
I
want to first say that I very much welcome this
opportunity to comment on the important issues raised in
the Secretary-General's timely report on "Fostering
an Enabling Environment for Development". It
is clear that we live in a world which is unsatisfactory
- even unacceptable - in many respects. It is a world
where, according to the latest United Nations Human
Development Report, over a quarter of the developing
world's people still live in poverty. About a fifth
- 1.3 billion - live on incomes of less than $1 a
day. And over fifty per cent of the global population has
less than five per cent of global income. These
statistics reinforce what our eyes and ears already tell
us - that though we are part of an ever more integrated
global economy, the distance between rich and poor is
still intolerably great.
But
there is another reality which should not be obscured by
these sombre statistics - a reality of real progress
and hope, underlined by Michel Camdessus. Worldwide
growth and living standards are rapidly rising, more
rapidly than at any point in the last thirty years. We
can welcome the fact that even this year's UN World
Economic and Social Survey - published today -
notes that the circle of economic growth has spread to
most parts of the world - averaging over 3 per cent
worldwide. Of the 95 countries it covers, only 11
failed to increase per capita output in 1996, compared
with 24 in 1995.
And
the UN's Human Development Report reminds us that poverty
has been reduced more in the last fifty years than in the
last 500. It talks about the potential for eradicating
global poverty in the early part of the next century
- a utopian notion even a few decades ago, but a
real possibility today. In the same vein, the OECD now
predicts that per capita income in the developing world
could rise by a remarkable 270 per cent by the year 2020,
and in the developed world by 80 per cent. Already
developing countries account for a quarter of world
trade; at current rates of growth, they could account for
half of world trade by the year 2020.
Globalization
will not solve the very real problems of distribution we
face - nor will it, on its own, feed and clothe our
children, or educate and empower their parents. What
globalization provides is the most powerful engine for
growth the world has yet seen - an essential basis for
building the shared global society that is now within our
reach. For as the Secretary-General's Report reminds us,
global economic and social development on a sustainable
basis requires "solid rates of economic
expansion" - expansion which cannot be achieved if
the raw material of globalization is compromised. A new
global "enabling environment" can only be built
on the foundation of an open and integrated global
economy.
Without
denying the real challenges of adjustment and change that
liberalization presents, we must reaffirm our resolve to
continue opening our markets - and not just in developed
economies, but in the developing world as well. The
evidence is strong that countries which are prepared to
liberate market forces and compete vigorously on the
world stage can expect faster growth and more rapid
development. The most impressive case, perhaps, is in
some Asian developing countries where 1.5 billion
people have, on average, doubled their income in the last
decade.
Increasingly,
an open trading system is also playing a crucial part in
widening and deepening the flow of technology and
information around the world - a process which is central
to the enabling environment we need to create. Recent WTO
agreements liberalizing global telecommunications
services and information technology products are about
much more than trade. They are about building the new
infrastructure of the information age - in the same
way that the expansion of railways and shipping in the
nineteenth century provided the infrastructure for the
industrial age. Equal access to this knowledge
infrastructure will determine equal access to the
technological and information tools of the future
- which will in turn define the potential for growth
and modernization in the developing world.
The
next step in this process is to reach a successful
conclusion to the current financial services negotiations
this year - and to implement the mandate we have to
examine the relationship between the flows of global
trade and global investment. Like telecommunications or
information technologies, financial services cannot be
viewed through the outdated paradigm of importers versus
exporters, North versus South. Whatever the country and
its level of development, sustained growth in a
competitive world economy now depends on access to a
solid financial system and access to investment.
Investment provides much needed capital; it is a pipeline
for transfers of technology and managerial skills; and it
can provide access to global production and distribution
systems which in turn open up export opportunities.
Developing
countries have a growing interest in liberalizing their
financial sector and deregulating their investment
regimes in order to build the kind of competitive
financial infrastructure they need for future growth. At
the same time, developed economies have a clear interest
in an agreement which will open the fastest growing
markets to one of their fastest growing industries. And
all sides in this negotiation have an interest in
building a strong global financial system to support a
strong global economy. A rules-based, multilateral
playing field for financial services and investment -
rather than a cat's cradle of discriminatory bilateral or
regional deals - will go a long way towards creating the
enabling environment we are discussing today. I listened
with great attention to what Mr. Camdessus has just
said about the new rôle of the IMF in opening capital
accounts.
There
is a third way the multilateral system contributes to the
enabling environment. As the world becomes more
interconnected economically, all countries - but
especially the weakest and most vulnerable - will more
and more need what the report calls a "fair,
equitable, and transparent regime" of rules to
manage their interdependence. This in turn calls for a
full involvement by developing and transition economies
in drawing up and using the multilateral rules, not
limiting their focus to exceptions and special
provisions.
