On Equity, Inequality and Global Institutions

Washington, DC: World Bank. xiv + 320 pp. ISBN: 0-8213-6249-6, eISBN: 0-8213-6250-X. [Available online at http://www.worldbank.org] Social inequality has been slowly creeping back on to the global agenda. The World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER), as part of the UN, has for some time hosted debate, research and analysis in the area; the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO World) Commission on Social Dimensions of Globalization and the Report on Socioeconomic Security also touched on the topic. In the background of the global discourse on equity there is an older World Bank-initiated debate on whether globalization is good for the poor. The World Development Report 2006 (WDR) and the UN Report on the World Social Situation (UN/RWSS) specifically focus on equity and inequality, while the recent UNDP Human Development Report (HDR) contains a section on inequality that makes it a useful comparison to the other two reports. The focus on inequalities does not, however, seem to indicate a consensus on the causes or remedies between the three reports. While there is clearly similarity in the articulation and The definition of equity separates the WDR document from the other two reports. The WDR has chosen to define equity in terms of two basic principles. The first is equal opportunities: that a person's life achievements should be determined primarily by his or her talents and efforts, rather than by predetermined characteristics such as race, gender, social or family background. The second principle is to avoid deprivation in outcomes, particularly in health, education and consumption levels. The trick to this approach is that this definition makes it easy to marry equity with neoliberal policies and a liberalization agenda, which can now be seen as a way of ensuring access to markets and equity in this access.

This perspective is also expressed in the 'Foreword' of the WDR in the context of public action towards diminishing inequalities, which is to be advocated in a manner that respects and enhances individual freedom, as well as the role of markets in allocating resources. The danger of this is that the whole meaning of equity becomes problematic if it remains solely in the context of equal rights and opportunities. A new emphasis on equity is also referred to in a passage of the UN/RWSS report commenting on the fact that little has been done to instigate progressive taxation and other redistributive measures in order to reduce inequality. In this context, reference is made to civil society organizations' advocacy, stating that: . . . the focus of advocacy appears to be shifting away from the equitable distribution of income and assets towards more general political and civil rights. This state of affairs represents a political and institutional framework in which issues of inequality are considered today. (p. 127)

The challenge to the global equity debate is to overcome the changing nature of equity speak. There is now a danger that equity becomes what was previously considered as poverty alleviation with a residual approach to social policy that addresses only the poorest of the poor. No attention would be paid to the ways in which polarization and relative inequalities influence the social cohesion and developmental structures of societies. On the other hand, it is also clear that a door towards more focus on equity is also opened and is reflected in the World Bank background work for the WDR, recognizing that inequality is bad for the poor.

The three reports tend to both contest and complement each other's views, but more often than not also share a common discourse. In terms of the content of debates there seems to be support for more universal, sustainable and equitably financed social services by both the WDR and the UN/RWSS texts, while the HDR does not discuss the matter at length. In some ways this is because the issue is more comprehensively argued and brought up in the WDR even though it makes no conclusion. On the other hand, the UN/RWSS makes this point and does take it forward to its conclusion. In terms of social services, a major problem in the WDR text is that while it recognizes the many problems and faults, such as those of user charges, it is remarkably silent about the ways in which the World Bank has itself influenced the introduction of user charges and promoted some less equitable changes to health systems in the first place. This is not a minor problem of the report, but a kind of elephant sitting right on top of parts of the analysis. The same problem -or elephant -is evident in the sections on privatization of public services, utilities and the importance of taxation and in the context of macroeconomic policies, globalization and trade. It is in these sections that one needs to turn to the other reports to find analysis and discussion of the impact of sectoral reforms and structural adjustment on inequality. It was also expected that the reports would differ in their assessment of globalization and equity. Indeed, this is the case and unsurprisingly the WDR presents a rather blurred account of the diverse impacts and different results in analyses; expectedly, the other two reports adopt a more critical stance. The UN/RWSS also draws attention directly to the equity implications of economic policies such as structural adjustment and in the context of globalization, to the more UNCTAD-driven articulation of maintaining national policy space.

The HDR is the product of a new editorial crew, as Kevin Watkins has taken the lead. While the report is in many ways fresh and sharp, there is in the trade section also some feeling of reliving Oxfam policy work. It is also worth pointing out that while the HDR has a specific chapter on inequality it is primarily about international cooperation: aid, trade and security. In relation to inequality, the HDR makes a valid point on the distributional aspects of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

In terms of other substantive issues, migration is strongly present in all three reports, as well as the mobility of labour. The UN/RWSS text and the WDR both cover more employment and labour-related issues, whereas all of the reports take up future financing and new mechanisms such as the International Finance Facility.

The WDR 2006 on inequalities contains many interesting details, many of which are unexpected. The fact that the report addresses inequalities in household consumption, gender, taxation and even in the governance and inequality of power in structures of the international financial institutions needs to be welcomed. There is even a discussion of case studies of Sweden and Finland as examples of how economic growth and equity can be combined. In trade policies, the WDR stance on TRIPS is interesting, as it states that as 'inequitable as TRIPS may be, it still provides an internationally agreed standard subject to intense scrutiny and study, which does make it harder for rich countries to get more favourable deals in bilateral agreements ' (p. 215).

The WDR also throws in a new suggestion with respect to access to pharmaceuticals in the context of legally binding commitments not to enforce patent rights. This is, however problematic from the perspective of health needs and health policy priorities. The conclusions and actions lean towards markets and are articulated mostly in the context of the liberalization of trade and financial markets and aid, although they also take up the issue of rectifying the use of natural resources with a direct reference to the Kyoto Protocol. However, while the WDR discusses many of the issues more broadly, it remains largely within the old neoliberal framework, limiting the actual choice of options and possibilities that can be promoted.

The reports are all institutional products and written from different backgrounds, selectively drawing on different data and dominated by different information resources. The UN/RWSS text is primarily a UN report in terms of the sources of analysis, as a large number of UN agencies and their work are acknowledged. In comparison with the other reports, the UN/RWSS gives more room to the work of UNCTAD and an emphasis on policy space. However, rather than starting from the current emphasis of MDGs, it is based on the framework set in the Copenhagen Social Summit and the broader UN development agenda. In terms of the MDGs, it takes a stance that these should not be seen as a substitute for a broader development agenda. This is an approach that does shift the debate more towards the broader sphere of social policies and especially global social policies.

Finally, what emerges strongly from the three reports is a common sense that further support for the articulation of (global) social policies could be generated. Further, a 'policy space' for the articulation of equity concerns and mechanisms to address them could be opening at the global level. On the other hand, the danger of the current equity emphasis and equity speak is that the understanding of equity becomes dominated by definitions that can be best sustained in the context of liberalized markets.

  M E R I K O I V U S A L O Globalism and Social Policy Program (GASPP) Helsinki, Finlandunited nations development programme, Human Development Report: International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid, Trade and Security in an Unequal World. New York: UNDP, 2005. xvi + 372 pp. ISBN: 0-19-530511-6. [Available online at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/] united nations department of economic and social affairs, Report on the World Social Situation 2005: The Inequality Predicament. New York: United Nations, 2005. ix + 158 pp. ISBN: 9-21-130243-9. [Available online at http://www.un.org/esa/] world bank, World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development.


movements was undertaken. The high point of this process was the experience of the Social Summit for the Integration of Peoples, which took place in December 2006 in Cochabamba, Bolivia at the same time as the Summit of the South American Community of Nations (SACN). The Cochabamba Social Summit provided an opportunity to further consolidate proposalspreviously discussed in virtual forums during the preceding year. The fact that these proposals were discussed with governments that will undoubtedly address the demand in a number of fora throughout the Social Summit will undoubtedly set a new pattern of relations with civil society.

The challenge for movements now is to consolidate the experiences of over eight years of campaigning (since 1997) against the FTAA, and utilize what has been learnt to participate in negotiations on integration. There is a clear awareness that even 'friendly' governments can be susceptible to pressures from concentrated segments of the economy and that they can be influenced by development models that are neither socially nor environmentally sustainable. It is necessary, that social movements be present so that these pitfalls are avoided. There is a common assessment regarding the favourable political situation described at the beginning of this article: that the integration of peoples will only be possible if the people themselves are direct actors in the construction of these new economic regions.

Please address correspondence to: Gonzalo Berrón, Hemispheric Social Alliance, São Paolo, Brazil. [email: asc@laneta.apc.org] A profound process of de-legitimation of the structures and key institutions of the current neoliberal model of economic globalization has marked the last years of the 20th century and the beginning of the new millennium. Parallel with this, we have also witnessed the intense search for alternatives, highlighted in the World Social Forum process and concretized in the actual emerging alternatives, at the local, national and global level. It is in this context that the most promising alternative regionalisms are emerging, with social movements and civil society organizations (CSOs) as key protagonists.

B R I D B R E N N A N A N D C E C I L I A O L I V E T
Sustained popular mobilization against free trade and investment regimes being imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and bi-lateral Free Trade Agreements, combined with the resistance of South governments has led to the stalemate at the WTO. Decades of failure of International Monetary Fund (IMF) dictated Structural Adjustment programmes and World Bank (WB) policies coupled with stock market meltdown and repeated financial crisis in Asia and Latin America have led to a deep crisis of legitimacy of these global institutions and of the neoliberal model of development. In the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region for instance, these policies have not brought prosperity or contributed to the eradication of poverty. According to the World Bank's own figures, a quarter of the LAC population survive on less than US$2 a day. Access to basic services and social provisions, including education and health, remains highly unequal (World Bank, 2006).

Within the WTO, a number of new South-South intergovernmental alliances have emerged to defend their interests and challenge the bias of the current global trade and investment regime. These include the G-22 of large agricultural exporters, focused on contesting Northern protectionism; the G-33, which defends small farmers against dumping by the North; and the largest grouping of governments in the WTO, mainly African, the G-90, which insists on special and differential treatment for the least developed countries and a moratorium on new negotiations. The impasse in the current negotiations of the WTO's Doha 'Development' Round is due in large part to countries of the global South standing up to the USA and the EU demands.

Parallel with these developments, civil society movements have also been engaged at the regional level in both resisting neoliberal policies and in challenging their governments to move away from 'open regionalism', which brings ever deeper integration subservient to Northern corporate interests. In particular, the LAC region has been the arena of popular protests to halt privatization and reverse neoliberal policies. Social mobilizations against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) organized in the Hemispheric Social Alliance (HSA) as well as protests to stop the privatization of essential public services and the commercialization of natural resources have been instrumental in creating a new social and political reality. This has also contributed significantly to the electoral rise of progressive political forces in several countries.

