[WSF-Discuss] Decent Work Analysis - and Beyond

[Peter Waterman]

Eddie:

Delighted to have your response, the first substantial defence of Decent
Work I have received. I think we can now at least hope for a serious
international exchange on such.

As my reference to the Peruvian situation - or speculation about it -
suggests, I don't dismiss DW. But this was rather for its ideological
impact than for any visible or measurable results.

I don't feel the need to take issue with you over anything you say
except for the fact that your Ministry of Labour is interested in or
sponsoring DW or your work on measuring such. That unions and government 
might be similarly interested (and some major employers?) would only 
reinforce for me the understanding that the DW project is intended to 
restore the liberal-reformist utopia of tripartism and social 
partnership (i.e. a partnership of capital and state - with union 
leaders in a traditionally subordinate supporting position).

So even if DW is a feasible aim in SAf, Holland or China, the question
for me remains that of whether it furthers the autonomy of labour from 
capital and state; is relevant to the 80%+ of un-unionised/ 
un-unionisable labourers; undermines faith in a capitalist system which 
is currently again demonstrating - worldwide - its incapacities to meet 
  vital human and environnmental needs; and whether it helps bring 
unionised/unionised labour together with the ecological,
peace, gender/sexual, rural, urban, indigenous,human rights and other 
such movements.

My possibly utopian, over-theoretical or ideological/moral critique of 
DW has been recently reinforced by the arguments of two figures you know 
well, Guy Standing and Walden Bello. As well as a declaration by a US 
elite think-tank, the Center for American Progress (2009).

The first has produced a seriously damaging analysis of the incapacities 
of the International Labour Organisation - the source of the DW strategy 
(I don't have the text here in Lima but I you surely know it.

The second has just critiqued a 'global social democratic' (GSD) policy 
which he sees as likely to surpass neo-liberalism but - obviously - to 
fail to undermine or even question capitalism. This piece was forwarded 
on the Debate List in South Africa but Patrick Bond, so you probably 
have access to this also. Walden Bello also foresees a significant 
labour role in thus attempting to restore capitalism (both materially 
and ideologically?).

The third, also posted on Debate in reply to me by Patrick, is for me 
the most damaging since it demonstrates to what extent and in what 
manner, in what context, the US and International union leaderships are 
using DW in an attempt to forward - to or with capital and state - a 
restoration of capitalism that hardly amounts to the GSD strategy Walden 
Bello is critiquing! I received this today and attach it below.

Finally, Eddie, my suggestion is that this present exchange be 
transformed into a public one. DW has so far been reproduced rather than 
discussed within the international labour movement. I understand that 
Guy Standing might anyway be in South Africa early in the new year. This 
would seem to me to provide a potential opportunity for an open 
discussion at least in one country.

In the meantime, however, I continue to consider that DW points labour 
in the wrong direction, to talking with the wrong people in the wrong 
places.

I would like to hope that the autonomous labour initiative, 'labour and 
globalisation', in the World Social Forum, Belem, Brazil, in one month's 
time, will be able to come up with a declaration that calls capitalism 
'capitalism' and that it will point beyond the restoration of a brutal, 
wasteful, incompetent and corrupt system.

Sincerely, and with best wishes for you and yours in 2009,


Peter Waterman

*************************************************************************

Center for American Progress | Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just, and 
Free America

Executive Summary

Session I: Setting development assistance priorities

Session II: Setting trade liberalization priorities

Session III: Widening participation in the gains from economic integration

Session IV: International Financial Architecture



The Center for American Progress convened a high-level meeting of 
domestic and international policymakers and thinkers on international 
economic policy on December 11, 2008. Current and former multilateral 
institution heads were represented at the table, as well as 
international cabinet-level representatives, former U.S. administration 
officials, and heads of Washington-based think tanks, NGOs, and 
campaigning organizations.

Six hours of discussion on the current global economic meltdown covered 
the topics of development, trade, and international financial 
architecture during four sessions. Central to these discussions was the 
importance of ensuring that prosperity is widely shared in developed and 
emerging economies.

The Center for American Progress published a series of documents 
alongside a public event the following morning with Kemal Dervis, 
Richard Samans, and Juan Somavia, including a new report by Richard 
Samans, “Transitioning to a new U.S. International Economic Policy: 
Toward a ‘Global Deal’ to Revive and Broaden the Benefits of Growth.”

