Common Roots or background of the Global Problems? Tamás Szentes

^[1] Professor Joachim von Braun ^[2] in a recent lecture and paper ^[3] gave a splendid explanation of the global food security problem in its complexity related to such other global problems, too, as the climate change, destruction of Nature and biodiversity, accumulating indebtedness, economic crises, mass poverty, unemployment and hunger among the poor, as well as pandemics (COVID 19) and wars (today in Ukraine) disrupting value chains of production and trade, causing inflation, mass emigration and serious refugee crises, etc.

All these global problems faced by the human community of our planet make questionable not only the sustainability of development and food security but also the very survival of humanity itself. In view of the points made by him on such global problems the questions may arise:

What connects as background or common roots such and other global problems today, and what conclusions can be drawn accordingly for their research in general, and also for politics?

It is perhaps correct to say without an over-generalization that all global problems are somehow connected, in general, with the increasing deviation of the global development process, as being driven by accelerating technological progress and power intentions as well as capital accumulation and selfish profit interests, from the real needs of human race as a whole and of the preservation of Nature on our planet. While both technological progress and capital accumulation could serve the increasing welfare of all members of the world society, and also of the future generations by protecting the natural environment, respectively, they still support, moreover in the latest decades increasingly, the luxurious well-being and power interests only of a narrow stratum of the global rich.

The related model of development, originally formulated according to the historical achievements (namely industrialization, modernization, urbanization, motorization, and also democratization) in a few developed Western countries of the “North”, and explicitly manifested later in the principles of the “Washington consensus” (privatization, deregulation, liberalization) is still viewed as an ideal one by the mainstream in economics and politics under the influence of neoliberal ideology. This model is not only recommended for all countries but its copying is supposed to be a precondition of successful development and catching up with the advanced, despite the failure of the “Washington consensus” in practice, and also of the fact, that globally this model is hardly applicable. This is so mainly because those achievements of the West, mentioned above, have mostly resulted from exploitation of natural resources of the colonized countries of the “South” in the past, and/or from a still existing unequal and irrational division of labour between industrialized and primary producing countries. The spread of the same kind of industrialization increasingly meets the hard constraints of non-renewable natural resources, and also aggravates the problem of environment pollution, while deprives agriculture, forestry and water economy of badly needed resources. Moreover, the current development model has proved to fail or suffer obvious shortcomings recently even in its original home countries, too, as shown by the unfavourable consequences of over-urbanization, polluting motorization, waste-producing industries, and by the troubles in the operation of democracy.

In the contemporary process of development the primary motivation – at least of the majority of actors in the economy and politics, who follow the neoliberal principles of selfish individualism – is to win in the market and/or in the power struggle, at the expense of the competing rivals.  The aim is to knock out, if possible, the rivals, or dominate over them. No matter how, by what methods, and no matter what products are supplied (such as for conspicuous consumption and military purposes). This practically involves seemingly zero-sum games, which, however, mostly turn into negative ones, while there is an imperative need today for positive-sum games based upon mutual understanding, help and cooperation.

As a consequence, the operation and rules of the market extend over and beyond its original sphere, namely the economy which is increasingly dominated by transnational capital, to other spheres of social life (public health, education, culture, arts, sports, political life, media and even science), thereby increasingly depriving the Western model of development in the last decades even of those public achievements and social entitlements appearing after the second world war. This is manifested in the reduction of welfare measures, in deepening income gaps and also in numerous revealed corruptions.

Both the false direction of development process and the current development model reshaped by neoliberalism, tend to maintain or reproduce and supplement those social and international inequalities in the economy and politics, manifested in asymmetrical interdependences ^[4] and development gaps, which make or represent directly or indirectly the background of almost all global problems.

No doubt, behind the above features of the development process and model, there are vested business interests of global capital, represented by the major transnational companies, and political interests of big powers fighting for hegemony, and also military interests of arms producers and exporters (as mentioned by Francis the Pope), i.e. the military and industrial complexes (as called by President Eisenhower). The latter are primarily responsible for regional wars, but also for damages in natural environment, destruction of agricultural fields, exhaustion of non-renewable natural resources and also for pollution.

In the world economy the international development gap appears not only and primarily in national income differences, but is manifested more in those asymmetrical interdependencies characterizing the relationship between unequal partners. While the extension and deepening of interdependencies are natural results of globalization, the sharp inequality (partly inherited from the past, mainly from the colonial systems, and partly emerging newly) is a major factor of disequilibrium and consequently of the general background for global or globalizing economic crises.  Since the world economy, due to globalization, is increasingly an organic system, similar to the human body, with manifold interdependencies and interactions among its parts, it is quite understandable, that if any of the latter does not get sufficient “nutriment”, i.e. due revenue, or is hindered in access to resources, and thus cannot develop like others, then such an imbalance and unequal relations necessarily lead to crisis. Despite this obvious consequence, in the mainstream economics no attention is paid to it in the diagnosis of world economic crises which became global problem.