These popular struggles over the right to a dignified existence has sharpened the reluctance of LAC governments to lock their countries into the global framework at the subordinate level of producers of primary goods. The new governmental and intergovernmental initiatives being developed within the LAC region are intended to reclaim control over natural resources and to redesign inter-regional and international relations. Foremost among these are Venezuela's initiative, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA)originally inspired by the Alternatives for the Americas, HSA's counter proposal to the FTAA -and Bolivia's proposals for a Trade Treaty of the Peoples (TCP). These alternative proposals are framed in a discourse of rejection of the regressive outcomes of over two decades of neoliberal policies in the LAC region and strongly affirm a people-based instead of profit-driven development, poverty reduction, defence of human rights and environmental protection. Others, such as the initiative for the formation of a South American Community of Nations (SACN), are less radical in their approach and even though SACN presents a new opportunity for a different kind of regional integration in Latin America, the overriding aim of the SACN initiative, at least in its founding Summit in Cucso in 2004, appears to be to develop regional integration as a strategy to face the challenges of the new global economic and political conjuncture, rather than to offer a genuine alternative to neoliberal globalization.

A distinctive characteristic of all these current initiatives is that they are proposals towards the realization of an alternative regional integration, which is distancing from and breaking with 'open regionalisms'. These new regional integration alternatives also envisage a new alliance of many countries capable of resisting the pressures from the global institutions of free trade and the big powers, whose business interests and transnational corporations will be strongly impacted by these alternative regional formations.

Above all, these alternatives reflect the efforts of some governments to begin the collective initiative of recovering sovereignty over development and integration processes. As Eduardo Gudynas, from the Latin American Center for Social Ecology (CLAES, Uruguay) comments, the recuperation of autonomy of nations undermined by neoliberalism is a necessary step for effective regional coordination (of politics, production and macro economy), which also strengthens negotiating capacity at international level.

Nevertheless, these governmental alternatives (ALBA, TCP and SACN) are still embryonic, and the countries leading the regional process are strongly contested by opposition forces within their own countries -Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Meanwhile the earlier generation of 'regionalisms' (Community of Andean Nations -CAN, MERCOSUR [Southern Common Market] and Central America -CA) also continue to coexist as models of 'open regionalism', even as they are being reconfigured, with Venezuela moving from CAN to MERCOSUR, and Mexico and Chile remaining outside these regional integration dynamics.

But even as the social movements and civil society organizations have played a pioneering role in the articulation and acceleration of the development of alternatives, both at national and regional levels, they are faced with more demanding challenges in the face of the current actual regionalisms. These movements represent not only diverse social forces, they also reflect diversity in political approaches and in their analysis of the current regional alternatives. These sometimes contradictory approaches are playing themselves out in the current economic, political and social realities of the LAC continent and in the daily struggles for sustainable livelihoods, food sovereignty, equality of human rights and active participation in shaping and democratizing the current and future trajectories of regional integration. The Social Summit for a Peoples' Integration held in Cochabamba last December was a defining moment representing the convergence of social movements and signifying their engagement with these government initiatives for alternative regionalisms.

In addressing the complex challenges of transformation that face the peoples of the LAC continent, it is likely that the strategies that have defined the social movement mobilizations until now -strategies combining resistance to neoliberal globalization with accumulating political power and developing alternatives in all the democratic spaces available -will be intensified in the coming years. It is this perspective that defines the current strategies of civil society's intervention in the challenges of shaping 'another regional integration' -a perspective that will sustain strategies of resistance while forging alternatives and that will engage constructively with governments and regional formations while insisting on movement autonomy. This was the main trajectory on the future of regionalisms outlined in Cochabamba, with a strong affirmation of the crucial role of social movements and CSOs as main protagonists of this new regionalism and integration of the Peoples.

(BRID BRENNAN is Co-ordinator at the Alternative Regionalisms Programme of the Transnational Institute, The Netherlands; CECILIA OLIVET is Researcher at the Alternative Regionalisms Programme of the Transnational Institute, The Netherlands.)

	Transnational Institute, The Netherlands
	Regionalisms Futures: The Challenges for Civil Society


position and research papers, or direct action, both legal and illegal, these global policy actors have contributed to the development of global social policy. The growth of this activism, whether termed global civil society (GCS), transnational social movements (TSMs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) or transnational advocacy networks, has prompted the appearance of a large social sciences literature, much of it enthusiastically celebrating the arrival of this 'new' actor on the global stage. Just as some social scientists welcomed the arrival of the new social movements (NSMs) as the new revolutionary subject in place of the working class, so now GCS, 'globalization from below' or 'counterhegemonic globalization' have become the repository of hopes for social, political and economic change.

There has been much (justified) concern, confusion and criticism at the lack of precision in the terminology in this literature. What precisely is civil society, even without the global adjective? How do transnational advocacy networks differ from traditional international solidarity campaigns? The confusion in this area mirrors the confusion inherent in much of the globalization literature. Much of the first wave of commentary involved wide claims unsubstantiated by anything like convincing evidence. The second wave (including that under review) is revising first-wave claims by paying close attention to the evidential basis for claims of the growth, impact and role in global social governance of transnational activism and GCS.

The nine books under review provide a useful indication of the range of issues and debates currently being highlighted in the literature. The first two volumes (Anheier et al. and Glasius et al.) focus on GCS, the next two volumes by Tarrow and Bob examine transnational activism and responses to globalization, while the final subsequent volumes (Podobnik and Reifer, Kiely, Starr and Sen et al., and Harvie et al.) are concerned with the anti-globalization movement (AGM).