The private meeting’s key conclusions included:

* The incoming administration cannot hold trade and development in 
separate silos; it must consider them together.
* The size and composition of development assistance is critical in 
advancing living standards; multilateral and bilateral forms of 
assistance both have a role to play.
* The timetable for meeting the G20’s request to agree to the Doha 
modalities is closing and will come up against the Indian election 
likely in April or May.
* Decent Work must underpin widespread advancement in gains from trade.
* The current economic crisis should be used to reform the international 
financial architecture, and the IMF’s role should be enhanced rather 
than diminished.
* More work is needed on the substantive role and composition of the G20.

The Center for American Progress will be following this event with an 
international discussion on global governance and the role of the G20 in 
the spring.
Session I: Setting development assistance priorities

We do not yet know the full consequences of the current economic crisis, 
and it will almost certainly continue worsening, but it will undoubtedly 
affect President-elect Obama’s international economic policy agenda, 
including development.

The economic downturn is a global problem. Economic growth rates in all 
countries are slowing and unemployment is rising. Attendees suggested 
that worldwide perceptions of globalization—which is generally viewed 
favorably during times of economic growth—have started to decline. This 
shift in opinion is partly due to the negative repercussions of the 
subprime crisis around the world, where blame is perceived to lie with 
the United States.

The least-developed countries have not felt the initial wave of the 
economic downturn, but will be hit if the United States and other 
developed countries are unable to provide official development 
assistance. That said, development assistance should not be viewed 
purely as a bilateral exchange; it should include multilateral 
assistance, public-private partnerships, trade policies, and the work of 
philanthropic foundations. The world’s nations can restore economic 
global leadership by maintaining strong global institutions and pushing 
for robust macroeconomic policies.

Attendees agreed that the United States has a crucial role to play in 
terms of global leadership, but it will have to balance short- and 
long-term goals, and domestic and international pressures. A key focus 
will have to be global development.

The “smart power” debate has strengthened development by positioning it 
within a broader national security context. President-elect Obama has 
pledged to double foreign assistance, but he must also consider the 
question of why we engage in foreign assistance. Attendees suggested 
that the U.S. Agency for International Development is weaker now than it 
has ever been and U.S. development efforts are undermined because they 
are spread out over 20 government agencies. Foreign aid legislation was 
written in 1961 during the Kennedy administration and has not been 
updated since. U.S. development assistance needs to be fundamentally 
reconceived and reprioritized by creating a national development 
strategy, a new cabinet-level structure for administering aid, and 
21st-century legislation to handle today’s development challenges.

Other topics of discussion included the food crisis and failure of 
agricultural development policies, the role of remittances, migration, 
social security, and the role of the Decent Work Agenda. One attendee 
suggested that the Millennium Development Goals will prove much more 
difficult to achieve in the coming years because donors have not 
fulfilled their development assistance commitments. And finding 
solutions to climate change is also critical and will require 
multilateral action.

The new administration will need to have a sense of responsibility not 
just for the domestic crisis, but also for its international 
implications. The United States needs to play a leadership role in 
addressing frustrations around global integration.

Session II: Setting trade liberalization priorities

Trade has been a key driver of global economic growth and will continue 
to be so in the future. Fostering trade rather than stymieing it would 
therefore facilitate recovery from the current economic crisis. There 
was considerable support, particularly from the international 
participants, for concluding the Doha round of trade negotiations. 
Brokering such a deal would offer some optimism for an otherwise bleak 2009.

Nonetheless, it is inevitable that these negotiations will be pushed 
back at least to the early part of 2009 since there is a lame-duck 
president currently in office and the president-elect must restrain 
himself until he formally takes office. This concerned the international 
participants since it is unclear whether India, with its election 
looming, will be able to negotiate as the spring approaches.

Appropriate policies and institutions are clearly needed to better 
redistribute the gains from trade both in the United States and abroad. 
Attendees noted that, for the domestic debate, it is not possible to 
have a progressive foreign policy with a regressive trade policy. There 
are few levers through which countries interact, and trade constitutes 
one such channel. Transatlantic dialogue on trade, for example, is an 
important strand of the relationship between the United States and Europe.

