Blog

In the UK  and across the globe, debate, anger and  fear are raging over the austerity measures  that are being imposed to cure economic ailments. The World Cup has offered us welcome distraction from the constant scare mongering generated by governments’ PR machines that tell us the debt problem (or really any problem you can think of) must be solved by cuts, cuts, cuts. They all say tell us ‘We know what is best for you, shut your eyes, open your mouth, take the medicine it will cure all our ills. Watch the football, drink your beer, stay on the sofa there’s a good chap.’

But the World Development Movement and others don’t want you to stay on your sofa. We have campaigned for decades to stop institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank from forcing developing countries to introduce public service cuts, privatisation and reductions in government  spending. Sound familiar?

We campaign against these measures  because the evidence categorically shows that these policies hurt people in developing countries making them poorer, and the gap grows chasmic between the richest and poorest. We have been vindicated, in the late 1990s even the World Bank and IMF slowly slowly began to change their neoliberal tune.  Ok so they weren’t exactly singing the Internationale, but they introduced measures to try and provide a safety net to cushion people against the worst aspects of poverty that these policies brought. And ok it wasn’t that sucessful, but we were somewhere in the argument that more privatisation and less government spending on, let’s say schools and midwives salaries, do not in fact cure the debt crisis, do not cure poverty but do bring unemployment, more children and mothers dying in childbirth and plummeting literacy rates .

But somewhere along the line we’ve lost the argument again because those same policies are being introduced now in the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Spain, the UK…. read behind the spin of ‘free’ schools or of ‘efficiency savings’ in the NHS and you’ll see they are the same old policies with prettier names. So our governments are singing loudly that neoliberal anthem that’s been discredited and discarded by its inventors for over a decade.

Brazil is one of the many countries that had to undergo the structural adjustment or economic shock therapy imposed by the IMF during the 1980s and 1990s. This included the economic policies described above to try to reduce its debts. Analysis from Oxfam showed the results:

• 43% of Brazilians – over 60 million people – lack the essentials of a decent life
• One in three children drop out of school without completing primary education
• 90% of sewage is untreated

Brazil now is also being hit by the economic recession, but they are still a growing economy. Having seen his country decimated by the cuts agenda in the past, President Lula does not sing from the neoliberal song book, instead   Lula wants to invest in new roads, highspeed trains and new homes for people on low incomes.

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, the new coalition government will be bringing in austerity measures that Brazil eshews. The Guardian argued that people voted for austerity with a conscience. The argument seems to be that the coalition is softened, in a similar way to the UK, by the Dutch equivalent of the Lib Dems. Not so soft?

I can’t make predictions for the match, but my prediction for the countries that bring in austerity measures: inquality and poverty will increase. I feel like sitting on my sofa, having a beer, watching the match to forget that the next generation of kids might go to a school run by Tesco where they are trained to work for Tesco, they will live in a Tesco housing estate and they will eat Tesco food.

But I won’t – what I will do is check out No Shock Doctrine for Britain who are campaigning against the cuts, and work to force those in power and in wealth see that austerity is not the medecine that will cure us, it is the medicine that no matter how much sugar we pile on top of it will only hurt us.

Posted in: Brazil, Global injustice, Netherlands, Uncategorized, Who am I cheering for?

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Argentina and Greece are no strangers to economic austerity, right wing dictatorships and perhaps even a little bit of the shock doctrine. It seems appropriate that these two countries are drawn together just as the economic forecast for Greece hits rock bottom. Of course, the footballing styles couldn’t be more different. Lionel Messi is almost certainly the finest player I’ve seen play 90 minutes. Greece are probably best described as attritional.

Greece is of course the oldest western European civilisation, while Argentina’s culture is marked by its period as a melting pot equal to the USA in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. It is a little known fact that Argentina has some of the largest communities of Armenians and Jews in the world. Indeed Efrain Chacurian, who played international football for the USA (once against England – though not in that match) in the 1950s was born and brought up in Argentina.

Both countries have been in the American sphere of influence in the twentieth century, and have had the corresponding economic prescription of austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich. While Greece benefited enormously from the Marshall Plan this was no doubt linked to its strategic importance as a bulwark against communism in the eastern Mediterranean. Of course, membership of the European Economic Community in 1983 moved Greece slightly further from America’s influence. But the historically high levels of welfare spending remained as a concession to social harmony.

