Agenda pós-neoliberal - Ed. 2

8/7/2019 Agenda ps-neoliberal - Ed. 2

1/18

IV World Social Forum, Mumbai, 16 -21 January 2004

Project: IbasePartners: ActionAid Brasil, Attac Brasil e Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation

Participatory Democracy and Participatory or Citizen Budget in Germany

Andreas Trunschke

1

The famous French statesman and cardinal Armand-Jean du Plessis Herzog vonRichelieu (1585-1642) once said: The budget is a states nerve. Hence, it has to be

taken away from the profane eyes of the subjects.

This statement seems to be true even today. Of course, skilfully the budget is taken

away the views of the citizens in these modern democracies. It is presented in such a

complicated way that it takes the expert knowledge of the politicians and bureaucrats in

order to read and understand it. Hence, the citizen does not really feel the desire to

deal with it. If he, however, does make the effort to read and understand, than there are

laws, which secure that he has no influence on the formation of the budget.

This traditional politics understanding has been opposed first by the southern Brazilian

city Porto Alegre with its Oramento Participativo, the participatory budget order or

citizen budget. The citizen himself does give the priorities for the budget, he himself

controls that the budget follows these priorities and the administration has to give him

the evidence over how the budget has been used and what has been done. Now, onecan see variations of this new politics understanding in many places of the world.

1


2/18

Slowly this new idea even reaches Germany. Slowly, maybe because traditionally it is

very hard for the Germans to learn from others, especially from a country of the third

world.

In the following, I will show where in Germany one can see already hints for establishing a stronger citizen participation, which obstacles exist, which experiments

are being done in present and how they differ from the participatory budget in Porto

Alegre. At the end I will give a small view onto possible further developments.

2

First we will have a look at the hints of establishment. A first one we can find in the

small perished state, the GDR. In the former state-socialistic GDR parliamentary

democracy, as is well known, was not very popular, however there where starting points

for a participatory democracy. In every city residential areas housing between 2.000 to

2.500 inhabitants had living area committees from the National Front , which were

consulted regarding important questions for the development of the district. For

instance, they could be involved with matters, such as if and where playgrounds,

shopping facilities or streets were built. Of course this was an ordered participation, but

therefore it covered almost all areas. Of course those living area committees also actedas a instrument showing of power by the rulers, but at the same time it represented a

democratic element, that in every way could have developed a certain independence.

On the one hand, they should communicate to the ground as unchangeable decisions,

on the other hand, however, they also allowed within certain limits the involvement

of the people. This basic idea, citizen participation in the creation of made decisions,

we will meet again later on.

Which elements reaching further than the parliamentary or representative democracy,

exist in todays, united Germany that could be used as starting points for a stronger

participation of the citizens in political decisions? Firstly, one has to name the public

legislation. Since Germany is a federal state we have got the possibility that the people

can give up their opinion to certain questions. People can start the so-called public

initiatives by going onto the streets to collect signatures for a certain matter. If enough

signatures have been gathered together, the parliament has to deal with the

appropriate problem. If it rejects the initiative, signatures can be collected again. This

time, however, more signatures are needed and not from the streets but from the

2


3/18

authorities. Are there enough signatures, the parliament has to deal with the problem

again. If it rejects it again, however, the people are being asked. It comes to a

plebiscite. Similar procedures exist in most other countries for villages and towns as

well. It is, however, always about single problems, which, according to the initiators,

have been either not at all or wrongly decided by the parliament. Although from thestart, it is not about citizens participating in political decisions, but at least this way the

people got the possibility correcting political decisions. Within limits however. Excluded

are, for instance, decisions to financial questions or with financial consequences. But

which decision would not have to do with money? And a legislative for all of Germany

would not be possible at all, compared to many other European states. That is why we

are one of the few countries, whose constitution has been accepted not by the people

but only by the parliament. In Germany there was no vote neither for the introduction of

the Euro nor the expansion of the European Union towards eastern European

countries.

