You are in the MOST Phase I website (1994-2003). The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most.

	Repenser le Développement. En finir avec la pauvreté by Henri Bartoli, UNESCO/Ed. Economica, 1999, also available in English
	Droit de tous au développement, by Daniel Vernet, in Le Monde, 25 November 1999 (French)

In his address to the Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development in March 1995, the Director-General of UNESCO stated about development strategies that "We have an unfinished agenda that requires a new strategy to implement, and we have a new set of priorities to address. We must jointly decide what destination we wish to reach". The crisis which started in the Summer of 1997 in Asia is considered as the worst in fifty years and the world economy is practically back to a 1930s-like situation. This situation shows that the "new strategies to address a new set of priorities" Federico Mayor was calling for three years ago, have not been implemented. The policies that the international system has been promoting and imposing are either insufficient, or worse, generating more poverty than development; the conditions tied to the loans given to developing countries, the "externality" of the human resources, the "trap" of privatization and the concentration of power in the private sector, with the concomitant weakening of the State and public services have disrupted the equilibrium between the State, the society and the market. Economic growth policies have been producing deep societal crises, more inequality and more poverty, while the root causes of such problems remain unattended. Investment in the single most powerful engine of development — endogenous capacity-building and human resource development — remain insufficient.  UNESCO's Position Paper for the World Summit for Social Development reaffirmed that "development is a human right", "development and peace are intimately linked" and called for a "radically new approach to development policies".  The current crisis is yet another historical evidence that, in the absence of ethical principles and adequate regulation, the capitalist market economy is not sustainable. Indeed, the latest (and hopefully last) imposition of the self-regulating market, which is collapsing (as it did in the 1930s), lasted less than two decades.  The international community has been debating upon renewing the paradigm of development. The Rio (1992) and Cairo (1994) Conferences highlighted ecological and demographic parameters. The Copenhagen Summit (1995) called for the full consideration of the social dimension and the Beijing Conference (1995) was devoted to the role of women in development. The Istanbul Conference (1996) debated on the future of urban territories, where two-thirds of humanity will be living in the twenty-first century. The message from these UN Conferences was that development is at once economic, social, ecological and cultural (as it is stressed in the Action Plan of UNESCO's Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development held in Stockholm in March 1998). The ethical imperative is, as the Director-General of UNESCO said at the Copenhagen Summit, "Human beings are both the means and ends of development".  In implementing the Copenhagen Programme of Action on Social Development, UNESCO's actions have been putting the emphasis on the following dimensions, as outlined in the Director-General's Position Paper presented in Copenhagen, as well as in the Medium-Term Strategy for 1996-2001 of UNESCO: the appropriation and exercize of human rights as a guiding principle of development; endogenous capacity-building and human resource development, through education at all levels and throughout life; democratic and participatory governance; the incorporation of cultural factors in development strategies; environmental awareness and harnessing science and technology for development. Indeed, comprehensive action in these areas are needed to work towards reaching the three objectives of the Copenhagen Summit: from unemployment to employment; from poverty to welfare, and from social exclusion to social integration.  The globalization of the economic financial and technological processes requires a holistic reassessment of the global economic system and development strategies. As the "Brasilia Consensus" ("The Declaration of the Regional Summit for Political Development and Democratic Principles", 6 July 1997) adopted under the auspices of UNESCO's DEMOS programme stated, nations must conclude "A new pact on global governance ... for peace, and to make international economic flows equitable, control financial speculation and democratize communications, so that a system of shared development may be constructed". The recent UNESCO Report to the United Nations General Assembly on the Culture of Peace stressed that there must be a "commitment to full participation in the process of equitably meeting the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations", based on the principles of inclusive development and shared responsibilities towards "eliminating poverty and sharp inequalities within and between nations and promoting participatory sustainable human development", through "democratic participation and the empowerment of people". Development is inseparable from a Culture of Peace consisting of "values, attitudes and behaviours that reflect and inspire social interaction and sharing".  