The Global Civil Society yearbooks are well on their way to becoming an essential reference work on the subject. The editors define GCS as 'the realm of non-coercive collective action around shared interests and values that operates beyond the boundaries of nation states'. Recognizing the controversy over the concept, the editors see 'the terminological tangle that envelops the concept as an opportunity' for debate and analysis.

The two volumes of Global Civil Society under review provide much material for analysis and debate. Structured around four headings (concepts, issues, infrastructure and records), the subjects covered include gender, migration, climate change, reform of international organizations, international foundations and social fora. Constraints of space prohibit a detailed review, but the usefulness of Global Civil Society can be appreciated from two articles in the 2005/6 volume, both of which contain material that will discomfit GCS boosters. In the article by Glasius and Timms on the World Social Forum (WSF), the list of financial supporters of the 2005 WSF (p. 230) include the Ford and Rockefeller foundations (who also financially support the production of Global Civil Society); the authors also note that many NGO sponsors of the previous two years' fora are themselves funded by private corporations. Given such funding sources, some doubt the WSF's claim to provide an alternative. It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that the failure of WSF organizers to provide detailed information on the size and conditionalities of funding contradicts the transparency that many of its proponents would demand from MNCs and states. Katz and Anheier's article, meanwhile, finds a pronounced centre-periphery structure in transnational NGO networks with the result that, in the words of Global Civil Society's editors, 'the network reproduces rather than counteracts the amplification of Northern over Southern voices ' (p. 27).

The most significant limitations of the Global Civil Society volumes relate to the global reach of its authors, which hardly extends beyond the London School of Economics and University of California (Los Angeles), tokenistically supplemented by Third World authors (two Egyptians in 2004/5 and Chico Whitaker of Brazil in 2005/6). A further limitation of the volume is its missed opportunity: what could be the most useful section of the Yearbook, the records of GCS section, is underdeveloped. In the 2004/5 edition, the data section (which reprints data available elsewhere) occupies 113 pages (nearly one-third of the volume). Compared to this the chronology of GCS, a resource unique to the volume and potentially of great value, occupies a mere 10 pages. For the 2005/6 edition, the respective figures are 162 pages for the data reprint section, and 9 pages for the chronology. We can only wonder why, having drawn together what appears to be a useful network of correspondents throughout the world, so little use is made of them.

Both Tarrow and Bob cast critical eyes on some of the grander claims made for the new transnational activism, though from different perspectives. Tarrow belongs to the political process tradition of social movement studies. His close attention to process leads to a concentration on the micro-level in which each analysis is presented with detailed case studies; what is lost in the failure to address fundamental macro questions is more than compensated for by the way his grounded analysis of the nuts and bolts difficulties involved in forming and sustaining TSMs provides an illuminating and detailed view of the variety, operation and limitations of transnational activism. On the last of these, his conclusion that 'Transnational intervention fails more often than it succeeds' (p. 200) is worth noting. Clifford Bob's is the one academic book under review here that could be unhesitatingly recommended to a local activist searching for transnational allies, as he analyses why certain local movements are taken up by large INGOs. While his presentation of the international competition for support from INGOs and IGOs as a market may offend some sensibilities, it provides an excellent method of analysis: only a fool could deny the inequalities in power and resources that underlie relations between INGOs and their local allies. Looking in detail at the attempts by the Zapatistas and Ogoni to obtain transnational allies, Bob notes how the groups successfully altered their tactical, ethical and organizational features to match the requirements of their NGO supporters (p. 180). Bob's concluding words present a harsh but not unrealistic picture of GCS: 'Global civil society' is an arena of sharp competition where myriad weak groups fight for recognition and aid. It is a sphere in which hard-nosed calculation of costs and benefits constantly competes with sympathy and emotion. And it is a place where the real needs of local people are one factor, not necessarily the most important, in sparking international activism. (p. 195) Podobnik and Reifer's edited volume is the best academic collection on the AGM to appear so far. The articles by Podobnik and Wood provide empirical data on AGM protests and make this collection an essential addition to any library collection on transnational activism. Podobnik's article in particular debunks many myths about the AGM, showing that the most important participants in protests have been workers (p. 64), who, with farmers, formed the backbone of the protests in the early 1990s, to be joined by a rainbow of NSMs in the late 1990s. This article also shows that the largest number of protests and the largest mobilizations of people have taken place in the global south, and that the 9/11 attacks on military and financial targets in the USA led to only a brief pause in the AGM's activities. Useful also is Podobnik's summary of the AGM's impact: at least eight governments have been overthrown due entirely or in part to pressures exerted by grassroots campaigns. In 70 other instances, moderate to severe political crisis have been created by these protests -and many government officials have been forced to resign their office. Meanwhile, in over 50 cases IMF austerity programmes and World Bank projects have been cancelled, delayed, or revised because of mobilizations. And at least 24 global summits/trade meetings have been significantly disrupted. (p. 66) This useful source is supplemented by Wood's analysis of 5 Global Days of Action between 1998 and 2001, articles on student, labour union and environmentalist involvement in the US AGM, indigenous resistance and an insightful article on the connections between the WSF and the Workers' Party in Brazil. Smith's analysis of the growth of TSMOs reports how the rate of growth in TSMO formation has slowed dramatically in the late 1990s, many more groups are now organizing around multiple rather than singleissues, over a fifth of TSMOs now have their headquarters in the global South (compared to 12% in 1973) and coalitions make up more than half of TSMOs in 2000, up from a quarter of all groups in the 1970s.

