CC BY
19Segalerba G.
working group of cultural analysis University of Vienna
ELEMENTS ON THE CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT IN MAHBUB UL HAQ
Ключевые слова: концепция развития, Уль Хак М., национальные приоритеты, рост доходов, улучшение условий жизни людей.
Keywords: concept of development, Ul Haq M., national priorities, income expansion, improvement of people's life conditions.
In my text, I would like to analyse some aspects of the thought of Mahbub ul Haq. These aspects are relevant both for the life of individuals, in general, and for the conditions of old people, in particular. For my exposition, I shall refer to the books of ul Haq Reflections on Human Development: How the focus of development economics shifted from national income accounting to people centered policies, told by one of the chief architects of the new paradigm and The Poverty Curtain: Choices for the Third World. The main points of my inquiry will be the following:
- National priorities determine the way in which income expansion is distributed: therefore, income expansion does not lead necessarily to the improvement of people's life conditions.
- The authentic aim of development is the enlargement of people's choices.
I shall begin my analysis with a passage in which ul Haq differentiates between development and growth of GNP. It can be seen that to a growth of GNP does not necessarily correspond a growth of development of the life conditions of the population:
'The lack of recognition given to people as an end of development is even more glaring. Only in the past two decades have we started focussing on who development is for, looking beyond growth in gross national product (GNP). For the first time, we have begun to acknowledge - still with a curious reluctance - that in many societies GNP can increase while human lives shrivel. We have begun to focus on human needs, the compilation of poverty profiles, and the situation of the bottom 40% of society often bypassed by development. We have started to measure the costs of adjustment not only in lost output, but also in lost lives and lost human potential. We have finally begun to accept the axiom that human welfare - not GNP - is the true end of development1.'
People and human welfare are the goals of development: the mistake in the previous economic analyses and strategies has consisted in concentrating the attention exclusively on GNP and on its growth. As a consequence of this orientation, people has not been considered and recognised in most of economic analyses as the authentic end of development: development has usually been reduced to growth in gross national product without consideration for the actual life conditions of the individuals. Only in a later phase the notion of development has been connected to people as the authentic end of economic development: it has been acknowledged that people are the authentic target of development.
Development cannot be interpreted correctly if it is not referred to the life conditions of people. Life conditions of people have, therefore, to be regarded as the criterion on the basis of which development has to be assessed. Ul Haq directs the reader's attention to the fact that there is no necessary correspondence between increase of GNP and improvement of the life condition of people. Quite on the contrary, it can happen, and it actually happens, that GNP grows and general life conditions, average life conditions of people became worse.
In ul Haq's view the attention of the previous economic research has no longer been directed exclusively to output and to the loss of output, but also to lost lives and lost human potential. The attention of the economic research has been directed to human welfare as the end of development. This is the true change in the paradigm of interpretation of economic events: the authentic goal of development is not the GNP but the welfare of people. GNP and its growth are means; they are not the end of development. This implies a complete change of perspective and of point of view from which economic phenomena are analysed and assessed:
'They (the development plans) would start with a human balance sheet. What human resources exist in the country? How educated are its people? What is the inventory of skills? What is the profile of relative income distribution and absolute poverty? How much unemployment and underemployment are there? What are the urban-rural distribution and the level of
1 Ul Haq M. Reflections on Human Development: How the focus of development economics shifted from national income accounting to people centered policies, told by one of the chief architects of the new paradigm. - Oxford, 1995. - P. 4. Ul Haq denounces in The Poverty Curtain: Choices for the Third World (N.Y., 1976. - P. 24-25) that economic growth has meant a nearly complete absence of social justice. The planners of development have been attracted exclusively by high rates in economic growth, whereas they have not paid attention to the real target of development: the quality of life of the individuals has not been taken into account.
human development in various regions? Has the country undergone a rapid demographic transition? What are the cultural and social attitudes and the aspirations of the people? In other words, how does the society live and breathe?'1
The essential point is the end of the quotation: the centre of the research consists in determining how the society lives and breathes. The subjects that are searched for and investigated are after and thank to the described change of perspective the following ones:
- Determination of the human resources of a country.