Now we will have a look at the participatory democracy in Germany. There is an area,

in which for long we in Germany have got considerable opportunities and positive

experiences. I am talking about the building planning. The statute book for the building

society says clearly: As soon as possible, the citizens need to be told about the

general aims and purposes of the planning, possible differing solutions, which can beconsidered regarding the reorganisation or development of an area, as well as the

possible consequences of the planning; they need to be given full opportunity for

expressing and discussing their view Points can be expressed within a certain period

of time and have to be checked trough; and the result has to be reported. (statute book

for the building society) Hence, this is a forcing rule. Everybody has got the chance

saying their opinion and the administration has to look through these opinions, prove

and test them against other different opinions and interests and explain their decision in

a written way. Thus, the citizen can participate and influence an important part of life. In

the correct way, however, there are sometimes seen problems. For example, it is not

arranged how those plans are laid out, how easy it is to reach them, where they are laid

out. It can happen of course that the interested citizen sits in front of meter-long piled-

up files without a chance gasping the main importance and the problems of the content.

That is why citizens are often very frustrated, because in comparison the opinion of a

big investor or the administration counts much more than their objection. Hence, here

much improvement is still needed.

3


4/18

A further point of establishment for the participation of the citizens on budget-related

questions exists in the so-called social reports. In all areas we find the different reports,

children-and youth reports, health reports, poverty reports, sometimes wealth reports.

Most often it is about big data grave yards, which are being used by the politicians

according to their various arguments. The social reports offer a big advantage. Theydeliver important information over the social situation. Only these allow statements if

certain budget means are appropriate or not. With the help of the so-called budget

analysis the consequences of certain budget decisions onto certain living situations

could be documented, for instance for children, for the equality of the sexes or for the

nature. This allowed a better understanding of the budget instead of just a simple

representation of figures for receiving and spending. With this better understanding, the

citizen got more chances getting involved. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the existing

political instrument for the social reports in Germany is until now not being used for the

representation of the budgets.

3

With this I reached the main point of my report, the participatory or citizen budget in

Germany. As already mentioned, everybody can look into the budget in public. Also, via

the parliamentary parties he can try to take influence into the decisions of theparliament. Often the parliaments themselves offer discussions to certain parts of the

budget. However, all this is not valid for the participatory or citizen budget. The question

is, how far can the citizen take influence into the creation and arrangement of the

budget.

The furthest development can be seen in the federal state Nordrhein-Westfalen. There,

at the end of the year 2000 the interior ministry in cooperation with the BertelsmannFoundation initiated the model event Communal citizen budget in which six

communities take part on. The aim of the project is to inform every citizen better about

the budget of their community and to promote a stronger citizen participation on the

developments and happenings of the budget. (www.buergerhaushalt.de). The project

is composed of three parts. The first part deals with the information over the budget. In

this step the towns inform their inhabitants over their budget, but in a form that is

understandable not only for the expert but for everybody. Where does their money

come from? What is it spend on? How is the financial situation like? Which

opportunities for negotiating exist? (dito). The second part is concerned with the citizen

4


5/18

participation on the budget. The citizen participation is the heart of the project. The

cities will offer their inhabitants the opportunity to express their opinion to all their

questions about the budget and to make suggestions and proposalsThe decision

over the suggestions and the budget remain with the council (dito). The third part is

concerned with the proving of what has been done. After the budget has been agreed,the towns have to explain to their inhabitants what had happened with their

suggestions, how the council had decided and why it had made this decision (dito). As

an aim of this model it is given: Our aim is, to improve the understanding as well as the

engagement of the citizens in order to prepare the foundation for one of the most

important directional changes of their towns (dito).

Let us have a closer look at the single models in some of the participating communes.

The most interesting procedure is maybe the one in the city of Emsdetten. There the

mayor views the project as his project, which is according to all experiences a very

important assumption. The administration has presented understandably and obviously

the budget as a sort of brochure or in the internet. The citizens have got countless

possibilities taking part on the consultations, for instance via questionnaires, internet or

in a citizen forum. Additionally, around 2000 citizen chosen by chance according to

demographic viewpoints have been invited. 90 citizen registered themselves, 76

actually came.

The debate dealt with six different possibilities to balance the budget:

by the reduction of costs for staff and objects;

by the reduction of building maintenance and managing;

by the reduction of voluntary service, so for example in culture and sport;

by taking away support, savings;

by rising the taxes and by taking on a credit;

and by the selling of buildings.

The largest number of citizens decided for the selling of buildings. The council, the

communal parliament there, mainly followed this proposal.