If the price makes purchase impossible, earlier versions of most of the articles in the Podobnik and Reifer volume were published in a special edition of the Journal of World Systems Research (available online at http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ archive/vol10/number1/index.php). What is ironic, for a theory that highlights systemic global inequalities, is the lack of even one contribution from a peripheral country. Also missing is any consideration of the position of women in the movement, or the movement's effects and positions on the position of women globally.

The two volumes by Kiely and Starr present contrasting yet in many ways complementary accounts of the AGM. Presenting a Marxist analysis, Ray Kiely devotes half his volume to the global context and the second half to the rise of the AGM, doing a fine job of presenting the growth of the AGM in the global context of neo-liberal restructuring. Amory Starr is, like many commentators on the movement, both an activist and an academic. Her experience in teaching undergraduates stands her in good stead in her latest book, which clearly and concisely summarizes the history of the movement, its manifestos and tactics, yet never flinches from examining the controversies that divide the movement. Each section is short and to the point, and accompanied by useful notes and lists of resources. Perhaps most useful is the fact that, as she puts it in her introduction, the book is 'a distillation of the perspectives and positions of actual and active social movements. Commentary by nonactivists has been assiduously disregarded' (p. 10). Thus, the voices we hear here are those of the activists themselves: this makes this an ideal introductory text for undergraduates and professors alike.

For those searching for alternative sites of global social policy formation, the World Social Forum and its associated regional and national fora seem promising locations for policy dialogue. The volume edited by Jai Sen et al. is the most comprehensive volume of documents and discussion on the WSF so far, and is particularly welcome, not only for the geographical spread of its contributors, but also for its inclusion of critical voices -anarchists, feminists, revolutionists -along with those who initiated and support the Forum's current operation. Authors in the volume come from North America (13), South America (7), Asia (7), Europe (5) and Africa (4), effectively dividing the volume equally between core and periphery. The volume begins by examining the WSF's background and antecedents, continues with considerations on the WSF experience by both protagonists and critics, presents a useful array of views of the Mumbai 2004 WSF and the organization thereof, and finishes with prospects for the future. Each section is accompanied by WSF and movement documents and these alone make the volume an essential reference.

The last volume under review is a report from the AGM's frontlines. Shut them Down!, which is exceptionally well illustrated, is essentially a collection of reflections on and accounts of the Gleneagles G8 2005 mobilization by British activists: it includes useful accounts of specific issues such as the organization of camps, food, toilet and information provision, the experience of children, clowning tactics, community gardening and dealing with the media; unfortunately it lacks a chapter on funding. The anthology combines analysis by movement intellectuals, such as John Holloway, George Caffentzis and Werner Bonefeld, with a variety of anonymous and pseudonymous activists. Particularly useful is the extended article by Alex Trocchi et al., which traces the history of organization against Gleneagles.

The Gleneagles mobilization is criticized on two grounds: first its failure to refer to the national and local impacts of neo-liberalism over the last two decades (p. 216), and second its failure to confront the coalition between development NGOs and their funders in the British government. Here the volume illuminates the divisions in civil society: Paul Hewson considers the role played by the Make Poverty History (MPH) coalition in co-opting much of the concern over global poverty into spectacular and consumerist activities, and notes how 'the major civil society mobilisation for the G8 -MPHcomprising the major trade unions, development NGOs and faith groups with "political celebrities" shamelessly organised in favour of the summit' (p. 138). He concludes that 'MPH succeeded in simultaneously mobilising hundreds of thousands of people to Scotland but away from the G8' (p. 144). The book also shows a progression in the ways in which activists interpret mobilizations. In the words of Ben Trott 'Summit mobilisations, then, should begin to be recognised (by both their proponents and their critics) not as an attempt to strike a blow to the very heart of capitalism, but as an opportunity to catch a glimpse of, experience and help build possible future worlds ' (p. 227).

What are the implications of these volumes for global social policy? Of the volumes under review, only the Global Civil Society yearbooks explicitly engage with policy issues and impacts. Despite this, some conclusions on the relevance of GCS for social policy can be drawn. On the most general level, these books suggest that grand claims for the importance and policy impacts of GCS should be treated with some scepticism, if not suspicion. They also confirm that the national arena continues to be of prime importance in political activism generally, including for those transnational activists who wish to change global policies. Finally, the volumes clearly demonstrate, both through their analyses and (with the exception of Sen et al.) author composition, that the space that GCS and its proponents occupy reproduces the very global inequalities they claim to question. biographical note toma ´s mac sheoin is an independent scholar. His most recent book is Asphyxiating Asia (2003) Mapusa, Gao: The Other India Press. [email: tomas.x@ireland.com]


Social Protection in East Asia

S A R A H C O O K University of Sussex, UK H U C K -J U K W O N Sung Kyun Kwan University, Korea

Economic Crisis and Social Policy Responses in East Asia

The welfare states in many East Asian countries have evolved over the past 40 years from a bare structure with a minimal number of programmes into fairly comprehensive systems. 1 During this time, they have acquired distinctive characteristics. One of the important rationales for social policy in the East Asian region was 'welfare developmentalism', which saw social policy as an instrument for economic development [START_REF] Goodman | Welfare Orientalism and the Search for an East Asian Welfare Model[END_REF]. In fact, social policy did indeed prove to be one of the most effective policy instruments during the period of rapid economic growth in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.