A progressive trade policy in the United States should incorporate the 
provision of social safety nets to a much greater extent than it does 
already, including a universal health care policy. Attendees agreed that 
a progressive trade policy should foster competitiveness through 
policies that cultivate innovation and technological advancement, and 
examine and attempt to balance worldwide savings rates.

Within an international context, trade has not benefited all countries 
that have opened their markets because there is not always sufficient 
trade capacity. Any trade adjustment assistance or aid for trade should 
therefore be coupled with the domestic provision of social safety nets 
to protect citizens from the detrimental effects that fall on certain 
industries. The gains from trade should also be redistributed more 
equitably. This is essential to maintaining global support for openness.

Trade is a piece of the global economic jigsaw puzzle; it has value as 
an individual piece, but it is much more important as part of the whole. 
Establishing a robust trade agenda alongside a parallel 
institution-building agenda is possible. Participants said that this 
would be a positive step toward re-invigorating U.S. global leadership 
and garnering a favorable international view of the Obama administration.
Session III: Widening participation in the gains from economic integration

The current economic crisis is also a jobs crisis. A major challenge now 
is for the world to agree to an agenda for more and better work and not 
let the short-term exigencies of the economic downturn derail these efforts.

The past mindset was that countries could grow their economies and then 
distribute the benefits of that growth later, but that distribution did 
not happen. Productivity gains have increased over the past decade, 
while distribution has decreased, and there is now a much wider 
disparity between the rich and the poor. Workers have experienced not 
only stagnation in their wages; many have seen their salaries decline. 
In short, domestic U.S. workers are not gaining from these higher levels 
of productivity and are dissatisfied with the effects of globalization.

The session outlined three factors that contribute to this phenomenon. 
First, the United States has, over the last eight years, taken an 
ideological approach to economic governance. This includes, for example, 
elevating market deregulation to a philosophy for governing the economy. 
Second, strong distrust has emerged between workers and multinational 
corporations. It is no longer the case that what is good for American 
companies is good for America. Policymakers need to reassess how global 
agreements affect workers at home and play a much more proactive role in 
examining how companies’ dealings abroad affect growth and labor 
standards domestically. Third, the International Monetary Fund has 
created worse conditions for workers, especially in developing 
countries. Mandatory structural adjustments put a significant burden on 
governments and hurt funding for many sectors including education, 
training, and labor, which attendees suggested would make it difficult 
to maintain parallel policy agendas for labor and trade.

These three areas should not be treated as separate and divergent 
interests; participants agreed that policy must focus on the convergence 
of trade and labor policies.

The Decent Work Agenda played a strong role in the discussion, 
particularly its framework for dignity at work, international standards, 
and the provision of jobs, as well as effective social protections such 
as universal healthcare, continued education and training, and pensions. 
Last year’s May 10 agreement on trade, which attached environmental and 
worker protections to several pending trade accords, demonstrated that 
businesses were in agreement about labor and environmental rights, and 
most other significant issues.

Policymakers will have to take a combined approach to fighting poverty 
and implementing the Decent Work Agenda in order to advance the 
overarching objective of balancing global trade, development, and labor 
issues. Multilateralism and interstate policy coordination on Decent 
Work will be imperative in achieving this. The current crisis facing the 
auto industry, for example, is tied to and will affect countries all 
over the world. Leaders must take a multilateral, and sectoral approach 
to contain the crisis. Each country will also have to work with each 
other and afford others the flexibility and policy space needed to 
stabilize their own economies.

This historic crisis has produced an unprecedented opportunity. Given 
all the concerns and pressures around the world, arguments and 
infighting have now diminished. Labor and business now want to work 
together to fix the problems. Policymakers, labor, and business are all 
thinking big and are in need of a bold vision and policy that includes 
all the relevant parts: growth, labor, development, and trade.
Session IV: International financial architecture

Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF from 1987 to 2000 
suggested in his after dinner address that the current crisis provided 
an opportunity for reform. The global financial village had been allowed 
to expand without any effective international regulation, he said, and 
policymakers should recognize the sea change that has occurred and act 
urgently and radically.