The city of Hamm in Westfalen with 185.000 inhabitants set up its first citizen budget for

2003/2004. Therefore, 50.000 homes received appropriate brochures. Also, the citizens

5


6/18

have been asked for their main concerns, problems, questions etc. This questioning

showed that the streets and cycle ways were most important to most people. A citizen

forum and a questionnaire action also deal with this problem later on. Thus, the people

could point out a problematic topic first and then discuss their suggestions for the

appointed area. Then the council decided a part of the proposed methods and offeredthe needed means. However, due to the lack of money, most of the from the citizen

given proposals had to be rejected. Most probably a frustrating event for all of the

participants. In my view, this procedure has to be changed in a way that all interested

people get to know the available amount of money and thus the possible steps at the

first place.

With the help of students, a very visual way explaining people the budget has been

done in the city of Hilden. In February 2003 the citizens were invited to an giant

Monopoly game, HILDOPOLY. The rules for the game where the following: Every field

of HILDOPOLY represented a part or service of the city of Hilden. Staff working in the

departments of the city council had to give answers to every question. The citizens

could ask and give proposals. Also, the city offered a Budget Tour, a bus tour, on

which interested people could ask about certain plans and events. So far, the model in

Hilden was limited on a better understanding about what the city spends peoples

money on, and on the collecting of suggestions for changes and amendments.

4

All of these models differ significantly from the procedure in Porto Alegre, in which the

citizens discuss the entire budget and formulate the priorities for the layout of the

budget, in which the suggestions of the citizens are very obligatory and the method of

the citizen participation is discussed and varied.

Who knows a bit about politics in Germany, is asking anyway, why precisely the interior

ministry of Nordrhein-Westfalen and the Bertelsmann Foundation put so much effort

into the citizen budget. So far both, however, did not really strike through a remarkable

basic democratic engagement. One can get a possible answer by looking at the budget

situation in the German communes. For a long time the revenues do not cover the

necessary expenditures anymore. Even apparently wealthy communes such as Munich

are in sever debt. Poorer communes even have to sell some of their best properties in

order to survive. Almost all communes had to take on credits, which they do not know

6


7/18

if and how to pay back. Almost none without a budget security concept that at least acts

as if there could be a balanced budget again in ten years time.

Despite the hope of objective, expertise decisions and the bigger acceptance of the

made decisions through the participation of the citizens, the next and most importantquestion, which the mentioned model trial should explain, is how do I show and explain

the budget situation to a citizen without making him angry or run away. Almost with

relief one of the first model result analysis says: The concern that for a proper citizen

participation on the budget financial play rooms are necessary has not become true.

Some project communes are being watched by a budget security concept. Especially

here it has been proved that the proposals and concerns of the citizens have been

done in a cost conscious way. The understanding for the necessity to safe exists. Also,

there is the willingness of the people to even renounce for their own disadvantage upon

public accomplishments. The on the project participating 80.000 people housing town

Castrop-Rauxel, whose constant expenditures also could not been covered by the

revenues any longer, asked their citizens for suggestions to safe. The mentioned citizen

forum in the town of Emsdetten offered all participants the opportunity to take part in

the involvement and discussion regarding the balance of the entire budget. The goal

was closing a financial gap of 2.8 Mio Euro. The aim of the citizen forum was to offer a

proposal to the council that would be able to close this financial gap (2. Middle Report).In the city of Rheinstetten the question is also about the citizen budget: Should

Rheinstetten be in favour of the rise of the revenues or the reduction of voluntary

service?

Hence, the question is not as in Porto Alegre the participation on budget decisions or at

least the consultations regarding the budget, but the acceptance of reductions, it is

about the participation on the administration of the increasingly larger becoming

shortage. At the end of the day the model is not about stopping the appearance of critic

and protest regarding the shortage by giving the citizens the feeling of taking part in the

shortages. That is why it is in contrast to Porto Alegre not about actual decisions of

the people but about their questioning. Logically, the middle reports have changed the

phrase participation of the citizens correctly into the consultation of the citizens. The

model project initiated by the Bertelsmann Foundation is thus a so called conservative

variant of the Oramento Participativo of Porto Alegre. Strangely, it follows completely

the already mentioned model of the GDR, participation yes, but the basic conditions for

the participation remain absolutely untouchable. As seen then in the GDR, the citizen

7


8/18

should help managing the shortage and not think about the shortage. Somebody might

recognise that in this country, nevertheless one of the richest countries in this world,

some become wealthier and faster wealthy, and that thus there is no money in the

public tills any longer.

This is not a criticise the honest engagement the participating communal councils and

citizens. I also think the form of participation is a progress, since participation of the

citizen on the shortage management is still better than a shortage management without

their agreement. Within the communal field there does not exist any play room that

could question the basic neoliberal concept. I just want to point out that one should

always remember the involvement of the citizens into neoliberal concepts.