There is now a general awareness that "good societies are about more than free markets" and that it is necessary to "rethink capitalism" (headlines in the International Herald Tribune in September 1998), and that while an adequately regulated market economy is an irreplaceable instrument, the "market society" is not a feasible proposition. Thus the formula should be: "a regulated market economy, yes; a market society, no; a market-dominated polity, no". The Soviet block collapsed ten years ago, fundamentally because its system concentrated everything in a omni-powerful State, forgetting about freedom. Today, the exact opposite is happening. The market and private interests have become omni-powerful, only freedom is promoted, at the expense of equality. There are attempts for innovative approaches, such as Tony Blair's re-actualization of the concept of "The Third Way", elaborated together with the sociologist, Anthony Giddens, and the elements of which are "the market harnessed to serve the public interest", "a strong civil society ... where the government is a partner ...", and "a modern government based on partnership and decentralization".  The circumstances and Zeitgeist are ripe for re-assessing the dominant development paradigm, and working towards a new one. The following issues, inter alia, may be raised: The International Development Strategy (IDS) has been based only on economic growth for 40 years. Education was included for the first time only in 1989. Science and communication were added later. Culture is still basically absent. The UNESCO Position Paper for the Copenhagen Conference called, in 1995, for "recognizing cultural factors as an integral part of balanced development strategies". The UNESCO Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, in Stockholm, reaffirmed the same requirement. Development was, and still too often is, reduced to strictly productive processes. International development strategies have overlooked the strong words of the Preamble of UNESCO's Constitution; "not only economic and political development ... (but first and foremost) intellectual and moral solidarity ...". The claim has been that the benefits of an unfettered, self-regulating market would be diffused and increase the well-being of society as a whole. Are such postulates realistic? Has this "trickle down" theory been empirically confirmed? What are the results produced by policies based on such postulates? The decision-making processes should be renovated and adjusted to the requirements of an ethics of time (the timeliness of policies being a condition of their relevance) and to the priority to be given to preventive over curative actions, as well as to the irreversibility, complexity and globality of the contemporary phenomena. We are witnessing an increasingly "globalized" organization of societies, with transnational economic processes, rapid communication networks and inter-cultural linkages. The "myth of globalization" has it that it operates to the benefit of all, whereas the evidence is to the contrary. Are economic policies, which are based on labour productivity (which generates unemployment and exclusion), instead of resource productivity (which is employment- and activity-oriented), and do not integrate the human costs and environmental costs, sustainable? How rational is it to impose economic policies which lead to recurrent crisis, increase human suffering, poverty, exclusion, unemployment and environmental degradation, put in jeopardy the development of certain countries until yet another country is victimized by speculation and needs to be assisted? Why have the governments of affluent countries not been honouring their commitment to devote 0,7% of their GDP to development aid? This failure is to be set against the recent UNDP estimates, according to which it would take an international effort of US$40 billion a year (0,2% of the annual world income and 5% of annual world expenditure on arms, amounting to US$800 billion!), over 10 years to secure the access of poverty-stricken populations to adequate nutrition, basic education, health and water. Why is the Agenda 21 not followed and appropriate measures not taken to stop the climate change, as evidenced by the results of the Kyoto and Buenos Aires Conferences? Why are there more capital flows moving from the South to the North, instead of the contrary, with the consequence that the poorer countries pay the rich ones? Is it reasonable to impose upon all countries a unique pattern of economic policies, when the socio-economic and institutional conditions as well as cultures are so diversified? Can development policies be successful if cultures and life-styles are ignored? How can capacities of nation-states to implement development strategies of their choice be optimized under the conditions of economic, financial and technological globalization? Is the way the international system is structured relevant? It reflects the postulate of a dissociation between the economic and social