I
am pleased to note that developing countries are now far
more active players in the functioning of the system.
Between 1980 and 1994 developing countries were involved
in less than ten per cent of the 120 disputes examined by
the old GATT. But in the last two years alone, developing
countries have initiated about half of the requests for
WTO consultations or panels. And the active and crucial
participation of developing countries over the last
twelve months in negotiations on telecommunications
services and information technology are clear evidence of
their engagement and commitment to a system which belongs
to them as much as to anyone.
The
multilateral trading system is thus itself a key element
in fostering an enabling environment for development. It
helps countries at all levels of development relate to
the basic fact of globalization within a framework that
opens opportunities and provides the security of agreed
rights and obligations.
Of
course, it is not perfect. One particular area in which
it has been recognized that we need to do more is the
situation of least-developed countries - and doing so is
leading us into improving the ways in which we work
together with our partner organizations and governments.
As the 1997 World Economic and Social Survey has noted,
output per head has continued to decline on average in
Africa through the 1980s and early 1990s. Indeed, the
ratio of trade to GDP fell in 44 of 93 developing
countries over the last decade, while the ratio to
foreign investment to GDP fell in more than a third of
these countries. While its true that a number of
least-developed countries have recently shown dramatic
signs of turning their economies around - Africa's growth
of 4.3 per cent last year was the best in two
decades - it is also true that there remains much more we
can do.
I
have been very encouraged by the way in which WTO Member
governments have responded to this challenge by adopting
in Singapore a Plan of Action for the Least-Developed
Countries. A major objective of this Plan is to ensure
that all least developed countries have a strong voice in
the WTO. After all, membership in the organization does
not automatically mean that all countries have the
resources to participate equally in the system. To fully
reflect the interests and objectives of least-developed
countries, these countries have to be able to use it
fully. A key contribution of the WTO, working closely
with UNCTAD and the International Trade Centre, is
technical assistance for building trade policy expertise
in these countries. We are also employing new
technologies much more extensively to extend the reach
and the effectiveness of that assistance, and to make
technical information more relevant to specific economic
needs.
As
you know, the Singapore Conference also called for a
High-Level meeting for the least-developed countries, to
be organized by the WTO with UNCTAD, the International
Trade Centre and other major multilateral institutions,
to forge an integrated approach. The Secretariat's
preparations for this High Level Meeting are proceeding
well. There is good cooperation between the six core
agencies involved, and there is every indication that the
Conference will yield positive results.
The
goal is to join with other multilateral
institutions, and with least-developed countries
themselves, to devise a new integrated strategy to assist
their development; the kind of enabling environment that
will help the least-developed countries to move from the
margins of globalization to the centre.
It
is clear that, as the World Bank has reminded us,
building human and institutional capacity is fundamental
to realizing these aims. In many countries, the existing
social, health, and education systems are not even
sufficient to meet basic human needs, let alone to
prepare people to take advantage of the information
economies and global markets of the future. Then there is
the difficulty many countries face of trying to manage
profound economic change with weak governing structures.
We cannot expect to achieve sustainable growth without
the foundations of strong financial and legal systems, a
healthy environment, and the basic necessities of health,
education, and security.
As
the Secretary General's report correctly emphasizes, the
task begins with national governments themselves. But it
does not end at national borders. In a world where
economic opportunities and challenges increasingly
transcend national borders we have to look to forms of
international cooperation and new approaches to
international governance. When trade has become thirty
per cent of world GDP - and is projected to grow to fifty
per cent by the year 2020 - how else to define the
management of sovereignty? By going back to nineteenth
century ideas? Or by embracing the global rule-of-law,
agreed by consensus, which extends, not limits, the
ability of national governments to defend national
interests in a world without borders? The fact remains
that the international policy framework required to
exploit today's global opportunities and to manage
today's global challenges is not yet fully in place.
The
need is not to discuss whether globalization is a good
thing, but to ask two further questions. The first
question we have to ask is "what would be the
alternative?" It would be a world divided by
economic and political nationalism - a world in which we
would go down the road towards power-based relations,
increased tension and violence, as history has taught us.
The
second question - the real one we must answer - is how
can we improve the present international system keeping
it strongly based on the rule of law and on further
lowering of barriers among people and countries.
We
should try to lift our vision towards a greater coherence
among national and international institutions. This,
surely, is one of the most important keys to creating an
enabling environment for development.
|