A second dimension often identified as a core feature of East Asian welfare states is the notion of Confucian familism, involving 'a strong reliance on the family as the site of social welfare and service delivery' (Goodman and Peng, 1996: 193). Social arrangements were based on the assumption of the family as the main provider of care. The traditional image of the family was of a unit composed of three generations where household work, including homemaking and care-giving, was produced by 'housewives'. This approach was endorsed by the Japanese and the Korean governments in the 1980s, and more recently a similar revival of attention to their Confucian cultural heritage is seen in China and Vietnam.

The weaknesses of this approach, based on a narrowly growth-focused state system combined with a heavy reliance on family or informal support networks, were painfully exposed during the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Those groups who were vulnerable to economic shocks fell largely outside the protection of the welfare state and were unable to get assistance from the state in times of need. Social protection through informal arrangements such as family and informal networks did not work well, since the poorest tended to have equally poor family members and networks [START_REF] Kwon | Income Transfers to the Elderly in Korea and Taiwan[END_REF]. More importantly, the 'traditional' family, which was still regarded as In response to the social and economic crises of 1997-8, many East Asian countries have subsequently strengthened their welfare states and expanded their social protection interventions. Such experience counters the argument that the welfare state will have only marginal importance in the globalizing world. On the contrary social policy has been used as an effective instrument for economic recovery while providing social protection to the more vulnerable people in society [START_REF] Gough | Globalization and Regional Welfare Regimes: The East Asian Case[END_REF][START_REF] Kwon | East Asian Welfare States in Transition: Challenges and Opportunities[END_REF][START_REF] Kwon | Transforming the Developmental Welfare State in East Asia[END_REF]. In Korea and Taiwan, for example, unemployment insurance schemes and comprehensive social protection for the poor, which governments had previously resisted strongly, were introduced at this time. In this context, one of the most difficult challenges currently facing countries in East Asia is how to maintain the developmental credentials of social policy while strengthening social protection.

Social Protection in Low-Income East Asian Countries

It is, however, necessary to remember that there is a huge gap between countries in East Asia in terms of economic and social development. The region includes countries ranked among the world's wealthiest (Japan) and poorest (e.g. North Korea and Cambodia). Hong Kong's per capita GNI has reached US$27,600 while Vietnam's figure is US$520, Laos US$440 and Cambodia US$380. In terms of human development, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Index indicates a huge discrepancy among East Asian countries: Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea are ranked between 20th and 26th while the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are below the 80th. The region contains the world's most populous country alongside some of the smallest. There is also variation in the pace of structural transformation reflected in levels of urbanization and industrialization, and in the stage of demographic transition.

Compared to front-running Tiger economies, the low-income countries in East Asia have only a limited range of social protection programmes. In the Philippines and Indonesia, social policy institutions protect only a small number of people against a very limited range of social risks, although these are expanding: post-crisis Indonesia, for example, has developed a number of targeted support programmes, including rice and fuel subsidies, as well as recently introducing a new cash transfer programme. The poorest countries in the region -Laos and Cambodia -essentially lack formal social security mechanisms. In North Korea where the socialist social protection system has evaporated over the last three decades, millions of people have suffered starvation and chronic malnutrition.

Transition economies such as China and Vietnam highlight another dimension of East Asian social policy. China's liberalization since 1978 and Vietnam's process of Renovation (Doi Moi) from 1986 have brought about remarkable economic growth that can match the economic miracles of the first generation of Asian Tigers. While these liberalizing policies brought about impressive improvements in growth as well as major reductions in poverty, inequality between regions, income groups and urban and rural areas has increased sharply. This trend worries top policy makers in both countries who fear that social unrest caused by such inequalities could derail reform and economic growth.

One important underlying cause of increasing inequality is the fact that new social protection mechanisms were not only inadequate in protecting the poor and the vulnerable, but also reinforced inequalities between those prospering in the new market economy and those failing to do so.

In both China and Vietnam, social protection traditionally relied on two institutions -the household and government. Under the socialist system, social protection was, in theory, the responsibility of the state; in practice, local collectives and communities were the main funders and providers of social services and income support. While the pre-reform system had its own limits and inequities, it explicitly sought to provide guaranteed employment, free education, subsidized food, and 'fairness' in terms of providing access to benefits for all sectors of society [START_REF] Bach | Social Protection and Market Reforms in Vietnam[END_REF].

In China, the welfare system established in the 1950s has been dismantled slowly but steadily since the reforms began in the 1970s. The past decade in particular has seen a dramatic increase in the number of laid-off workers and unemployed, a reduction or loss of welfare benefits and services including pensions, health care, education and subsidized housing, and the emergence of urban poverty. Basic social services, particularly health and education, are now largely purchased privately and their cost has risen sharply. In rural areas, the social protection system remains fragmented, limited in scope and coverage, and reliant for funding principally on local resources [START_REF] Cook | Creating Wealth and Welfare: Entrepreneurship and the Developmental State in Rural China[END_REF].