spheres, with the distinction between the Bretton Woods organizations (IMF, the World Bank and WTO) and those of the United Nations, with ECOSOC, UNCTAD, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, as well as the specialized agencies such as UNESCO, ILO, WHO, UNIDO. Should not the current proposals concerning a "new Bretton Woods", the reform of IMF or the establishment of an Economic Security Council be assessed from such a broad perspective, towards a more effective global governance? Preventive policy-making for development, as well as in the areas of peace and conflict and environmental protection, must become the basic rule of global governance. Can peace be built and democracy consolidated under deteriorating social conditions, growing inequalities and poverty, and even famine (which still affects 800 million persons), when the world has the means, the knowledge and the capacities to eliminate such scourges? What are the more effective ways of fostering endogenous capacity-building; education at all levels, with special attention to women; development in rural areas; and the harnessing of science and technology for development? As the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being celebrated, is it acceptable that socio-economic rights, which constitute an integral part of human rights, be disregarded? The deterioration of work conditions, with concomitant stress and health problems, informal (and illegal) extension of working hours in industrial nations, or poverty and malnutrition in developing countries are incompatible with socio-economic rights. * * * An international debate, with the participation of all stake-holders, and not the least the citizens and their organizations, has been initiated around this issue of a new development paradigm and development policies on 30 November 1998. UNESCO, by virtue of its mandate of promoting international intellectual co-operation and constitutional goal of fostering the "intellectual and moral solidarity of humankind", has a central role to play in triggering and organizing such a debate.  * * * The discussions were organized around two questions:  1. Re-thinking development  2. The role of UNESCO in this respect.  The aim is to start a process towards elaborating a strategy of reflection and action for UNESCO, to be introduced into the Organization's programmes in the coming biennia.  There can be no development without peace and no peace without development. UNESCO has to act towards a Culture of Peace and against the prevailing culture of war and violence. The world today is much too often characterized by power- and force-based behaviour. Violence is everywhere; poverty is violence; street children is violence; hungry and humiliated women is violence. We must now take a new departure, with vision and strength. We must use the ways of dialogue and tolerance, the ways of non-violence, the ways of a Culture of Peace.  LIST OF SPEAKERS Mr Paul BALTA Journalist, Specialist in the Middle East (ex-journalist of Le Monde) 7, avenue de la Favorite 94350 VILLERS SUR MARNE France Tel : 01 49 30 62 22  Mr Henri BARTOLI Professeur émérite d'économie de travail Paris 1 20, rue des Orchidées 75013 PARIS France Tél. : 01 45 88 01 68  Mr Yves BERTHELOT Executive Secretary United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE/UNU) Palais des Nations 1211 GENEVE 18 Suisse  Mr Francis BLANCHARD Ex-Director General of ILO 427 Route de Lyon Prébailly, 01170 Gex ( Ain) France Tél : 04 50 41 51 70 Fax: 04 50 41 93 02  M. Jean BONVIN President Centre for Development OECD 94, rue Chandon-Lagache, 75016 Paris France Tél : 33 1 45 24 82 00 Fax : 33 1 45 24 79 43  Mr Leandro DESPOUY Special Rapporteur of Report on Extreme Poverty Commission for Human Rights Estados Unidos 768 Apt. 18 l101 BUENOS AIRES Argentine Tel/Fax : + 54 -1 300 0686  Mr Stéphane HESSEL Ambassador of France Ex-high level international civil servant (PNUD) 6, rue Antoine Chantin 75014 PARIS France Tél.: 01 45 43 47 80 ( 04 66 22 23 24)  Mr Richard JOLLY Conseiller Spécial de l´Administrateur et l´Architecte du Rapport sur le Développement Humain Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement One United Nations Plaza NEW YORK, NY 10017, USA Tél.: +1 -212 906 5764 Fax : +- 212 906 6661 Email : richard.jolly@undp.org M. Raymond LIGNON Ex-high level international civil servant (FAO) 16, rue Théodore Ribot 75017 PARIS France  M. Ignacy SACHS Professor Ecole de Hautes Etudes en sciences sociales Maison des sciences de l'homme Boulevard Raspail 75007 Paris  M. Albert TEVOEDJRE Ex-high level international civil servant (ILO) Minister of Planning Bénin Tel: 00 229 3015 53 Fax: 00 229 30 16 60  Mr Alfredo SFEIR-YOUNIS Special Representative to the United Nations World Bank 809 United Nations Plaza, Suite 900 New York, New York 10017 USA Tel: (212) 963-6008 Fax: (212) 697-7020  Mr Ehsan NARAGUI Special Advisor to the Director General of UNESCO Specialist in development questions UNESCO Paris For more information, please contact: Cecilie Golden UNESCO-MOST Programme 1, rue de Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 France Tel: +33 1 45 68 45 23 Fax: +33 1 45 68 57 24 E-mail: c.golden@unesco.org

To MOST Clearing House Homepage