|
|
| Catholic Social Teaching and
Poverty Eradication: Key concepts and issues
|
|
| 3. How Can CST Influence Poverty Eradication? |
| |
In continuing to offer clarifications of key concepts utilised in our discussions here these days, let me now turn to a specific look at poverty eradication in the light of the church's social teaching. I want to build on the framework of an earlier ethical analysis that I offered in the recent CIDSE-Caritas Internationalis paper, From Debt to Poverty Eradication, that was edited by Kathleen Selvaggio of Catholic Relief Services.
Can we provide an approach to poverty eradication that offers a viable alternative to the rigid prescriptions of orthodox economics (or what if often referred to as the "Washington Consensus" developed by the World Bank, IMF and USA Treasury)? This orthodox economics controlled the recent Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) and now pre-determines so much of the PRSP activities today. But to offer an alternative approach requires more than a mere outline of different policies and strategies. Fundamentally, it requires another vision of what is valuable, another perception of what is possible, another recognition of what is required.
I believe that we can be helped to offer that vision, perception and recognition through reflection upon the heritage of our church's social teaching (CST). While I must repeat that Catholic Social Teaching does not offer specific answers and concrete programmes, I want to emphasise that it does provide a framework of principles and values that enable us to address specifics in a holistic fashion.
To speak directly to the issue of poverty eradication as the desired goal of policies to be pursued by the government of Uganda with the support of the Church in Uganda, there are four stages that should be influenced by Catholic Social Teaching:
- Entry point: what is the foundation for our approach to poverty eradication programmes?.
- Process: how is the poverty eradication strategy designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated?
- Content: what are the major priorities that are manifested in the programmes, who is benefiting from the changes and who is bearing the burden of the changes?
- Outcome: what are the consequences in society at large of the poverty eradication programmes?
i) Entry point
Catholic social teaching takes as its entry point into policy formulation a belief in the fundamental dignity of every human person. Made in the image and likeness of God, every woman and every man has basic rights and corresponding duties. These are inalienable and are not the consequence of benign state action but rather of generous creative endowment. That is to say, the state does not grant rights, only God grants rights. The state has the obligation to protect, foster and promote rights.
The dignity of every person arises not from any human quality or accomplishment nor is it the consequence of any human achievement or attainment. It knows no specification because of gender or race, age or economic status. In economic parlance, human beings are not units of production or outputs of transformations. Human beings are not the objects but the subjects of economic activity. Put simply, the economy exists for the person, the person does not exist for the economy.
This belief in the fundamental dignity of every human person requires not only that people are treated in ways that reflect and respect their inherent dignity, but also that every policy, every programme and every priority must be measured and evaluated by whether it enhances or diminishes human life and dignity. To speak directly to the issue of poverty eradication, this principle of CST serves as an entry point that orients all else that follows. We are not dealing with technical or mechanical or automatic or purely natural arrangements in society. We are dealing with arrangements affecting persons whose worth and dignity is a consequence of their imaging the infinite worth and dignity of their Creator.
ii) Process
The equal dignity of each human person demands that decisions that affect persons must involve those persons in the process of decision-making. According to the conditions required by the World Bank and the IMF, the preparation of the PRSP must involve "meaningful participation of civil society." In the discussion this afternoon of the Zambian case study, we will hear what participation has in effect meant in one concrete instance. But it is important to emphasise here that participation in the PRSP process is not simply a political device to gain support of the programme but rather it is an ethical demand to guarantee legitimacy to the orientation of the programme.
I want to argue that respect for involvement of "civil society" can be seen to be a contemporary expression of the traditional Catholic Social Teaching principle of "subsidiarity," i.e., the requirement that decisions should be made at the closest possible level to the people affected. Subsidiarity disperses authority to the maximum feasible local focus by involving people not in perfunctory consultation - "What do you think of this document we expert outsiders have prepared?" - but in genuine participation - "What shall we do together to come up with a consensual document?" As we all know, in policy preparation there is a world of difference between consultation and participation!
Involvement of civil society thus requires both (1) a democratic mechanism that assures adequate representation of all interests and (2) a technical capacity that assures competent input into the process.
Commitment to the democratic mechanism is influenced by Catholic Social Teaching respect for the rights of individuals to participate in choices that affect their lives. When the World Bank and IMF emphasise that the PRSP must be "home grown" (i.e., designed through processes driven by countries themselves), this must be accompanied by concrete steps that ensure that all parties operate in a public, transparent and accountable fashion. For example, public review of agreements between lending institutions and governments must be mandated at each stage.
Putting the principle of subsidiarity into practice in the PRSP process requires that national governments and their citizens should ultimately hold authority to decide their own economies and national development plans, according to their knowledge, experience and values. In my opinion, it is neither ethical nor efficient for the World Bank or the IMF to hold a "veto" power over PRSP documents that arise from a well-deliberated and widely consultative process.