The IMF has highly professional staff and must remain the centerpiece of 
international financial architecture. It should be given greater powers 
of surveillance without reducing its other important responsibilities 
including addressing global imbalances. The United States, in 
particular, has an important responsibility here.

Governance arrangements are also of critical importance, but they are 
not yet right. The Executive Board’s membership of 25 is too large and 
includes over-representation from Europe and under-representation from 
the developing world. And Camdessus suggested changing the name of the 
International Monetary Fund to the “Monetary and Financial World Fund.”

The post-dinner discussion delved deeper into the mission of the IMF, 
which attendees suggested still suffers from a credibility problem 
driven by the conditionality and deflationary agenda of the 1970s and 
1980s. Others suggested that the IMF should be given greater teeth and 
independence in relation to its surveillance work and that member 
countries should not be able to veto country reports. The Bank of 
International Settlements and the Financial Stability Forum could be 
better arenas for financial market regulation and oversight.

The G-20 could emerge as the de facto international leaders’ body. 
Although there is under-representation from the poorest countries and 
the most generous donors (i.e. Nordic countries), attendees saw it as 
the best forum for forging consensus. The G-20 could be used for 
cross-sectoral negotiations such as high-income countries trading off 
representation on the IMF board for concessions from middle-income 
countries on climate change.

These summaries were produced by Winny Chen, Sabina Dewan, Natalie 
Ondiak, and Will Straw.
List of participants

Urban Ahlin. Chairman, Swedish Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee
Catherine Ashton, Trade Commissioner, European Union
Charlene Barshefsky, Senior International Partner, WilmerHale, LLP
Amar Bhattacharya, Director, G-24
Karan Bhatia, Vice President and Senior Counsel for International Law 
and Policy, GE
Nancy Birdsall, Director, Center for Global Development
Matt Browne, Visiting Fellow, Center for American Progress
Sharan Burrow, President, International Trade Union Confederation
Michel Camdessus, former Managing Director (1987-2000), IMF
Simon Crean, Trade Minister, Australia
Kenneth Dam, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Kemal Dervis, Executive Head, UNDP
Sabina Dewan, Associate Director for International Economics, CAP
Ambroise Fayolle, Executive Director for France, IMF
Helga Flores, Chief of Constituencies, Inter-American Development Bank
Claude Fontheim, Fontheim International
Ed Gresser, Director of Trade of Global Markets Project, PPI
David Lane, President and CEO, One Campaign
Trevor Manuel, Finance Minister, South Africa
Raymond Offenheiser, President, Oxfam America
PierCarlo Padoan, Deputy Secretary General, OECD
Sandra Polaski, Director of the Trade, Equity and Development Program, 
Carnegie
Endowment for Peace
Bill Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade Council
Richard Samans, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
Barbara Shailor, Director of International Affairs, AFL-CIO
Ira Shapiro, GreenbergTraurig, LLP
Robert Shapiro, Director of Globalization Initiative, New Democratic Network
Arshi Siddiqui, Counsel, Office of Speaker Pelosi
Juan Somavia, Director-General, ILO
Gene Sperling, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
Thoralf Stenvold, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Norway to the U.N.
Will Straw, Associate Director for Economic Growth, CAP
Karen Tramontano, President, Global Fairness Initiative
Sarah Rosen Wartell, Acting CEO, Center for American Progress
Christian Weller, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

For print and radio, John Neurohr, Deputy Press Secretary
202.481.8182 or jneurohr at americanprogress.org

For TV, Sean Gibbons, Director of Media Strategy
202.682.1611 or sgibbons at americanprogress.org

For web, Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager
202.741.6397 or elindsay at americanprogress.org
Issue Alerts
Sign up to receive email alerts for new content on your issues.
Subscribe to Our InProgress Newsletter
Subscribe to RSS Feeds

RSS IconSite-Wide and Issue-Specific RSS Feeds
Related Articles

The Global Meltdown, by Will Straw

Interactive Map: U.S. Must Lead Global Action on Economy, by Will Straw

Putting Aid and Trade to Work , by Sabina Dewan, Reuben Brigety

Transitioning to a New U.S. International Economic Policy, by Richard Samans

Maintaining a Dialogue in Tough Economic Times, by Winny Chen
© Center for American Progress | About Us | Contact Us | Press Room | 
Privacy Policy | Reuse Policy | Terms of Use








