Changer de boussole
In this book, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty, Olivier De Schutter, stresses the fact that poverty and extreme poverty are still very present, despite some very debatable declarations that they have fallen. In the view of the author, a lecturer at the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium) and Sciences Po (France), tackling poverty cannot be taken separately from the fight against inequality. These issues require the growth goal to be exchanged for the objective of greater personal restraint and personal growth.
Although De Schutter acknowledges that growth in the Glorious Thirties (from the post-war period until the oil crisis) supported social progress in the countries of the OECD, he also notes that it brought about an over-consumption of resources: “since 1973, the world has been living on credit: we take more resources from the ecosystems than the Earth’s system is able to replace and we dump more waste and pollution into the ecosystems than they are able to absorb” (our translation throughout). At the same time, growth has “drained the organisms of men and women who work”, he argues, adding that “in the name of growth, we have made the employment market more flexible. We have seen an increase in the number of sub-statuses and the emergence of precarious lifestyles, subject to unpredictable working hours, forced to accept improper and sometimes inconsistent wages and submit to an externally imposed intensification of work, all to boost productivity”.
And although the author acknowledges that the developing countries still need growth, he also argues that growth should be part of a logic of regional integration, with a view to satisfying internal demand and increasing the living standards of the populations of the South. In other words, breaking away from the vicious circle of exports to satisfy the expectations of consumers in the countries of the North, increasing the profits of multinational companies and their commercial circuits. As for the wealthy countries, they must now change model to reduce inequalities and preserve ecosystems.
For absolute poverty is still a very real thing, for all the totally biased statistical data. Officially, the number of people living in a situation of extreme poverty fell from 1.9 billion to 656 million between 1990 and 2018. But “the ‘successes’ that are hailed at so many summits are conveniently based on the international poverty threshold set by the World Bank”, De Schutter points out, going on to explain that this threshold corresponds to, for instance, 1.41 euros per day in Portugal! This way of measuring poverty on the basis of a monetary threshold is not just shocking in terms of the level of the threshold selected, which is barely enough to avoid dying of starvation, it is absurd since it fails to take account of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty: housing conditions, access to health care, education, etc.
The author also reminds us that there are still a billion people living in shanty towns. He also points out that in 2020, 733 million people still had no access to electricity and 2.4 billion people had no access to clean cooking facilities. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in every two people still has no access to electricity.
As well as absolute poverty, there is also relative poverty: the poverty of people who have a minimal level of resources, usually including a job, but who are forced to decide between different expenditure and different needs and/or “suffer discrimination, maltreatment from society and institutions on a daily basis and whose contribution to society is not recognised, all of which are in themselves sources of exclusion”. “But the paradox is that the wealthier societies become, the more certain dimensions of the social exclusion worsen. In other words, what we are seeing is the modernisation of poverty: the phenomenon of social exclusion is highlighted by the fact that the social standards within a population rise as the general standard of living increases”, the author explains, reiterating that “in most countries of the world, you are considered poor these days if you do not have a mobile phone or Internet access, if you are unable to arrange a decent funeral for your parents or a wedding for your children, or if you cannot deal with unexpected events such as losing your job or becoming sick”.
“The worsening of the environment first and foremost affects people living in situations of poverty and these are the people who suffer the most serious consequences of it. It is mainly these people who live close to the most polluted sites”, De Schutter stresses, pointing out that according to a report published in 2004, in the United Kingdom “people living in the 10% leased-favoured regions experienced concentration levels of nitrous oxide 41% higher than the average”. These people tend to live in cramped and poorly ventilated accommodation. “This makes them the frontline victims of atmospheric pollution. They are also more exposed to landslides and flooding, as they are forced to live in areas where the housing is the cheapest”, he adds.
Green growth, in other words pursuing economic growth by means of technologies that help to mitigate their environmental impact, is a myth, the author explains, arguing that the “United Nations’ international expert group on resource management believes that in view of the increase in consumption resulting both from demographic growth and the emergence of a global middle class, we will be consuming three times as many resources in 2050 as in 2000”. “This is the case even taking account of the relative uncoupling between monetary wealth and use of resources and production of waste permitted by technological progress”, according to a 2011 report.
Therefore, the author considers that the only solution is one of personal restraint, defined as a “change of lifestyle making it possible to satisfy everybody’s fundamental needs (…) whilst avoiding over-consumption”. He illustrates this over-consumption with a few examples such as second homes, travel and leisure habits prompting individuals to fly or drive long distances as well as diets high in meat and processed food. However, the “move to a low-consumption regime in which a norm of sufficiency would dominate also means that we must adjust our economic models to move from a system of individual consumption to mutualised systems, based on the idea of ‘common good’, in which the same good or piece of equipment could be used by as many people as possible, to ensure that it would be in businesses’ interests to repair the items sold to ensure a longer life cycle to encourage the sharing of consumer goods as well as the repair and reuse of these and, at the end of their life-cycle, the recycling of these items”, he writes.
Moreover, this presupposes a change of mindset which would not appear to be equally accessible to all. Certainly, one might presume that this model could be more easily adopted in the traditional societies of the South which may be more inclined to transpose their continuing instincts of solidarity and sharing, in a context of raising standards of living. The virtual disappearance of this type of practice during the 20th century, together with the growth of individualism in Western societies, particularly Europe, would, on the other hand, be a major barrier to this kind in general change, which would be seen – and campaigned against – as some form of punitive ecology.