Furthermore, commitment to the strengthening the capacity of civil society to comprehend and analyze technical information on poverty and economics is also essential if subsidiarity is to be truly effective. Therefore, emphasis on the rights to participation requires that the new opportunities for input into PRSP must be strengthened through capacity-building efforts (information gathering, analytical skills, advocacy planning, etc.). I am pleased to say that our efforts in Zambia have indeed been assisted to secure a very high level of competence.
iii) Content
The substance of economic reform programmes that are influenced by Catholic Social Teaching should be marked by two fundamental principles: (1) mutually shared rights and responsibilities, or the promotion of the common good; and (2) special concern for the least advantaged in society, or the preferential option for the poor.
Firstly, common good considerations raise basic questions about results in the ordinary lives of citizens.
- Who receives the benefits from economic reform programmes?
- Who bears the burden that such programmes create?
The principle of the common good requires that the elements of the reform programmes should benefit everyone in society, not simply the rich and the powerful. The benefits must be clearly directed towards all. So-called "trickle down" benefits coming to the less advantaged from the investments and achievements of the rich - something always more promised than realised - are simply not acceptable.
Moreover, the burdens of economic transition toward a more open market -- such as down-sized budgets, retrenched work forces and market-driven increases in the cost of living -- should not fall only on those who already are suffering from economic hardships, leaving fairly unscathed the already advantaged sectors of society. The common good requires a sharing of burdens as well as blessings.
Let me highlight here what I believe to be one clear consequence of an emphasis upon promotion of the common good. This is the qualified place to be accorded the operations of the free market. Yes, the church's social teaching has been suspicious of command economies (socialist models). But it has also been suspicious of liberalised economies (capitalist models). The challenge to both comes from the same principle: the promotion of the common good. So in the construction of poverty eradication programmes, we have to weigh the operation of the market, or, to put it into the jargon of the day, we must appraise macro-economic structural adjustments in light of their impact on the value outcome of their operations. I like the expression of one analyst I recently read: "The market may be a good servant but it is a bad master."
Second, the principle of the option for the poor means that the content of economic reform programmes must be evaluated in terms of their impact on the most vulnerable part of society, the poor, especially women and children. The content of poverty eradication programmes obviously are oriented toward the poor, but whether or not the poor actually benefit is something to be constantly monitored and diligently evaluated.
Pro-poor programmes should provide not only social sector development (e.g., health and education) but also productive sector opportunities (e.g., agriculture services for small farmers, youth employment generation schemes, micro-credit facilities for women, etc.). Economic growth objectives must be pro-poor from the start. Poverty concerns should not be tacked on to traditional macro-economic policies as after-thoughts. And when tensions or trade-offs emerge between growth-oriented and poverty oriented policies, they should be resolved in favour of poverty-oriented policies.
To repeat points made earlier, these content concerns from CST for both the common good and the option for the poor can be summed up in the oft-cited principle that the economy exists for the person, not the person for the economy. This states clearly the primacy of human dignity and rights as the foundation for all economic activity.
iv) Outcome
Finally, we can rightly ask, where is this poverty eradication emphasis headed? In the long run, what would we hope to achieve?
The overall vision of Catholic Social Teaching for society is expressed in the principle of solidarity, the recognition of the interconnectedness - ethical as well as empirical - of personal and institutional activities that make up the social fabric of human existence. In Catholic Social Teaching, solidarity is promoted in conscious acts that build community. When economic activity undercuts community - e.g., creating great gaps between rich and poor - then solidarity is destroyed. Poverty eradication programmes and promotion of pro-poor economic growth build up real solidarity.
If ever we wanted to sense the idealistic character of CST, it is here when we speak about the principle of solidarity. Pope John Paul II has spoken most eloquently about solidarity - moving it beyond mere interdependence or a system of interrelationships based on economic factors alone. He calls it a moral category, rooted ultimately in the religious fact of the community of solidarity manifested in the life of the Trinity.
Solidarity among humans is not vague compassion for the less privileged but active structuring of a society of mutual sharing. The outcome for a poverty eradication programme would be a society where great gaps between rich and poor do not exist, at national as well as global levels.
Let me be clear: solidarity does not demand anegalitarian society where everyone has exactly the same. But it does demand a more equitable society where the gross inequalities of participation and distribution are eliminated. And that, as you can appreciate, is an immense task!
Another component of solidarity that must be emphasised is ecological, since we humans are always members of the earth community and must be respectful of the rights and demands of that community - e.g., environmental justice. This means that the outcome of poverty eradication programmes must also be evaluated in terms of the impact on the community of creation. To be honest, this is something that we are still learning in the unfolding of the church's social teaching.
Finally, let me note that the outcome of solidarity offers a powerful reason for support of the Jubilee principle of cancelling debts, redistributing land and freeing slaves. For these are concrete actions aimed at restoring the bonds of broken community and thus assuring the reality of solidarity. In recent years, there may have been some people who were surprised at the very strong support at every level - from Pope to local parish - of the Jubilee 2000 movement. But for those aware of the clear lessons of the church's social teaching, especially the teaching on solidarity, there is no surprise!
|
|
Related documents