Edward Webster wrote:
> Hi Peter - good to hear from you and , as always, your provocation to take the debate further. 
> 
> I agree that the concept of decent work sounds rather feeble - he is a decent chap, as the English say !! But as with the concept of social movement unionism that you introduced many decades ago it can take on a different and potentially progressive meaning in a different context. 
> 
> Let me give three reasons why I feel the need to take it seriously:
> 
> Firstly, and put simply, the debate in many countries is about the need to create jobs . In our context where `unemployment' could be as much as 40% there is a temptation to say `any job is better than no job' and for progress to be measured in the number of jobs created . In the case of the bi-annual statistical survey in South Africa a job  means any income generating activity including begging!! The concept of decent work allows us to talk about the quality of jobs - are they temporary or permanent , are workers provided with training , are the jobs save, is the in come regular , does it involve the usual benefits of leave, etc , etc. Ofcourse these are minimal demands but under the whip of hyper competition many of the features of nineteenth century capitalism are re-emerging - longer working hourts, casual work , and homework. 
> 
> A second reason is that I have  found that unionists struggling for better jobs in the factory do not dismiss it as a campaigning concept. 
> 
> Thirdly it is also increasingly the way in which our department of labour is framing its mandate. I completed a study for our department this year where I was asked to develop a decent work deficit index amongst vulnerable workers which included sweatshops in down-town  Johannesburg, workers in shebeens in Soweto and waste pickers on the streets of Johannesburg. To  conceptualise decent work I used Guy Standings seven indicators of security - labour market security, employment security, job security, work security, skills security, income security and representation security. I then developed a composite index and placed the seven indicators on a range from 9 ( absolute insecurity) to 1 ( absolute security). 
> 
> I  was also interested to read of the outcome of the recent Tripartite meeting in September of experts on the measurement of decent work. 
> 
> I agree with you Peter that we need to go Beyond Decent Work but it may be worth taking as a point of departure the work already done on it and in particular Guys work in the late nineties and the current attempts by the ILO and its `experts' to define and measure it.
> 
> Warm regards 
> 
> Eddie 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Waterman [mailto:p.waterman at inter.nl.net] 
> Sent: 23 December 2008 05:22 PM
> To: R.Hyman at lse.ac.uk
> Cc: Devan Pillay; david.hollis at netzwerkit.de; nigd-list at nigd.org; WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net; jai.sen at cacim.net; duhagon at item.org.uy; bsantos at fe.uc.pt; costello.gls at gmail.com; GuyStanding at standingnet.com; newunionism at gmail.com; ericlee at labourstart.org; ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe; balkanozapatista at gmail.com; Andreas.Bieler at nottingham.ac.uk; aguiton at gmail.com; bfletcher at transafricaforum.org; dave_spooner at wiego.org; d.chavez at mac.com; Dirk.Kloosterboer at vc.fnv.nl; Edward Webster; fdove at tni.org; francoishoutart at yahoo.fr; henning.melber at dhf.uu.se; hilary1 at manc.org; immanuel.wallerstein at yale.edu; jean.pierre.page at gmail.com; johnholloway at prodigy.net.mx; j.wills at qmul.ac.uk; kimscipes at earthlink.com; kjeld at os.org.br; kolyaab at yahoo.co.uk; magnus.wennerhag at soc.lu.se; M.Deangelis at btinternet.com; Mike.Waghorne at world-psi.org; nicola_bullard at yahoo.com; Raphael at democraciaglobal.org; R.P.Munck at liverpool.ac.uk; Sakhela Buhlungu; stellan.vinthagen at globalstudies.gu.se; w.bello@

focusweb.org
> Subject: Re: Decent Work Analysis - and Beyond
> 
> It is something of a relief to me that anyone is taking a critical 
> interests in the ITUC/ILO Decent Work campaign. I have been increasingly 
> feeling not that I was the little boy who pointed out that the emperor 
> was naked but like a crazed seer in an empty desert.
> 
> So thanks, Devan for starting this little exchange. And to Richard Hyman 
> and Guy Standing for their rapid response.
> 
> I fear, however, that - whatever Richard, Guy and myself have so far 
> said directly about DW - Devan is faced with thin pickings.
>