|
|
|
Ethical Critique
In summary, the first critique of SAP does not argue against the necessity
of major efforts at restructuring. Rather it points to a number of
econ-omic flaws in the design of a programme that is supposed to have the
long-term effect of promoting good development.
The second criticism of SAP is the ethical critique. It looks beyond
economic matters and asks what is happening to people, especially to the
poor. What are the lines followed by this ethical critique?
To begin with, SAP is a programme whose burden is not equitably shared in
the wider society. Instead, the burden of economic reform and transition is
shouldered primarily by those who are already suffering, the poor majority
in a country. SAP removes subsidies and the poor feel that; SAP cuts social
services and the poor feel that; SAP retrenches workers and those three
women who no longer make tea in the morning for the minister do not have a
job to feed their families; SAP removes price controls and families on
limited incomes eat less; SAP curtails credit and small entrepreneurs find
it difficult to get loans.
Clearly, SAP is a programme that weighs heaviest on those who are already
suffering. The rich do not feel the pinch. In Zambia, the people are
frequently told: "It is necessary to tighten your belts". But most Zambians
are so poor that they do not even have belts!
Moreover, SAP bears down on the poor with its austerity programmes in order
that the Government can get enough money to pay back at least the interest
it owes on its debts. But this raises a central ethical question.
A major portion of the debt accumulated in Africa and the rest of the
developing world has its origin in rising interest rates. The chief
influence on the increase of interest rates has been the spending of
Northern countries, most particularly the spending of the United States in
the 1980's.
When the US went heavily into deficit spending because of President
Reagan's extravagant military budget, it approached the capital markets.
Its heavy borrowing then caused a major increase of the interest rate.
Now the ethical question is: Why should poor developing countries now
suffer because of the economic interests of the United States?
A second ethical question arises out of the decisions of African
Governments to go into debt. Who made these decisions and why? Frequently
the military dictators and the presidents for life borrowed heavily without
the consent of the people in order to maintain their grip on power. What
ethical defence can be made for demanding that the poor majority of these
countries now be made to suffer in order that these debts be repaid?
In its 1986 statement, "An Ethical Approach to the International Debt
Question", the Vatican's Justice and Peace Commission stated, "Debt
servicing cannot be allowed to strangle a country's economy, no Government
can morally demand of its people privations incompatible with human
dignity". Just how ethical is it to impose the hardships of SAP on the poor
of Africa in order to assure that the banking interests of the rich
countries is stabilised?
Alternatives to SAP
Given these economic and ethical critiques of SAP, the obvious question
arises: are there any alternatives to SAP? The response is YES? Yes, there
are alternatives to the present implementation of rigid SAP policies
throughout the continent of Africa.
As has been emphasised previously in this ar-ticle, there is no question
that restructuring needs to be done, that economic reform is necessary in
Africa.
But because there is a genuine question about SAP's impact on long-term
progress in sustainable and equitable development, alternative thinking
needs to be encouraged. Discussion of possible alternatives should not be
dismissed out-of-hand, as was done a few years ago when the United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa proposed an "African Alternative Framework
for Structural Adjustment Programmes".
The alternatives that should be discussed relate to (1) the timing, content
and direction of economic reforms, and (2) the approach taken to
alleviating the negative impact of reforms on the poor and the most
vulnerable.
Timing, Content, Direction
Regarding the timing, there is a call for better phasing in of reforms so
that there are not sudden and disastrous shocks to the fragile economies.
For example, removal of subsidies on basic foods should not go forward
until some safety nets are in place to help the poorest. Or trade barriers
should not be liberalised overnight without concern being shown for
struggling local businesses that might need time to adjust.
Regarding the content, the approach of economic reform should pay attention
to development issues. Perhaps a Government should say, "Yes, we need to
retrench workers from the unproductive para-statals". But does this same
Government have in place any programmes to generate employment
opportunities in other sectors of the economy? And what about agricultural
development to feed the people of the country? Economic restructuring
should surely promote the opportunity for people to work and to eat - not
the opposite!
Moreover, the direction of SAP should not continue to be "top-down", in the
belief - simply without any foundation in past experiences in either
industrialised or developing countries - that prosperity will
"trickle-down" as the rich get richer.
Rather the direction should be from the "bottom-up", involving the poor in
renewed productive development efforts.
Treatment of the Poor
How the poor are treated during the period of economic reform also needs to
be addressed in an alternative fashion if real development is to occur.
Presently, there has been a delayed and seriously inadequate "welfare"
approach to the poor. Social programmes are "tacked-on" to the economic
reform programmes.
Those who are vulnerable to the impact of SAP are given emergency
assistance.
Safety-net programmes are devised to cushion the impact of rising prices
and declining jobs. Welfare assistance is offered to those who cannot
afford fees for social services.
But under this approach the poor are seen as objects to receive welfare to
alleviate their sufferings. They are not seen as subjects to participate in
the productive renewal of the economy. For example, what is needed is an
approach similar to the "Reconstruction and Development Programme" being
attempted by the new South African Government. Jobs are generated and
skills are trained in and through a systematic commitment to rebuilding the
infrastructure of housing, schools, transport, etc. This is an
alternative approach to economic reform that really builds for the
future!
Frequently, the strict implementation of SAP is defended and any
alternatives are rejected on the basis of saying that while there are
present sufferings there will be future gains. It is like the doctor who
dispenses chloroquine for malaria, and says: "This tastes bad, but it will
keep you healthy". Economists who support SAP will say. "Yes, there are
hardships in the short-term but in the long-term things will be better".
But as Lord Keynes, the great British economist said, "In the long-term, we
will all be dead!" And it appears that in the short-term under SAP, we all
might be dead!
Conclusion
Africa must meet African problems. That point is clear. But it cannot do
this unless some significant changes occur in the economic policies of the
Northern industrialised countries. That is why the Bishops participating in
the African Synod (April 1994) made such a strong appeal to their
counterparts in the North to challenge Governments to cancel debts, improve
conditions of trade, and provide more effective aid.
Similarly, at the United Nations Summit for Social Development (March
1995), the rich countries were challenged to reorient their economic
policies in order to promote progress in more genuine and lasting social
improvement in peoples' lives. One of the commitments signed at the Summit
meeting in Copenhagen was for the Governments to ensure "that when
structural adjustment programmes are agreed to, they include social
development goals, in particular eradicating poverty, promoting full and
productive employment and enhancing social integration".
When the Zambian Bishops wrote in 1993 a powerful Pastoral Letter
criticising their Government's implementation of SAP, they challenged the
fact that the World Bank, the IMF and some donor countries were praising
Zambia for strictly following the SAP conditions. They noted that Zambia
was frequently being described in the media as "doing well" in implementing
its economic reform programme. "But we have to ask", the Bishops said, "who
is Zambia"? In the light of the human suffering described above, what
Zambia are they talking about when they say, "Zambia is doing well"?
In evaluating SAP's operations and impact on the African continent, that is
the central question we should be asking: who is benefiting? What is
happening to the people, especially to the poor?
Ref: New People, n. 37, July - August 1995.