The real interest in a comparative economic history of these countries, though, is that Greece is currently going through what Argentina went through in the late 1990s. Dealing with a budget deficit is something that people in the UK are becoming increasingly interested in. That is what the Argentine government tried to do in the late 1990s.

The economy bumped along as a series of politicians tried to sort it out to the satisfaction of the International Monetary Fund. In the end Nelson Kirchner came to power. Part of the package he implemented was to take a number of utilities including the post office and the municipal water supply for Buenos Aires back into public control.

The Naomi Klein scripted film The Take tells the story of how workers took control of factories that was closed as a result of IMF advice. It’s well worth a watch.

Argentina was able to produce export led growth because of a low valued currency. This is a route unavailable to Greece until the leave the Euro. Argentina have ignored neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and have managed to build a wide range of co-operatives, like that mentioned in “The Take”.

Perhaps in 10 years time we’ll be witnessing a resurgent Greek economy marked by the presence of the world’s greatest player, while Argentina return to their worst, as characterised by their performance at the 1990 World Cup. Perhaps Greece will have opted for fiscal independence and will be able to boast an economic recovery like that of Argentina.

Posted in: Argentina, Argentina-Greece, Greece

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

This is a very important match for both teams. Having lost their opening matches, anything but a win this afternoon almost certainly means an early exit from the tournament. Having previously declared my support for Nigeria, I very much hope that the Super Eagles will be able to rise to the challenge.

It’s difficult to think of Greece at the moment without considering its debt crisis. The country has a budget deficit of 13 percent of GDP, a national debt of about £260bn and, in fear of the money markets and credit ratings agencies, has recently accepted an emergency loan from the EU and the IMF of about £30bn per year over the next three years.

As part of the ‘rescue package’, Greece has been forced to make cuts in public sector pay, increase VAT, raise the retirement age and reduce pensions, measures that have hit ordinary people hard and sparked widespread protests.

But does it have to be this way?

Greece has the highest military spending in the World Cup. At nearly £10bn per year – 4.1 percent of GDP – it amounts to almost £1,000 per person per year. If Greece was to reduce its spending on the army to the level of, say Mexico, which has the lowest in the World Cup, it would immediately reduce its budget deficit to 9.9 percent. This is a manageable one percent higher than the 8.7 percent it has had to agree to reduce the deficit to by the end of 2010.

Nigeria, with an income per person of £1,128, is the poorest country in the World Cup. But it also has one of the World’s largest oil reserves, bringing in an income of more than £600bn since the 1960s – an average of £12bn per year.

But this income doesn’t benefit ordinary people. It has been estimated that 80 percent of the oil income benefits only one percent of the population. As I’ve written about elsewhere, instead of prosperity, the oil industry has brought environmental degradation, human rights abuses, poverty and conflict to large parts of the population. The winners are the multinational oil companies and a small wealthy Nigerian elite.

In both countries, ordinary people are well justified to ask – where has all the money gone?

Posted in: Greece, Greece-Nigeria, Nigeria

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

In 1959 my grandfather was sent to Japan as a British diplomat. The country he found was undergoing what is now a famous post-war economic recovery.

At the time, the Japanese government was pursuing a strategy of tight economic protectionism, and substantial investment in education. The American army had left only seven years earlier, and Japan’s equivalent of the Marshall Plan had helped kick start the re-building of infrastructure. Japan closed its borders to most international competition, and concentrated on building up its companies, and investing in its people and its infrastructure. Major corporations provided lifetime job guarantees, and factories were heavily unionised, international trade was carefully regulated.

Throughout this period, the country saw growth rates of more than 9%, and rapidly rose to become the second biggest economy on earth. Once companies had built up, throughout the sixties, they were slowly released onto global markets, but with strict controls ensuring they maintained access to their domestic markets.

But by this point, my grandfather had moved on. In 1963, he was sent to the newly independent Cameroon. Unlike Japan, who centuries before had managed to keep European colonialists at bay, Cameroon had suffered from French imperialism. However, significant oil reserves and a willingness to subsidise agriculture led to initial growth in Cameroon, allowing it to become one of the wealthiest sub-Saharan countries.