5

Finally, we will dare a little view into the future. One has to stress the German capital

Berlin, which is federal state and commune at the same time. There initiatives are most

often organised by the citizens of the city. In two groups of initiatives they try to support

the idea. Slowly, politics prepares itself for this. Two factors contributed to this largely.

First of all Berlin is bankrupt as no other federal state and even those are not well. In

Berlin nothing works without the help from outside, thus the federation anymore. Itseems that in such absolute emergency situations politics is willed easier going

different, unusual routes even going in compromises. At least all educational

associations close to the parties have already talked to each other and have organised

a joint event regarding this topic. This is even more remarkable considering I do not

know about a second joint event of the educational associations close to the parties

SPD, CDU, FDP, Gruene and PDS.

The second factor is the government participation of the left wing party PDS in single

city districts and in the federal parliament, the parliament of Berlin. Although it has got

some difficulties with the citizen budget it principally supports this idea. It has included

the citizen budget as a demand in the their new party programme. In Berlin it will make

participation as one of their brands. In some city districts of Berlin the city councils with

influence of the PDS start municipals that deal with this topic. Even in my own federal

state Brandenburg enclosing Berlin, first developments are visible. For instance, as the

first and so far only commune in Brandenburg the federal capital Potsdam has decided

to introduce elements of a citizen budget for the budget of the year 2005. In other

8


9/18

cities more or less intensive discussions are held about the possibilities of a bigger

citizen participation on the budget. The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Brandenburg is

supporting this development by their own internet site. Also, we are working on a

budget analysis, which should test what effects the new federal budget has on children

of the age to 12.

However, back to the Berlin initiatives from below. These initiatives have defined their

measures for a participation procedure on the budget and presented to the politics.

According to those measures differences and common characteristics of the model

trials between the Bertelsmann Foundation and the interior ministry of Nordrhein-

Westfalen become clear:

Citizens should take part on political decisions already before the base line of the

decision has been fixed. The composition of the citizens should be balanced or in other words for the

population representative (no dominance of the activists). Low level opportunities for the participation should been offered (no long ways, less

time effort, no commitment to continuous involvement, no dictatorship of the

sitting).

In a dialogue like procedure different suggestions have to be analysed by theparticipating people and multiply voted solutions to be looked for.

The expertise knowledge of the citizens should be used, but further needed

expertise been offered (by experts, administration and interest groups). At the beginning of the procedure one should agree under which conditions and in

which degree citizen proposals are given political binding for the final decision (for

example if in case of a rejection an explanation has follow).

Groups with a weak articulation should be supported by the procedure.

In contrast to the model in Nordrhein-Westfalen citizens should be able to say their

opinion about the procedure of their participation. The should have a right expressing

their view about the determination of the priorities. And their involvement should be

more binding for the politics. As in Nordrhein-Westfalen offers regarding the citizen

participation should be easy to enter for everybody and the budget understandable and

clear without the need of expertise knowledge. The next two years will show most

probably if and how these visions become reality in Berlin.

9


10/18

All in all I can say: A not even similar ripe and far reaching procedure as in Porto Alegre

does so far exist in Germany. But slowly, very slowly the citizen participation on the

budget develops even in my country. Very certainly the citizen or participatory budget

remains an exiting topic and will most probably not be removed from the agenda.

10


11/18

IV Frum Social Mundial, Mumbai, 16 a 21 de janeiro de 2004

Um projeto Ibase, em parceria com ActionAid Brasil, Attac Brasil e FundaoRosa Luxemburgo

O que uma vida decente?

Sntese da palestra de Gita Sen,Por Guacira Oliveira,

do Cfemea

A questo, hoje fundamental a partir de uma perspectiva de desenvolvimentohumano, j teve diferentes respostas. Os processos sociais e as disputas polticasque levaram ao estabelecimento de contratos sociais, desde o sculo XIX,delimitaram os parmetros do que se reconheceu como uma vida decente.

Ao longo do sculo XX, firmaram-se contratos sociais que contemplavamfundamentalmente trs dimenses:

A primeira dimenso tem a ver com a natureza da relao entretrabalhadores/empregados e empregadores, pela qual define-se o que sejatrabalho, as condies em que deve se realizar e os direitos dostrabalhadores (salrio mnimo, jornada de trabalho etc).

