Asia's economies: Growth now, equity later<\/p>\n
By Johanna Son<\/p>\n
MANILA: Asia's surging economies are pressing ahead with
\nliberalization and reforms aimed at spurring growth, but they
\nstill see concerns about equity and the social ill-effects of
\ngrowth as secondary issues.<\/p>\n
This conclusion runs through the reports on social development
\nin four Asian countries -- India, Indonesia, Malaysia and the
\nPhilippines -- prepared by local activists in the 1997 `Social
\nWatch' report.<\/p>\n
Released last week, the report is the first yearly assessment
\nby non-government organizations of how countries are complying
\nwith commitments made at the Social Summit and Fourth World
\nConference on Women in 1995.<\/p>\n
It notes that Asia's growth rates continue to impress many,
\nadding that East Asia's progress in the last three decades is
\noften lauded as having worked because it was broad-based and
\ncreated jobs for citizens.<\/p>\n
But it is also well known that Asia has the most number of the
\nworld's poor. India has the biggest number at 350 million, but
\nBangladesh has the largest proportion of the poor at 80 percent
\nof its population, compared to India's 40 percent.<\/p>\n
Virtually all countries are seeking to open their economies in
\norder to become competitive in the world market. But "it is now
\ncommonly accepted that poverty cannot be reduced by economic
\ngrowth alone," the `Social Watch' report pointed out.<\/p>\n
But while that premise is accepted by governments, their
\npursuit of free-market growth tends to bring side effects such as
\nincome inequalities, abet women's low status in society and
\neconomy, social injustice and alienation.<\/p>\n
A country may post record growth rates, but that does not mean
\nincome gaps are closing as fast.<\/p>\n
In the aspiring tiger economy of Malaysia, the lowest 20
\npercent income group gets 4.6 percent of total income while the
\nhighest 20 percent corners 53.7 percent. In Thailand, the lowest
\n20 percent gets 6.1 percent of income, and the richest 20 percent
\ngets 50.7 percent share.<\/p>\n
In Hong Kong the richest 20 percent gets 8.7 times more in
\nincome than the poorest 20 percent, in India and Pakistan 4.7
\ntimes and in China, 6.5 times.<\/p>\n
"Though the incidence of absolute poverty has decreased, there
\nis a growing concern about the rising inequality in the country
\nin terms of distribution of wealth and income in society," Meena
\nRaman of Consumers Association of Penang said in report on
\nMalaysia.<\/p>\n
She concedes that Malaysia's growth has cut poverty incidence
\nfrom 16.5 percent in 1990 to 8.9 percent in 1995.<\/p>\n
But figures show incomes have been growing at a slower pace
\nfor the poor than for the rich. Sizable gaps also exist between
\nthe rural and urban economies and between peninsular and eastern
\nMalaysia, where many indigenous peoples live.<\/p>\n
Rahman says Malaysia's growth is unsustainable: "What is
\nundesirable is the type of growth that is taking place on the
\nfoundation of an unequal distribution of resources, wealth and
\nincome."<\/p>\n
Indonesia is a success story in cutting poverty incidence from
\n60 percent in 1970 to 13.67 percent in 1993. But Lefidus Malau of
\nthe women's resource center Kalyanamitra says national economic
\ngrowth is not always followed by an improvement in living
\nconditions.<\/p>\n
Malau argues that the minimum income used as a yardstick by
\nthe Indonesian government is too low, which means the figure of
\nthe real poor is a majority or even 90 percent of the population.<\/p>\n
Among the clearest indications of poverty, the Indonesian
\nreport said, is the country's maternal mortality rate, which the
\nUN puts at 650 per 100,000 people. Malau says that figure is 65
\ntimes higher than Singapore and eight times that of Malaysia.<\/p>\n
In the Philippines, the government is proud of both the
\ncountry's healthy growth rates in recent years as well as its
\n`social reform agenda' aimed at helping marginalised groups who
\nhave yet to take advantage of that growth.<\/p>\n
But Antoinette Raquiza of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction
\nMovement argues that the social reform scheme actually
\ncontradicts the country's development strategy, anchored on
\nliberalization and entry of foreign capital.<\/p>\n
"Unless government reorients its overall development strategy
\ntoward having social justice and gender equality at its center --
\nand asserts its economic role vis-a-vis the market -- the Social
\nReform Agenda will at best be only one big safety net for the
\nmany bound to fall by the wayside of progress," she said.<\/p>\n
Poverty incidence has fallen from 39.9 percent to 35.7 percent
\nin 1994, but wealth gaps remain wide. The richest 20 percent in
\nthe Philippines have 52.5 percent of total national income, while
\nthe poorest 40 percent have 13.6 percent.<\/p>\n
Raquiza cites examples to show that economic growth can exist
\nside by side with marginalisation. The Cavite, Laguna and
\nBatangas provinces are a fast-growth, industrial hub. But they
\nalso have the highest concentration of landless farmers, at 78
\npercent.<\/p>\n
And while economic growth has drawn in more women into the
\nlabor market, the quest for lower costs is pushing factories to
\nhire women because they are cheaper labor, Raquiza explained.<\/p>\n
The report for India, the only South Asian country with a
\nnational report in 'Social Watch', identifies serious economic
\nconstraints to spending more for development needs.<\/p>\n
Efforts to increase development and social spending in India,
\nhome to 15 percent of the world's population and nearly a fourth
\nof its poor, are hindered by mispriorities in the budget.<\/p>\n
For one, 75 percent of the 1996-97 budget was spent in areas
\n"unrelated to development", said the report written by the Center
\nfor Youth and Social Development Voluntary Action.<\/p>\n
Defense spending is 20 to 22 percent of the budget, it said.
\nDevelopment spending climbed by 19 percent in 1992 to 1993, but
\nslowed down to 0.6 per cent in 1995-96. A study of the budgets in
\nthe last two years show that "it is obvious that the social
\nsectors were not a priority", the report found.<\/p>\n
It warned that skewed budgetary priorities may be exacerbated
\nby declining overseas development assistance to South Asia, which
\nhas fallen from US$5.2 billion in 1987 to $4.9 billion in 1993.<\/p>\n
-- IPS<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asias-economies-growth-now-equity-later-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }