo 18. UNIFEM. 2000. Progress of the World’s Women 2000. New York: UNIFEM. 19. United Nations. 1999. 1999 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Globalization, Gender and Work, United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.99.IV.8 20. WIDE. 1999. Gender, Trade and Rights: Moving Forward. Brussels: WIDE. 21. WIDE. 2000. From Seattle to Beijing+5: How Can Women’s Economic Human Rights be Safeguarded in Times of Globalization? The Impact of Macroeconomy on Women, Brussels: WIDE Temida © 2003 http://www.vds.org.yu
[1] Published in Serbian in the Journal of the Victimology Society of Serbia Temida No.4/2003: 15-22. [2] Social Watch. 2003. Report 2003: The Poor and the Market, Montevideo, Uruguay, p. 9. [3] UN Millennium Declaration, I.5. (A/RES/55/2). [4] Beynon, J. and Dunkerley, D. (eds) (2001), Globalization: The Reader, Oxford University Press. [5] UNDP. 1999. Human Development Report 1999, New York: Oxford University Press. [6] Ibidem, p. 3. [7] Ibidem. [8] Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN doc. E/C.12/2001/10, para. 1. [9] Further: Skogly, S. 2001. The Human Rights Obligations of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, London, Cavendish Publishing Limited. [10] To read more see: http://www.hrw.org/corporations/ [11] UN Committee on Human Rights Resolution 2001/31 (“Human Rights and Extreme Poverty”), UN Sub-Committee for Human Rights Resolution 2001/8 (“The Application of Existing Norms of Human Rights and Standards in the Context of Struggling Extreme Poverty”). [12] Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN doc. E/C.12/2001/10, para. 2 [13] Ibidem, para. 8 [14] A/RES/55/2 [15] Implementation of the UN Millennium Declaration, Report of the Secretary-General, General Assembly, fifty-eighth session, Follow-up of the Millennium Summit, A/58/323, September 2, 2003, p. 9. [16] Ibid. p. 19. [17] Ibid. p. 10. [18] Mr. J. Oloka-Onyango and Ms. Deepika Udagama. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13 [19] Ibid. para. 62. [20] Preliminary report of special Rapporteurs, J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama on the impact of globalisation on achieving and enjoying human rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13), para. 26 [21] UNDP. 2000. Human Development Report 2000, New York: Oxford University Press; UNDP. 2003. Human Development Report 2003, New York: Oxford University Press; Social Watch. 1999. No. 3; Social Watch. 2003. Report 2003: The Poor and the Market, Montevideo. [22] UNDP. 1999. Human Development Report 1999, New York: Oxford University Press. pp.63-66. [23] “The typical Internet user worldwide is male, under 35 years old, with a college education and high income, urban-based and English-speaking – a member of a very elite minority worldwide. The consequence? The network society is creating parallel communications systems: one for those with income, education and – literally – connections, (…); the other for those without connections, blocked by high barriers of time, cost and uncertainty and dependent on outdated information (…) The voices and concerns of people already living in human poverty – lacking incomes, education and access to public institutions – are being increasingly marginalized.” Ibidem, p. 63. [24] Ibid. p. 62. [25] Preliminary report of special Rapporteurs, J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama on the impact of globalisation on achieving and enjoying human rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13), para. 28. [26] Ibidem. [27] Data and statistics from: UNDP. 2000. Human Development Report 2000, New York: Oxford University Press; UNDP. 2003. Human Development Report 2003, New York: Oxford University Press; Social Watch. 1999. Report No. 3; Social Watch. 2003. Report 2003: The Poor and the Market. [28] E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13, para.30-40. [29] United Nations. 1999. World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Globalization, Gender and Work, (United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.99.IV.8); UNIFEM (2000), Progress of the World’s Women 2000. New York: UNIFEM; WIDE (1999), Gender, Trade and Rights: Moving Forward. Brussels: WIDE [30] WIDE (2000), From Seattle to Beijing+5: How Can Women’s Economic Human Rights be Safeguarded in Times of Globalization? The Impact of Macroeconomy on Women, Brussels: WIDE [31] Report by Radhika Coomaraswamy, special rapporteur for violence against women, their causes and effects (UN doc. E/CN.4/1995/42, para. 55). [32] Report by Radhika Coomaraswamy, special rapporteur for violence against women, their causes and effects (UN doc. E/CN.4/2000/68). [33] United Nations, 1999 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Globalization, Gender and Work, (United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.99.IV.8) [34] ILO(1996b), Globalization of the Footwear, Textiles and Clothing Industries, Geneva: ILO [35] United Nations, 1999 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Globalization, Gender and Work, (United Nations Publication, Sales No. E.99.IV.8), para. 103-104. [36] Karadenizli, M. 2002. “Instruments for Engendering Trade Agreements”, Instruments for Gender Equality in Trade Agreements, July 2002, Brussels: WIDE. [37] Further on the impact of the privatisation of services to the poor and women in: Social Watch. 2003. Report 2003: The Poor and the Market, Montevideo. [38] Preliminary Report of the Secretary-General, Globalization and its impact on full enjoyment of human rights, UN General Assembly fifty-fifth session, A/55/342, para 6. [39] Further: UNDP, UNOHCHR, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Human Development and Human Rights, Report on the Oslo Symposium, October 23, 1998. [40] See: Preliminary Report of the Secretary-General, Globalization and its impact on full enjoyment of human rights, UN General Assembly fifty-fifth session, A/55/342; Preliminary report of special Rapporteurs, J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama on the impact of globalisation on achieving and enjoying human rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13),
|
 |