Similarly in Vietnam under Doi Moi, social protection was partly 'societalized', meaning that the state withdrew from many of its functions, and individuals and families became largely responsible for their own provision: through contributions to insurance schemes or the payment of fees (including for health and education) at the point of delivery. Some steps were taken during this period to reform and extend the formal social security system: pensions and other employment related social benefits continued to cover civil servants and formal sector workers. For the majority of the population, however, the old social protection system has gone, but a new public system has not been put in place. Inequalities in access to basic services are particularly marked, with greater inequality in outcomes such as school enrolment, health care, child nutrition, life expectancy, unemployment and basic sanitation [START_REF] Bach | Social Protection and Market Reforms in Vietnam[END_REF]. Those who are unable to purchase basic services privately must rely on informal support mechanisms, which are unreliable for the poorest.

Two Strands of Welfare State Development in East Asia

In terms of institutional configurations, two different strands of welfare state development have emerged in East Asia: in the Northeast Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan the underpinning principle of the welfare state is social insurance with a strong aspiration to universalism; by contrast, in Singapore and Hong Kong, provident funds are the main anchor of the welfare state with a strong emphasis on public housing. This broad clustering does not always follow the line of sub-regions in East Asia. Thailand is a test case. Located in Southeast Asia, Thailand chose to extend and strengthen its social protection system with aspirations towards universalism as Korea and Taiwan had done after the economic crisis.

Prior to the crisis formal safety nets or social security schemes were extremely limited in Thailand. Unemployment and other benefits were restricted to only a minority of formal sector or government employees. Civil servants were covered by a pension scheme. Severance payments until 2001 covered only those formal workers employed over 3 years; social security coverage excluded those in small enterprises (under 10 people) or the selfemployed. Apart from a small number of welfare programmes for some disadvantaged groups, the majority of the most vulnerable had to rely on informal or traditional family or community safety nets (Paitoonpong, 2000: 15). The crisis demonstrated the limits of relying on growth and rising incomes alone for protecting the population and sustaining welfare improvements. Following the crisis, the government first implemented a number of safety net programmes, partially supported by international donors, including a 'Social Investment Programme'. More significantly, it has subsequently moved towards an expansion of universal social protection programmes, with an increase in public expenditures on welfare.

Democratic politics, inter alia, can account for the strengthening of social protection in Thailand as in Korea and Taiwan. This is illustrated in particular by the 30 Baht Health Plan introduced in 2002 following the landslide victory in 2001 of the Thai Rak Thai Party led by Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin fought the election on a promise that his government would implement a policy of universal access to health care for 30 Baht a visit [START_REF] Tangcharoensathien | Challenges of Implementing Universal Health Care in Thailand[END_REF]. Thailand also introduced unemployment benefits within the social security system in 2004. This was another bold step towards a more comprehensive welfare state, following the earlier expansion of the old age pension programme to all enterprises with one or more employees in 2002.

Pursuing universal access to social protection inevitably raises the question of financial sustainability of the welfare state. Many observers were initially concerned about the financing of the 30 Baht Health Plan, but it has not led to a major increase in overall health expenditures. Nevertheless, the proportion of the government share in total expenditures has increased, which has caused government concern (International Health Policy Programme, 2003).

At present, the Thai government plans to introduce a proportional co-payment system instead of the current flat rate one. The abrupt end of the Thaksin government in 2006, however, creates a challenge to the political sustainability of the Thai welfare state before it has been tested in terms of its financial sustainability. It remains to be seen whether the new government will maintain the same policy orientation in the sphere of social protection.

Global Social Policy in East Asia

The global dimension is also an important feature of social policy in East Asia. With respect to low-income East Asian countries, efforts to strengthen their social protection systems could be boosted by international cooperation with the developed countries. In East Asia, Japan is one of the biggest donors, and has played an important part in development assistance for poverty reduction and technical assistance along with other donors from Europe and North America. Korea, a newcomer in the donor community, increased its ODA size from 0.06 in 2001 to 0.1 of GNI in 2005, and plans to double this figure in the near future.

The increase in international migration within East Asia also raises the necessity of a region-wide social policy framework. Migrant workers, who are more vulnerable to economic downturns and often subject to abuse, often fall outside any social protection arrangements since welfare state entitlements are based primarily on citizenship. In order to protect this group, it is necessary to establish bilateral and multilateral agreements among East Asian countries, but regional frameworks such as ASEAN+3, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have so far been lukewarm in their response to such initiatives. This is largely due to the principle of non-interference in other nations' domestic policy affairs, as social protection is seen as such an issue. Having said that, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) and the Asian Development Bank are giving strong priority to poverty reduction and social protection while many civil society organizations in East Asia have promoted the idea of an East Asian Social Charter.

Overall, the welfare states in East Asian countries with the exception of Japan are not extensive either in their coverage of various social risks, or in terms of the population covered, compared to their European and North American counterparts. Nevertheless, the welfare states in the region have shown remarkable growth. This is mainly because of the important role social policy has played in the economic development of many East Asian countries, but at the same time, intrinsic goals of social policy, i.e. social protection and equity, have gained increasing importance in the policy paradigm. Social policy experience in East Asia counters the assertion that social protection can only be implemented after reaching high levels of economic development.

Cook & Kwon: Social Protection in East Asia


Editorial Introduction

Special Issue on The Social Policy Dimensions of World-Regionalism

The regionalist strategies of states, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movements are key to understanding the complex relationship between contemporary globalization and social policy processes.

