Chairperson, in 2004 the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development published a report that stated:
A quiet transformation is reshaping the global, economic and trade landscape. The centuries-old economic trade geography, where the South served as hinterlands of resources and captive markets for finished goods of the North, is changing. The shares of the South in global trade and financial flows have grown dramatically during the last two decades. The old geography of international trade has been defined much by colonialism. The industrial revolution helped the colonial powers to attain decisive technological superiority in both civil and military spheres, and enabled them to occupy the central position in international economic relations, vis--vis developing countries - an asymmetric pattern that continued into the postcolonial era.
Hon members, this august House has joined parliamentarians of different countries - members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU - to debate the topic: Redistribution of power, not just wealth: ownership of the international agendas. Put more concretely in the language of our challenges in South Africa, does the current international agenda and the distribution of power help a subsistence farmer in Lusikisiki to improve her livelihood? Does it offer hope to a young, unemployed person in Atlantis so that he can find a job? Does it inspire a worker in a factory in Isithebe with the knowledge that decent work is not a distant reality, but something that can be achieved here and now?
To answer those questions, we have to go back to the formation of the current economic institutions and power relations. The basic economic infrastructure that nations rely on in this globalised economy was shaped by past crises. The foundations of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the forerunner to the World Trade Organisation, WTO, were laid in the aftermath of the Great Depression, as the world emerged from the Second World War.
The victorious powers - principally, the United States and the UK - set up the Bretton Woods institutions, but they set them up on a governance model based on shareholding dominance by northern, developed nations. The agendas, the decision-making and the senior staff of these institutions reflected, in many cases, the prevailing ideas and interests of their main shareholders. They developed what became known as the Washington Consensus - a set of ideas on how countries should run their economies and on the essential ingredients of public policy.
Today, almost 70 years after some of these institutions were created, what is the state of the world? How healthy is the social balance sheet? How well have they served the common good across nations?
On the one hand, we live in an age where technological progress and wealth creation is at the most advanced in human history. The Internet, the sophisticated systems of transport that move goods across the world, the advanced manufacturing capacity that produces ever more goods, and the innovation systems that provide for an expansion of products and consumer choice, have all dramatically changed the world for many people.
On the other hand, more than a billion people live in conditions of extreme poverty. Based on the rate at which progress is currently being made, it has been estimated that it will take another 88 years to achieve a world without extreme poverty.
Globally, more than 200 million people are without jobs, and about 215 million young children who should be at school are forced to work in order to earn an income for their families. Income and wealth disparities are high and rising, both within nations and between nations. The social balance sheet is clearly not in a good state.
We have been faced with at least five large gaps in the economic governance and policy architecture: one, institutions whose governing structures are unrepresentative, as we have seen in the voting structure of the IMF and World Bank; two, developmental needs that have been marginalised, as seen in the positions adopted by industrialised economies in the Doha Round of WTO trade talks; three, policies that have not sufficiently prioritised jobs and decent work, as we see from the non-observance of the International Labour Organisation's, ILO, standards and conventions, and the high levels of unemployment across the world; four, economic activities that damage the environment and are resulting in profound climate change as we have seen in the evidence presented in the UN climate change talks; and five, economic policies that have not been connected at global level with social policies and goals, as we have seen in the lack of policy coherence across the international system, and in the social deficits that remained high in periods of fast economic growth.
We now face dual and connected challenges. To ensure we address the vast inequalities faced by so many nations, we can call these the challenges of the past, while at the same time we address the new challenge of weak economic performance, of global imbalance that led to the global economic crisis and of the growing problem of climate change.
There is the recognition by parliamentarians in many governments across the world that more can and needs to be done through the international policy agenda. Following decades of high global economic growth, policy-makers are asking whether the purpose of economic activity is simply to expand the volume of goods and services. Is all of it reducible, simply, only and principally to your rate of growth? Is it mainly to provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to make profit?
Some of these may be characteristics or consequences, but they are by no means the defining public purpose of economic activity, which is and must be to help human beings live fulfilling lives through the production of food, shelter, culture and ideas. The goal of public policy is to place the values of human development, solidarity and social justice at the centre of our common economic efforts. Producing more bread is important if more people who need bread can obtain it, and not if those with mountains of bread simply get more.
As we co-operate in societies, within nations and between nations, there are opportunities to create decent work, so that those who bake the bread can also eat. The economic, social and environmental priorities that have dominated global policy-making for so many years will have to change if we are to realise this.
Developing countries have played an increasing importance in setting the agenda and staking our claim to policies and ownerships of key institutions. More efforts have been made to build or to strengthen inclusive institutions, through the UN system.
In 2000, heads of state and governments from 189 countries came together to develop and adopt eight goals, the Millennium Development Goals, which cover areas such as health, education, reducing poverty, and promoting gender equity. It was an important initiative to set common goals, a common agenda, and to define a common responsibility in order to help to achieve those goals.
In 2008, months before the dramatic market meltdown on Wall Street, governments, business representatives and union leaders across the world discussed and adopted the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation. It was a vision of economic co-operation between nations, founded on the goal of full employment. All those who want to work should be able to work. It was also founded on social cohesion and economic inclusion. Developing countries played a critical role in drafting this global vision of development.
The following year the ILO produced a global jobs pact that set out elements of a new growth path for the global economy. It recognised the limitations of the old growth model and, instead, placed investment in infrastructure, employment and social protection, together with sustainable environmental practices, at the centre of economic recovery, and set them as the policies on which millions of new decent work opportunities can be created. It recognised that development - in other words, meeting the needs of ordinary people, of fixing the environmental damage caused by decades of reckless practise - is a source of growth, of green jobs and of incomes.
For South Africa, as we chart a New Growth Path, we place employment and decent work at the centre of our efforts. We recognise that growth needs to be inclusive and balanced, and that the needs of women, young people and the rural poor need to be prioritised.
Increasingly, the international agenda has to reflect these priorities of jobs, gender empowerment, youth development and rural advancement. These are not only our priorities, but are shared by billions of people across the world.
Our New Growth Path is based on expanding opportunities for economic development on the African continent, recognising the value of increasing South-South partnerships and of economic ties and co-operation through institutions such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, Brics.
Through the G20, the UN climate change negotiations, the international labour organisations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, to the World Health Organisation and our work in the UN, government seeks to advance the view of a new development contract between nations. We seek to change the agenda as well as the governance structures. We seek to promote a better connection between the economic institutions and social objectives. In a word, we seek to harness economic dynamism for social justice outcomes. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.