- Degree of education of the people of a country.
- Amount of the skills present in a country.
- Profile of relative income distribution.
- Profile of absolute poverty.
- Level of unemployment.
- Level of underemployment.
- Relationships between urban and rural distribution.
- Level of human development in the various regions of a country.
- Cultural and social attitudes of people of the country.
- Aspirations of people of the country.
Ul Haq clearly expresses that the purpose of development consists in the enlargement of people's choices:
'The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's choice. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time. People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and a sense of participation in community activities. The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives2.'
In spite of the importance of the growth figures, they are not sufficient to interpret a society. Ul Haq lists therefore a series of criteria which are essential to understand and to assess the conditions of a society. Moreover, ul Haq states that the goal of development consists in building a life environment which enables people to have good conditions of life. Development ought to have as its aim to give people long, healthy and creative lives. The difference between the research paradigm of economic growth and human development consists in economic growth concentrating on the expansion of income, on the one hand, and in human development aiming at the enlargement of all human choices, on the other hand:
'The defining difference between the economic growth and the human development schools is that the first focuses exclusively on the expansion of only one choice - income - while the second embraces the enlargement of all human choices -whether economic, social, cultural or political. It might well be argued that the expansion of income can enlarge all other choices as well. But that is not necessarily so, for a variety of reasons.
To begin with, income may be unevenly distributed within a society. People who have no access to income, or enjoy only limited access, will see their choices fairly constrained. It has often been observed that in many societies, economic growth does not trickle down.
But there is an even more fundamental reason why income expansion may fail to enlarge human options. It has to do with the national priorities chosen by the societies or its rulers - guns or butter, an elitist model of development or an egalitarian one, political authoritarianism or political democracy, a command economy or participatory development.
(...) Many human choices extend far beyond economic well-being. Knowledge, health, a clean physical environment, political freedom and simple pleasures of life are not exclusively, or largely, dependent on income. National wealth can expand people's choices in these areas. But it might not. The use that people make of their wealth, not the wealth itself, is decisive. And unless societies recognize that their real wealth is their people, an excessive obsession with creating material wealth can obscure the goal of enriching human lives3.'
Growth is necessary, but not sufficient. Growth is necessary to have the resources to be distributed. Growth is not sufficient, though, since it is decisive to see how this growth is distributed within the specific systems. Income alone cannot reach the enlargement of economic, social and political choices, since income can be not regularly distributed in a society.
Moreover, there are profound differences connected to income expansion: income expansion can have different results depending on its being connected to an elitist model of development or to an egalitarian model of development, to political authoritarianism or to political democracy, to a command economy or to a participatory development. The priorities which a government chooses are decisive for the use of the resources.
1 Ul Haq M. Reflections on Human Development: How the focus of development economics shifted from national income accounting to people centered policies, told by one of the chief architects of the new paradigm. - Oxford, 1995. - P. 5.
2 Ibid., p. 14. Ul Haq states in The Poverty Curtain ( p. 35) that the goal of development should be the elimination of the worst forms of poverty. The strategy of development should aim at the reduction of malnutrition, disease, illiteracy, squalor, unemployment, and inequalities.
3 Ul Haq M. Reflections on Human Development: How the focus of development economics shifted from national income accounting to people centered policies, told by one of the chief architects of the new paradigm. - Oxford, 1995. - P. 14-15. Ul Haq makes clear in The Poverty Curtain (p. 32-33) that high growth rates are no guarantee against worsening poverty. The growth of GNP does not imply the elimination of poverty. High growth rates do not mean a fair distribution of income. No sufficient attention has been dedicated to the analysis of unemployment, wrong distribution of income and so on.
Сирота Н.М.
д.полит.н., профессор кафедры истории и философии Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета
аэрокосмического приборостроения
ФОРМИРОВАНИЕ МИРОПОРЯДКА: ТЕНДЕНЦИИ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ
Ключевые слова: международные отношения, мировой порядок, новые центры силы, глобальное лидерство.