In bringing together a range of contributions focused on the social politics and policies of world-regional integration processes, this special issue of Global Social Policy has two major aims. First, it seeks to advance a wider appreciation of the significance of regionalist and regionalization processes in the making of global social governance and policy. Second, it begins to address the substantial gap in the scholarly and policy literatures on regionalisms that privilege issues of trade, diplomacy and 'security' to the neglect of welfare. This collection shows that there is a tangible social policy dimension to several regional groupings and that questions of trade and 'security' policy are in practice entangled in wider social policy issues concerning the resources that people have access to and control over and how certain social groups and entire populations are treated.

The Forum section, coordinated by Brid Brennan and Cecilia Olivet at the Transnational Institute, brings together scholar-activists from South America, Africa and Asia to reflect on the opportunities, successes and challenges presented by regional processes for those involved in campaigning for a more socially-just globalization. The Articles section contains five full-length articles on the social policy dimensions and impacts of long-established and more recently emerged (statist) regionalisms in Europe (Threlfall on the EU), Asia (Chavez on ASEAN) and the Americas (Abrahamson on CAFTA, Hosein on CARICOM and Ruiz on the FTAA).

Although each article differs in its overall argument, focus and perspective, collectively they underline the centrality of social policy and politics in mediating the development and impacts of regionalist strategies -as well as the significance of regional formations in the (re)making of social policy under conditions of globalization. The Review Article, authored by Van Langenhove and De Lombaerde, similarly underlines the extent to which social policy questions feature centrally in scholarly discussions of world-regionalism, and usefully connect current debates about regionalization processes to those featuring in globalization and social policy literatures.

We hope you find this issue of the Journal useful and welcome any feedback and contributions you may wish to make (email: gsp@mcmaster.ca).

N I C O L A Y E AT E S

The Open University

Please address correspondence to: Nicola Yeates, Department of Social Policy, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK.

[email: n.yeates@open.ac.uk]


Global Social Policy Forum Guest Editors' Introduction

The articles in this GSP Forum are focused on the protagonist role of social movements and civil society organizations (CSOs) in the challenge of developing and pursuing new strategies for building regional alternatives.

Events in the last years of the 20th century and at the turn of the millennium have underlined the fact that the key structures and institutions of the neoliberal economic globalization model are deeply dysfunctional, leading to profound de-legitimization of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Sustained popular mobilization against free trade and investment regimes being imposed by the WTO and bi-lateral Free Trade Agreements, combined with the resistance of South governments has led to the stalemate at the WTO.

Meanwhile, social movements and CSOs globally have also emerged as a potent force for social transformation and have been recognized by the Financial Times as the 'other super power'. This current rise of social movements and CSOs has been characterized by two interrelated strategies -a strategy of resistance to corporate-driven trade and investment regimes, liberalization of markets and privatization and by the search for, and construction of, alternative strategies of development from the bottom-up, with a new emphasis on strategies of regional integration.

In this issue of the Global Social Policy Forum the authors have explored 'alternative regionalisms' from different perspectives. Dot Keet outlines the Why and How of the new Alternative Regionalisms and Cândido Grzybowski introduces the experiences and challenges in pursuing an inter-regional dialogue between social movements and CSOs in MERCOSUR (Common Market of the Southern Cone) and SADC (Southern African Development Community). The current stage of development of the government-initiated regions of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and SADC are analysed by Jenina Joy Chavez and Dot Keet respectively. They also discuss the challenges being faced by civil society in both regions in seeking to democratize these regional structures. While acknowledging the significance of Cochabamba, Brid Brennan and Cecilia Olivet place the emergence of these regional alternatives in the broader context of resistance to economic globalization and the convergence of social movements and the search for alternatives that is most visibly expressed in the World Social Forum process. These initial regionalisms are embryonic and their future will to a great extent depend on how social movements and CSOs will sustain their resistance, and while guarding their autonomy, constructively engage those governments embarked on the construction of new regional alternatives.

The complexity and the specificity of the current stages of development in the existing regions and the diversity of factors coming to bear on the outcome of regional integration in Asia, Africa and Latin America, are reflected on by the authors. Moreover, all are agreed on the urgency and importance of the participation of social movements and CSOs if current regional formations are to be democratized and if alternative regionalisms are to be shaped according to a broad people's agenda for sustainable development.

  B R I D B R E N N A N Alternative Regionalisms Programme of the Transnational Institute, 1Amsterdam, The NetherlandsC E C I L I A O L I V ET Alternative Regionalisms Programme of the Transnational Institute, 1 Amsterdam, The Netherlands N O T E 1. This programme has been jointly initiated by the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses (IBASE) -Brazil, Alternative Information and Development Center (AIDC) -South Africa, Focus on the Global South -Thailand, and the Transnational Institute (TNI), The Netherlands. BRID BRENNAN is Co-ordinator at the Alternative Regionalisms programme of the Transnational Institute, The Netherlands; CECILIA OLIVET is Researcher at the Alternative Regionalisms Programme of the Transnational Institute, The Netherlands. Please address correspondence to: Brid Brennan, Alternative Regionalisms Programme, Transnational Institute, PO Box 14656, 1001 LD Amsterdam, The

  While regionalism has traditionally been government-initiated and statecentred, a new conjuncture is being shaped in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, where social movements and CSOs have emerged as key protagonists of a new regionalism for Peoples' integration. A highpoint in this convergence has been the unprecedented exchange between social movements and CSOs and governments, which took place in Cochabamba in December 2006 as analysed by Gonzalo Berrón.

Global Social Policy Copyright © 2007 1468-0181 vol. 7(3): 253-270; 082233 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) DOI: 10.1177/1468018107082233 http://gsp.sagepub.com gsp