Unfortunately, though, international economic collapse of the 1980s stifled this. While Japan had built up sufficient wealth by this point, Cameroon had to go cap in hand to the IMF and World Bank. The following decades have been characterised by privatisation and the enforced free trade. 4 re-structuring programs later, the country has not met any of the targets imposed on it by these organisations. In a country replete with natural resources, 23% of the population are chronically hungry, and life expectancy sits just below 60. Such has been the success of two decades IMF/World Bank management.

Like most wealthy countries, Japan has been more than willing to plunder the Cameroonian markets levered open by the IMF and World Bank. Most notable, perhaps, is Japanese industrial fishing off the coast of West Africa. Famous for their love of fish, the people of Japan have managed to trawl their own seas to oblivion. As a result, they have moved on to those areas with any remaining fish – with the West African coast towards the top of their priority list. As one Japanese company boasts: “More than any other parts of the world, the coastal waters of West Africa bring a wealth of business in commercial fishing.” And Cameroon has suffered along with it’s neighbours, as traditional fisherpeople face dwindling stocks of their main source of food.

So, as these two countries face each other in South Africa, what we see are examples of two different models of economic development. In blue, a country which managed to avoid imperial colonisation of both European gun-boats and IMF conditions. In green we will see a team representing a country that has suffered from both. In blue we shall see a country which has exploited it’s own natural resources, and moved in on markets prized open by the World Bank and IMF. In green, we shall see those suffering from these policies. In blue, we shall see a country who’s wealth has multiplied since my grandfather lived there. In green, a country which still suffers the colonial oppression it hoped it had left behind it by the time he arrived.

Posted in: Cameroon, Japan, Japan-Cameroon

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

After using the ‘Who should I cheer for’ website to compare Argentina and Nigeria, I was struck by the many compelling reasons to cheer for Nigeria in this match. For example, the average Nigerian is thirteen times poorer than the average Argentine and as such Nigeria is definitely the underdog in the match. While Nigerian’s emit nearly 75 per cent less CO2 per person, and the country spends less on its military and has more women in government.

However, the whole concept behind ‘Who should I cheer for’ is to get people thinking differently and not just conforming to their normal national ties and prejudices. Being English, not supporting Argentina would seem a little too much like conformity. After all the English enjoy hating Argentina (along with Germany) almost as much as they love supporting England. This national dislike of Argentine football teams is a mixture of geo politics and footballing grievances. First, came the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, when both Thatcher and the Argentine Junta used the blood and bodies of their countries’ youth to whip up support for their deeply unpopular domestic policies; the ensuing state violence left 258 British and 649 Argentines dead. And then if war wasn’t enough, to top it off, this was followed just four years later by the infamous Maradona ‘hand of God’ incident during Argentina’s 2-1 victory over England in the World Cup quarter final. To say nothing of David Beckham’s red card in the second round of the 1998 World Cup.

So to avoid bowing to conformity, I will be cheering for Argentina in solidarity with the workers of occupied cooperatives.

In the wake of the 2001 IMF sponsored economic meltdown, millions were left jobless and had their savings wiped out. Meanwhile, the rich who had benefited from the IMF economic policies upped and left the country taking their savings with them and leaving the country to fend for itself. But the people who had been locked out of their bankrupted workplaces chose not to stand idly by. They refused to allow their livelihoods be sold off to the highest bidder to satisfy the profits of foreign banks. Instead they broke in to their old workplaces; armed only with sleeping bags and simply refused to leave, defying the banks, their former bosses, the police and judges. Around 200 factories, bankrupt and abandoned by their owners, were taken over by their workers and turned into co-ops. And the workers began to produce goods for the community – providing both much needed work and goods. From tractor plants to supermarkets, printing houses to aluminium factories and pizza parlours, decisions about company policy were made in open assemblies and the profits split equally among the workers, they turned former exploitive sweatshops into a real alternative to private corporations.

In the wake of our own economic collapse and under threat of devastating public sector cuts and mass unemployment, it’s time for the English to look past their differences with Argentina and learn from Argentine workers. The millionaires that make up Argentina’s national team must also learn from the occupied factories and start playing as a collective like the workers of the cooperatives do; if they are to progress in the World Cup.

Posted in: Argentina, Argentina-Nigeria, Matches, Nigeria, Teams

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.