Проблематика мирового порядка занимает одно из важных мест в международно-политической теории и практике, поскольку ориентация в долгосрочных тенденциях его изменения необходима для выработки эффективной внешнеполитической стратегии, нейтрализации вызовов и угроз ближайших десятилетий. Между тем до сих пор нет ясности в отношении содержания понятия «мировой порядок» - ключевого понятия для данной проблематики. Соперничество позиций по поводу принципов, которые регулируют или должны регулировать мировой порядок, ведутся представителями различных теоретических школ, отражающих взгляды и интересы разных политических сил.
С учетом накопленного объема знаний о феномене мирового порядка и исходя главным образом из нормативной и институциональной парадигм международно-политической науки мировой порядок можно определить как совокупность принципов, норм и институтов, регулирующих поведение акторов мировой политики (прежде всего государств), обеспечивающих их основные потребности в безопасном существовании и реализации своих интересов, позволяющих поддерживать стабильность международной системы.
Близкая к вышеприведенной интерпретация мирового порядка с акцентом на нормативность предлагается И. А. Истоминым, определяющим его «как согласованный набор правил, обеспечивающих сравнительно мирное общежитие государств». Сравнительно редкие моменты нигилизма в отношении сформулированных ранее правил игры, констатирует он, вели к слому миропорядка, сопровождались нестабильностью, масштабными войнами и катастрофическими жертвами1.
Феномен, отражаемый понятием «мировой порядок», представляет собой динамичное состояние международной среды, которое характеризуется определённым уровнем зрелости, т.е. выраженности его параметров. К их числу, в частности, можно отнести:
а) полноту (соотношение порядка и отклонений от него в различных сферах международных отношений);
б) масштабы (размеры социального пространства, на которые распространяется порядок);
в) частоту и глубину нарушений порядка;
г) устойчивость порядка по отношению к возмущающим воздействиям.
В качестве антипода мировому порядку рассматриваются хаос и беспорядок в международных отношениях. Ввиду самоочевидности этих состояний учеными не предпринимаются попытки их теоретического осмысления, формулирования дефиниций. Обычно описываются их конкретные проявления, как это делает Зб. Бжезинский, посвятивший в книге «Выбор: мировое господство или глобальное лидерство» (2004) специальную главу «новому глобальному беспорядку». Между тем исследование этого аспекта международно-политической проблематики, разработка сценариев возможной хаотизации в мировой политике имели бы несомненное теоретическое и практическое значение.
К числу относительно устойчивых миропорядков обычно относят: постнаполеоновский «концерт великих держав» (1815-1871 гг.), представлявший собой систему правил взаимодействия империй; версальско-вашингтонскую систему экономических и политических взаимоотношений держав (1918-1938 гг.); ялтинско-потсдамский механизм взаимодействия противостоящих блоков государств периода холодной войны. Традиционно смена миропорядка проходила в алгоритме кризисов - революций, региональных и мировых войн. К началу 1990-х гг. Ялтинско- Потсдамский миропорядок в основном исчерпал свой универсальный организующий потенциал.
После окончания биполярного противостояния в мировой политике возникла ситуация беспорядка с неясной конфигурацией центров силы и иерархией её распределения. Перестали действовать сформировавшиеся в период холодной войны правила внешнеполитического поведения. Обнаружилась неэффективность функционировавших мировых институтов в качестве инструментов организации международных отношений и мировой политики. Оказалась неосуществимой предпринятая Соединёнными Штатами попытка достичь униполярности. Произошло ослабление Запада как относительно сплоченной геополитической конфигурации. Углубился раскол мира на центр и периферию.
Вместе с тем, резонно констатирует отечественный учёный А.И. Никитин, можно считать, что в 1990-е, 2000-е, 2010-е годы складывались неписанные, но разделяемые участниками правила поведения на международной арене, которые более-менее соблюдались ведущими мировыми державами и новыми независимыми государствами. Приме-
1 Истомин И.А. Россия как держава статус кво. Защита институционального наследия в эпоху транзита // Россия в глобальной политике. - М., 2020. - № 1. - https://globalaffairs.ru/number/Rossiya-kak-derzhava-status-kvo-20328
