There seemed to be...
There seemed to be certain national ingredients that were common to successful
basic-needs strategies, including:
• efforts to raise the level and productivity of employment through an appropriate
mix of products and technology, widespread education and training, and
land reform where necessary;
• a fairer and more widespread provision of essential services and the appropriate
orientation and design of delivery systems;
• effective participation of the mass of the people in the development process
through various economic and political mechanisms;
• successful integration of the agricultural sector and the rural population with
the over-all development strategy; and
• a balance and mutually re-enforcing relationship between capital-intensive and
labour intensive technology, between the modern and informal sectors and
between rural and urban areas.
But the magnitude of the effort needed was such, particularly in the poorest developing
countries, that without a favourable international framework, elimination
of poverty and the satisfaction of basic needs 'may have to be postponed to an
intolerably late date'. Substantial assistance and fairer and more equitable international
trade would be required.
However, there was a twist in the tail. Despite encouraging developments and
overwhelming support for the basic-needs approach at the World Employment
Conference, there was increasing criticism from developing countries, particularly
from the G77. What explained this distrust of a basic-needs approach to
development? Some of the objections appeared to result from a misreading of
the basic-needs approach.
In an attempt to set forth a coherent strategy, the ILO
planners had to allow for some diversity of approach among the well over 100
very different developing countries represented at the conference. The United
States representative's 'fundamental differences' with the conference report was
that 'it places too little emphasis on the importance of growth in the context
of an employment-oriented development strategy and overstates the possible
contribution to development of redistribution of assets' (US, 1976, p. 18).
The report might have included a more extended and detailed discussion of
how redistribution of assets and income could generate employment, and how
employment could generate increased output and faster growth.
|
