by Piyaporn Hawiset
11 July 2001
The Human Development Report (HDR) 2001 released by the United Nations Development Programme on July 9, 2001 promised to generate heated debate among development workers, policymakers and anyone interested in issues related to the the deprivation and betterment of people from the global, national and communal perspectives. The HDR, which has been published every year since 1990, continues to advocate people-centred development. Its provocative analysis was drawn from the diverse experiences of countries and communities across the spectrum of economic, social and political backgrounds.
The recurring theme in recent issues of the report has been how to make globalisation work for human development. Authors of the the 2001 report chose to wade into the passionately argued debate on the potential of biotech and information and communications technologies and how they can be used by developing countries in the fight against deprivation. Acknowledging the irreversibility of globalisation, which supposedly would bring economic and social benefits to societies through the free flow of money and trade, the report also emphasised the need to harness the brute forces that transformed the world to work for - instead of against - development.
The HDR 2001 asserted that information and communications technologies and biotech can play a key role in reducing world poverty. It rejected the notion that technology is a luxury for people in rich countries. It warned that failure to embrace these new technologies would mean missed opportunities to transform the lives of the poor. But it did note that the economic and political elites of the world seemed to want to hinder the transformations of the lives of the world's poor.
The major impacts of these technologies on development were well documented in this report and elsewhere: IT can overcome barriers of social, economic and geographical isolation, increase access to information and education, and enable poor people to participate more in decisions that affect their lives.
More controversial issues tackled by the report were those related to genetically modified (GM) foods and intellectual property rights, including the right to Aids drugs. Much to the chagrin of many social advocacy, environmental and anti-globalisation groups, the report endorsed in general terms GM food crops and other genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from which many developing countries might reap great benefits. That is, provided that possible environmental and health risks were to be properly assessed. This utilitarian approach to GM foods and GMOs was understandable, given the fact that millions of people continue to starve to death, and many millions more suffer from malnutrition even though much of this starvation and malnutrition is perpetuated by policies within agribusiness, multinational corporations involved in makreting food and many of the economic and political elites.
On intellectual property rights, the report urged global initiatives to ensure that new technologies address the most pressing needs of the world's poor. For example, it called for greater international funding for research and development, and differential pricing for rich and poor countries for medicine and other essential high-tech products.
As an organisation that operates in more than 130 developing countries, the UNDP is in a unique position to engage all stakeholders in a debate on the most important development issues of the day. Recommendations prescribed by the HDR ranged from pragmatic proposals to fantastically innovative ones that called for impossible degrees of altruism, partcularly impossible in many of the Southeast Asian and Oriental cultures where altruisim, in the Western model, is a very alien concept.
One of the strong points of the HDR is its advocacy for the world's marginalised people, backed by thoroughly researched statistical data that gave clear perspectives and deep insight into the usually complex topics discussed. It was refreshingly free from the bible-thumping fervour associated with much activism.
Useful as it is as a tool to gauge the effectiveness of different development strategies worldwide, with the aim of compiling lessons of achievements and failures, this report remains a blunt instrument with room for further refinement. But it serves its purpose in stimulating informed debate on human-development issues. It is at once relevant to policymakers at all levels and accessible to all who care to participate in a good discussion on human beings' living conditions and what can be done to make them better.