A segunda dimenso do contrato social tem a ver com o que se faz com aspessoas que no esto empregadas. Esta, claro, a parte do contratoque trata da seguridade social e dos servios sociais.

A terceira dimenso do contrato social diz respeito s relaes Norte-Sul noque se refere assistncia para o desenvolvimento. Ainda queimplicitamente, depois da Segunda Guerra Mundial e do perodo dedescolonizao, os pases do Norte reconheceram, em alguma medida, anecessidade dos pases pobres viabilizarem certos projetos sociais eprogramas de desenvolvimento no Sul e, evidentemente, algum tipo deacumulao de capital, alm de apoio para a mobilizao de recursos para

1


12/18

a criao de infra-estrutura. Alguns designam esta dimenso do contratocomo Bem-estar Social, outros preferem denomin-la de reparao pelocolonialismo e para uma globalizao inclusiva.

Gita Sen destaca que estas trs dimenses do contrato social so gravementerebaixadas em termos de eqidade de gnero. No que se refere relaoempregado-empregador, o contrato com os trabalhadores nunca incluiu todos ostrabalhadores. Foi tipicamente um contrato que esteve dirigido aos trabalhadoreshomens e somente queles que estivessem na situao principal de receber seusalrio e sustentar uma famlia, uma esposa no trabalhadora e seus filhos. Istosignifica que as mulheres foram colocadas em segundo plano e posio nomercado de trabalho.

Analisando a dimenso da seguridade social no contrato, percebe-se que elaalude a elementos crticos para a vida das mulheres: o cuidado com as crianas eidosos, a assistncia aos invlidos, a proteo aos que esto vivendo emcondies de altssima vulnerabilidade. As possibilidades de realizar estescuidados chegaram muito mais tarde aos contratos sociais do sculo XX e notinham nenhuma pretenso universalizante. Na rea da reproduo social osdireitos esto sub-reconhecidos, tm muito pouca relevncia.

Neste ponto h que se enfrentar o fato de que tudo o que est estabelecido noscontratos sociais resultado de muitos esforos e lutas. Nada dado peloEstado, mas sim conquistado. A natureza destes contratos est diretamentevinculada s relaes estabelecidas entre o Estado, o povo e as instituies comoos mercados. Portanto, se as pautas em discusso, se os termos da disputa entreas partes no conferiram prioridade reproduo da vida social, no seorientaram pela eqidade de gnero, tanto quanto pelo direito a um salrio

mnimo decente, aqueles elementos, inevitavelmente, ficaram de fora do contrato,ou presentes de maneira muito precria.

As duas ltimas dcadas demarcam um perodo de fraturas em diferentesmbitos do contrato social: em todo o mundo, os trabalhadores no tm mais osdireitos que tinham h vinte ou trinta anos; as garantias sociais tambm no somais as mesmas; e a assistncia para o desenvolvimento est eivada decondicionalidades.

O rompimento com direitos e a mudana nas regras de negociao sobre osdireitos e sobre a satisfao de necessidades bsicas recolocam o debate sobre ocontrato social na ordem do dia. A questo do que seja uma vida decente serenovou e exige novas respostas. Ento, em que bases se poderia definir naatualidade o que uma vida decente?

Gita Sen v no momento da fratura do velho contrato social a oportunidade deconstruir novas propostas e caminhos para pensar o que seja uma vida decente.Para avanar neste sentido, destaca um elemento estratgico: que a afirmaodos direitos humanos universais ocupem um lugar central na discusso sobre oque seja uma vida decente. Tendo este marco tico e poltico, no seu

2


13/18

entendimento, ser possvel levantar questes que nunca puderam ser suscitadasantes, sob a vigncia dos contratos sociais prvios. Questes sobre a justia degnero, sobre os direitos das pessoas que foram marginalizadas e que tiveramseus direitos negados sob os contratos anteriores tm de ser consideradosdireitos fundamentais na nova definio do que seja uma vida decente.