Asymmetries, in general, may appear in the pattern of the following variants of economic interdependence ^[5]:

• in international trade relations and structural positions in the world division of labour (as manifested in the disproportionate export and import structures, i.e. in the geographical and commodity patterns of trade, which make some countries more intensively dependent, more vulnerable vis-à-vis foreign markets, and in the unequal pattern of specialisation, i.e. in the disequalising distribution of the various roles in production and service activities of the world division of labour),
• in international ownership relations (not only because of differences in natural endowments or a given condition of factor endowments in general, but also and mainly because of the non-symmetrical flows of foreign direct investment capital and the resulting inequality in the stock of foreign capital assets),
• in international financial relations, namely between creditors and debtors as well as those providing and those receiving international financial assistance (which are manifested in the growing, cumulative indebtedness of a number of countries and the heavy reliance of the less developed countries on external financial resources, making them subject to the control or influence of the creditors and donors),
• in international monetary relations, i.e. in respect of the international role, relative position, value, reserve base, and stability of national currencies, as well as their supply and demand conditions, and their relationship, exchange rate changes, etc. (which all show not only a large-scale inequality in the monetary position of countries but also a hierarchic order, a pyramidal structure of the monetary system with a few leading and also reserve currencies on the top, many convertible but weaker currencies in the middle and numerous “soft”, non-convertible or not fully convertible currencies on the bottom),
• in international technology transfer and technological relations, namely between those developing, producing, selling or transferring modern technologies, and those receiving or buying and adopting only the technologies developed by others (which results from and also tends to reproduce the very unequal distribution of research and development capacities and technology production among countries, even if no country can do without imported technologies today),
• in international labour migration (however limited, administratively restricted it is), which besides a less significant two-ways flow is characterised by the regular outflow of unskilled or semi-skilled cheap labour from the less developed regions, seeking for employment in more developed countries, and by the immigration of the most qualified, highly educated manpower, particularly scholars, scientists and artists into the most developed countries (i.e. brain drain)
• in international flows of information, namely in the relations between those producing, providing, selling, disseminating, spreading information and those receiving or buying them, which cause great many disadvantages for the latter not only in cost and time but also in reliability and cultural effects.

The asymmetrical interdependence in international trade and division of labour tends to increase inequality among the partners in the distribution of gains, benefits from international trade, specialisation and co-operation. Although it is, in general, always better to take part in international trade than to be isolated from it, those countries belonging to the less favourable (more intensively dependent, subordinated and vulnerable) side of interdependence may actually suffer relative losses and other disadvantages.

The pattern of international trade and vision of labour is still burdened by built-in disequilibrium as a consequence mainly of the colonial past. Most countries of the South, i.e. the underdeveloped parts of the world, were enforced to “specialize” in primary production. Despite many changes, and the rise of some manufacturing industries almost everywhere in the “South”, the trade relations in the world economy is hardly more balanced, and the structure of division of labour is not less unequal.

Primary production does not require, in general, nor induces and stimulates so much the improvement of the quality of labour, of human capital and technological development as most (particularly some) of the manufacturing industries, and cannot generate as many input-output linkages in the economy as the latter (unless the established industries are also enclaves processing imported materials by imported machinery for export as in several cases).  Consequently, the chosen types of specialisation quite differently affect the longer-term development of the national economy, which basically depends on the very development of human capital, technologies and input-output linkages.

Specialization in export-oriented primary production, even if seemingly corresponds to the principle of comparative advantages under the given resource endowments and facilities, and may serve as the main contributor to national income, cannot promote economic growth and social development as much as those manufacturing industries employing skilled labour, stimulating technological progress and generating input-output linkages within the national economy.

The type of export-oriented primary production as the major or only form of international specialization of many countries of the “South”, is mostly represented by monoculture on large plantations, which can hardly become the engine of development, and is definitely unfavourable for the regeneration of soil and its lasting fertility. Owing not only to its export-orientation but also and mainly to the fact that it deprives the traditional farms of huge territory and reduces biodiversity, the production and consumption of some traditional foods, it inevitably contributes to both import reliance of the countries concerned, and to their troubles in food supply and appropriate nutrition of the population.
The underdevelopment of many countries, however, has resulted not only from their colonial past and their remaining unequal position in global interdependencies, but also from the consequent disintegration in their economy and society, i. e. a dual structure consisting of a dominant, mostly outward oriented modern sector and a semi-transformed traditional one, providing cheap labour to the former.

The consequences of such a dualism appear not only in the regular migration of young labour out of the traditional sector, deteriorating further its productive capacities, and in the narrowness of domestic market for local products as well as in the insufficiency of investment-oriented capital accumulation ^[6], but also in deep social inequalities, internal income and development gaps. In most cases there is a sharp contrast between, on the one side, the luxurious life-style and conspicuous consumption of the elite stratum and foreigners in the urban centres of the modern sector and, on the other side, the extreme poverty of the desperate poor masses.