De Schutter acknowledges that the application of the model cannot be entirely uniform, because of differences in context (rural isolation and high public transport density in urban areas) and situation (the distance between work and home for people on a low income). However, the author considers that the ecological transformation and the fight against poverty are entirely reconcilable. It explains that many measures aiming to improve energy efficiency, such as moving from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources, generate jobs and may also level out inequalities and improve the living conditions of the poorest households by reducing their energy bills. Similarly, the “commitment of states to the electrification of transport and heating systems – combining taxes and subsidies to promote the shift to electricity – could make access to these systems affordable for low-income households, as shown by the democratisation of electric vehicles in Norway”.
Among the resources that can be deployed to accelerate the ecological transformation, de Schutter refers to carbon taxes, which he feels help to increase State revenue while reducing poverty. He refers to the example of “Sweden, which was one of the first countries to establish a carbon tax in 1991, which is now one of the highest in the world, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta”. In Alberta, the revenue has not only made it possible to fund adaptation and attenuation projects, but also to grant tax breaks to low and medium-income households (60% of all households). In British Columbia and Sweden, the tax has been increased gradually and paired with tax credits for households so as to preserve their purchasing power.
The industrialisation of agriculture, with increased use of mechanisation, irrigation, pesticides and chemicals, has undeniably made it possible to increase yield considerably, but has also had devastating effects on soils and ecosystems and for rural communities (disappearance of small farms, rural exodus). It has seen the development of over-consumption of processed products of questionable nutritional value, containing numerous additives of chemical origin (preservatives, etc.) and excessively high levels of fat, salt and sugars, whilst also exposing populations to endocrine disruptors. “A 2016 study put the annual cost of endocrine disruptors at 217 billion euros in the countries of the European Union alone, the equivalent of 1.48% of European GDP, or nearly 428 euros per person per year”, the author points out. This results most notably in an increase in obesity, type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease and gastro-intestinal cancers, of which the poorest people are again the frontline victims. De Schutter therefore recommends the development of agri-ecology, “sporting a circular approach based on the recycling of agricultural waste into inputs rather than a linear approach, with forcible dependence on external inputs”.
“In a post-growth society, the fight against poverty should focus first and foremost on tackling inequality”, the author rightly points out, going on to explain that “to do so, one might combine progressive taxation and appropriate social policies to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth and thereby offset the consubstantial inequalities of the market: this is what characterised the role of the Provident states, which largely succeeded in offsetting the inequalities of the market in the 20th century. However, these redistributive measures will not be enough. Predistributive measures aiming to build a genuinely inclusive economy will also be essential: we should not only compensate for the inequalities resulting from the functioning of the market economy, but also prevent these qualities from emerging in the first place, by building a non-violent economy”. The author argues that this can be done by means of (1) a redefinition of work, laying greater emphasis on personal growth and service rendered to society as a whole; (2) bringing in employment guarantees, which would make the public authority a last-resort employer giving the unemployed work in activities to serve communities or by subsidising associative employment; and a (3) democratisation of corporate life, creating a “second chamber”, ensuring that employees are involved in the decision of the boards of directors representing shareholders.
The next phase would be the collective reduction of working hours to make sure that everybody has enough time for (1) their own personal growth (training, sporting and leisure activities), (2) their family, (3) their community (shared services, volunteering, political engagement, etc.). “When individuals increase their leisure time, they can decide to meet their needs by more time-consuming means. They can use slower but lower-energy methods of transport, for instance by deciding to cycle or take public transport rather than drive; they can cook at home instead of eating out or buying ready meals; they can invest more in their own production or in sharing initiatives with their immediate neighbours”, writes De Schutter, whose ideal and non-violent society will not come about overnight. (Olivier Jehin)
Olivier De Schutter. Changer de boussole – La croissance ne vaincra pas la pauvreté (available in French only). Les liens qui libèrent. ISBN: 979-1-0209-2488-9. 232 pages. €18,00
What Future European Defence and Technological Basis do we want/need?
This analysis is part of a series of publications on the future of the industrial and technological defence bases in Europe, examining the positions taken by the various member states. They have been published online one by one by the Armament Industry European Research Group ARES since summer 2023.
In this analysis, Alexander Mattelaer describes the specific position taken by Belgium which, on the one hand, has long been bottom of the class in terms of defence spending, reaching a low of 0.88% of GDP in 2017, and, on the other, mainly has niche industry players.
Against this backdrop, Belgium has sought to increase cooperation projects with its European partners and allies, both in the field of armed forces and acquisitions. It is therefore a great proponent of the integration of the European defence market and the initiatives undertaken by the European Commission: European defence fund, the EDIRPA instrument for joint acquisitions of munitions and its ASAP counterpart for reinforcing production capabilities for munitions and missiles, even defending its regulatory plank against the strong proposition of some ten member states.
The cooperation model selected by Belgium is based on three axes, Mattelaer sets out: in the land domain, it has procured French-designed Jaguar and Griffon armoured reconnaissance and transport vehicles; in the naval domain, whereby the Belgian and Dutch navies are already fully integrated, acquisitions focus on French-manufactured anti-marine vessels and frigates of Dutch design; finally, in the air domain, fighter aircraft are still American, with F-35s to replace end-of-life F-16s. The French have long held this decision against them. However, as Mattelaer observes, this “geographically balanced portfolio of strategic partnerships” allows Belgium to “avoid excessive dependency on a single partner nation”. However, it remains to be seen whether the partnership developed with France in terms of motorised land forces can also serve as a foundation for rebuilding the heavy land forces required for NATO’s defence plans, or whether Belgium will also require an additional partnership with Germany to do so, should the Franco-German cooperation on the future Main Ground Combat System MGCS fail to bear fruit. (OJ)
Alexander Mattelaer. What Future European Defence and Technological Basis (EDTIB) do we want/need ? - The Belgian Case. IRIS. Aresgroup. December 2023. This analysis may be downloaded free of charge at: https://aeur.eu/f/ahx