Neste sentido, Gita Sen destaca especialmente dois aspectos: o primeiro delestrata do papel decisivo das alianas polticas para a redefinio do que seja umavida decente, sobre bases mais abrangentes e fundadas no respeito aos direitoshumanos universais. A forma como se constituem e os princpios que orientam asalianas polticas nesta disputa em torno da resignificao do que seja uma vidadecente so de fundamental importncia. O tipo de amlgama poltico capaz depromover mudanas paradigmticas qualitativamente diferente daquele que seproduz em conjunturas especficas para o apoio a uma ou outra causa. Por exemplo, os atores polticos envolvidos em determinadas aes de combate pobreza ou esforos pelo cancelamento da dvida no necessariamentereconhecem a eqidade de gnero ou os direitos das minorias sexuais. Ou seja,aqueles que em determinadas circunstncias podem estar do mesmo lado numaarena poltica, podem ser incapazes de promover juntos mudanas estruturais,porque neste ponto se trata de ter mais do que questes em comum: precisocomungar dos mesmos princpios.

O segundo aspecto que Gita destaca em torno da definio do que seja uma vidadecente , em verdade, uma crtica ao marco terico de atendimento dasnecessidades bsicas de consumo como elemento definidor do que seja uma vidadecente. O problema da fome na ndia, por exemplo, implica a violao de vriosdireitos humanos alm do direito comida. O atendimento desta necessidadebsica no se dar pela simples garantia de uma cesta de alimentos. H muito

mais envolvido. A fome vem acompanhada de humilhao, muitas vezes deviolncia domstica, de cerceamento do direito educao, de violao dosdireitos da criana, entre vrias outras privaes. Visto por outro lado, o simplesdireito comida, a no passar fome, contem inmeros ingredientes: questes desubordinao de gnero, hierarquia de castas, de pobreza, entre outroselementos que so fundamentais e que devem ser compreendidos ereconhecidos. No se pode falar de necessidades bsicas e servios bsicos quedesconsiderem estas dimenses, como dimenses prioritrias.

Alm do problema da fome, Gita apresenta um outro exemplo: de 10 a 15% dasmortes por aborto inseguro na ndia so entre adolescentes. Trata-se danecessidade bsica de servios de sade. Quando no se garante o servio deinterrupo da gravidez s adolescentes, os direitos delas, incluindo o abortoquando necessrio, no est sendo satisfeito. O problema destas mortesdesnecessrias no est sendo atacado. As necessidades bsicas no estosendo atendidas.

Um exemplo final: vrios estudos realizados na ndia indicam que uma das causasde mobilidade social descendente, que leva famlias inteiras a situaesgravssimas de pobreza, deve-se a enfermidade de algum membro da famlia. O

3


14/18

fenmeno decorre dos elevados custos da sade, em especial dosmedicamentos. Mais do que a ateno mdica, neste caso, a possibilidade de noempobrecer e de levar uma vida decente vincula-se a uma ordem internacionalmais justa, ou seja, regras justas para o comrcio internacional de medicamentos.

Gita alerta para a necessidade de se olhar para a questo da proviso de serviosa partir de um marco mais amplo. No se trata de um marco pluralstico, mas simholstico, que permita ver todas estas questes, suas conexes e como elasfuncionam.

Gita encerra reafirmando a importncia de aproveitar a oportunidade dereabertura dos dilogos perante a fratura dos contratos sociais, no apenas paranos remetermos aos contratos sociais anteriores, mas para expandir o nossopensamento com vistas a um marco mais inclusivo e apropriado afirmao dosdireitos humanos.

4


15/18

IV World Social Forum, Mumbai, 16 -21 January 2004

Project: IbasePartners: ActionAid Brasil, Attac Brasil e Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation

Public goods

Ulla Ltzer

Last month the European Commission and the European ministerial conference

presented a paper to the WTO council and the European parliament reviving the

negotiations after the breakdown in Cancun. The result: Hardly any alterations to thepositions at Cancun can be found.

Especially they decided: the service negotiations on GATS are key priority for the

European countries. Only one actual point that shows again: the topic public goods is

of paramount political importance to be able to intervene in the globalization process.

Therefore the scientific advisory board of Attac Germany, the NGO WEED an the Rosa

Luxemburg foundation started a project on this topic last summer.

One part of this is to set up a mailing list on this topic, to stimulate the exchange

process between scientists, social movements and politicians. As many people as

possible are invited to participate.

Although there are many individual case studies on privatization, there is no systematic

incorporation on it and the international debate on the definition, provision and financing

public goods, especially global public goods is in its infancy. This is why second part

of the project is to evaluate the effects of privatization of public goods on the living

1


16/18

condition of people.

We started this process with a study on the effects of liberalization and privatization in

the European union. The reasons for this starting point were: firstly, the basis of he role

of the European union in the disputes on liberalization and privatization in thedeveloping countries is the process of privatization and their effects in the European

countries itself; secondly, to define the united common interests between people in

industrial countries and developing countries in this affairs.

Let me tell you only some of the first results of the evaluation in an overview. Since the

end of the 80s, a wave of liberalization and privatization has overwhelmed the

European states, somewhat later than in the US or Great Britain, where the neoliberal

counter revolution had already begun in the mid of the 80s an in the southern

European countries in the 80s by structural adjustment programs of the IMF and the

world bank.

Firstly it seemed to be a solution of the crisis of private capital, the slow-down of

economic growth in the mid of the 70s worldwide with a lack of investment opportunities

for private firms and financial investors. Opening up these sectors for private investors

created new perspectives for them.

A driving force of privatization was the European market integration, which established

the framework for market liberalization, which started with telecommunication, railways

and other public transportation systems, the postal system and energy.

At the same time the states lost income for taxes, the state debts greatly increased and

the public budgets had come under strong pressure by continued tax reductions. So

they started to privatize the public enterprises, taking forms of contracting out, public

private partnership models or cross-border-leasing arrangements of great varieties.50%

of the worldwide turnovers in privatization in 1998 were results of sales of European

public assets. The arguments to justify privatization relate to greater internal and

external efficiency, better provision for goods and services at lower prices and with less

bureaucracy as a result of more competition. But experience does not confirm this

claims but mostly displays the opposite.

Privatization often is the beginning of a wave of mergers and concentration. Public

2


17/18

monopolies are replaced by private monopolies with European dimension. The former

public enterprises in the telecommunication sector for example remain the greatest

supplier in the telecommunication market and have a share in other European

companies or joint ventures with other European companies. In the electricity markets

the companies have insisted on vertical integration of generation and distribution withthe result that 6 or 7 companies dominate the market.

This concentration is happening in a number of sectors, not only electricity. There are

now four large companies, each which sales of Euros 30 billion or more, which are

dominating the sectors electricity, waste and water, Suez, Vivendi, RWE and EON.

Liberalization led to price reduction for business customers in the electricity sector,

domestic customers however have not seen such sharp falls in prices, many remained

unchanged or even risen after a short period of transition.

An important consequence is the deterioration of working conditions, an increase of

bad jobs and the informal sector in combination with job losses in all these sectors.

Since the beginning of liberalization and privatization 850.000 jobs were lost.

Transparency, public regulation and control has proved to be unable. For example inthe privatized water concessions of France. In a 1997 report they stated: the lack of

supervision and control of delegated public services, aggravated by the lack of

transparency of this form of management has led to abuses. And all forms of

privatization able created formidable windows of opportunities for widespread

corruption.

There is a second wave off privatization: the social security systems, health, culture and

the education sector.

In those sectors the reforms are taken autonomously by the Member States, and the

European ministerial Conferences and the commission lay the ground for coordination

of the national policies.

And at least the privatization of knowledge. The trade in research intensive goods was

1998 51 percent of the exports of the industrialized countries. Patents are the key in the

international competition between the industrialized countries. And so the European

3


18/18

union too began in the 80s the process to widen patens on nature, plants, animals and

genes. The European regulations surpass the regulations in Trips in every point.

As a general conclusion we can say: the results are negative in Europe too. It led to

increasing inequality and social polarization, unemployment and deterioration of livingand working conditions.

On the other hand it led to great multinationals in these sectors with undemocratic

power and great profits.

Third part of the project will be to elaborate and concretize the concept of public goods

on a global, regional and national level:

There are some cornerstones on this:

In the traditional economic discourse, defining the Public good has been first and for

most a technical issue decides above all by the criteria of non-rivalry and non-

exclusiveness. However, there are on lay al few goods the nature of which

distinguishes them as pure public goods.

We think it always bears a political and normative component. A public good is one

that the public decides to treat as a public good. (Malkin and Wildavsky, 1998)

What a society deems to be a public good depends on the respective historical context

and may change. So it will be an important part of the concept to look for democratic

regulations to decide on public goods.

Public goods and services should be established independently of the market

framework and the rules and regulation able to follow special social needs and rights

and political priorities and choices.

The set-up of public goods needs financial resources and therefore a continuous and

stable flow from the private to the public sector. The policy of competitive tax reduction

undermine the viability of the public sector and must therefore be terminated.

4

Agenda pós-neoliberal - Ed. 2

Documents

Transcript of Agenda pós-neoliberal - Ed. 2