The global problem of poverty and the cumulative process of indebtedness, which also represents a global problem, partly follow from such conditions in many countries of the “South”. It is to be noted, however, that socio-economic disintegration and the split of society into two separate parts seem to take place also in several Western countries, too, as following from the immigration of masses from the “South”, and causing a kind of migration crisis.

The colonial heritage includes, besides unequal position and disintegrated structures, artificial state borders, too, in many parts of the “South”, which were drawn by the colonizers or the winner big powers without attention to natural, geographical circumstances and to the existing ethnical communities. This is particularly manifested in Africa, but can also be found in other parts of the world (including Europe). Most of the inter-state or regional wars and some of the internal civil wars, too, have been induced or motivated by territorial demands or revenge intentions.

No need to prove what catastrophic consequences follow from any war not only but primarily for the people, besides those in the army for masses of innocent citizens, too, but also for agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, food production, natural environment, its flora et fauna, even the soil, the water and the air. Wars are disrupting internal and international value chains, trade and tourism, too, and inducing flows of refugees.

It is, however, not only the wars when occurring, but also the preparations for them, i.e. militarization, arms production and weapon-, racket- and aircraft-testing, moreover, the operation or even the existence of an Army and military sector, a military-industrial complex in countries and particularly their arms race, etc., which all bring about similar consequences, effects and resource-wastages, too. The harmful effects of militarization and armament not only from economic but also social, political and cultural points of view, and especially in regard to natural environment, have been revealed by several research projects and publications, organized by UNU and IPRA in the past. ^[7] Moreover, the often assumed favourable effect of arms production on technical development is also questionable and debated, in view of the higher costs of applying military-oriented technologies in production for civilian needs, than directly civilian-oriented ones.

The war in Ukraine– besides representing the greatest and most immediate danger for the survival of human race, as involving directly a nuclear superpower, indirectly another one – has clearly proved all the above unfavourable effects. Not only, and tragically, the people within this country are suffering as victims, but because of disruptions  in the agricultural and energy exports of Ukraine and the resulting price increases in world markets also the masses of innocent people in great many countries both in Europe and elsewhere, particularly the poor in the “South”. Thus, it has heavily contributed already to the global problems of hunger, malnutrition, poverty and inflation, and to the obstacles of economic growth or post-COVID19 recovery in the world economy, as well as to the global increase in indebtedness, unemployment and refugee crisis. 

However, such grave consequences are caused not only by this war, but also by the sanctions applied against the country the army of which started this war as an aggressor. Economic and other sanctions introduced by the EU and partly by USA have been applied not only against the responsible persons in Russia but mostly against this country as a whole, i.e. all of her citizens, the innocent majority, which clearly violates the basic principles and international agreements on human rights. (Both the UN Charter and particularly the Universal Declaration on human rights clearly condemn discriminations). Apart from this, it is even more surprising that the harmful consequences of the applied economic sanctions for the absolutely innocent citizens, particularly the poor ^[8], of many other States, including also the applying ones, are simply neglected by those initiating or supporting such sanctions.

The worsening life conditions not only in Ukraine but also in many other countries which have been indirectly affected by the war and sanctions, may give additional impetus to emigration, resulting an exodus of masses, particularly young people leaving as migrants their home country temporarily or for good.

In general, the global problem of refugees and migrant masses is undoubtedly rooted primarily in the frequent military conflicts, cruel and devastating wars in the world. However, it also follows from the above mentioned international development and income gaps, from disintegrated economy and society causing relative over-population by diverting fertility and mortality rates of demography, unemployment and poverty in countries of the “South”, and from the climate change, too. Consequently, it is definitely rooted also in the deep international and intra-society inequalities, and connected with other global problems, such as the frequent economic crises based upon structural disequilibria in the world economy, the demographic imbalances (relative overpopulation, as noted above, in the “South” and underpopulation in the “North”), mass unemployment, poverty and the climate change, too.

This is why so difficult to distinguish between real refugees and “economic” migrants. As regional and intercontinental migration has been a natural phenomenon throughout the history of mankind, it cannot be generally classified as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Nor can it be assessed in isolation from other global problems, and in abstraction from its proportion, disregarding whether it is sporadic and gradual or mass, concentrated in time and place, ^[9] whether legal or illegal, and abstracting from its impact on both the emitter and the receiver countries. Its positive and negative features alike, especially its integrating or disintegrating, cohesion-enhancing or destructive effects have to be investigated on both sides, at the level of the families, societies, regions, and continents, too. Nevertheless, the mass exodus of young, more or less already educated people from the countries of the “South” is not only an undoubtedly a disastrous blow to the development potential of the latter, thereby increasing the development gap, but also worsens even more the living conditions and food production there (which can hardly be compensated, except perhaps for the families concerned, by the remittances of migrants from abroad).

The climate change itself has been mostly caused by human activities, particularly those in the false direction of development process and corresponding to the current development model. However, it follows also (like pandemics, too), from social and international inequalities in so far as damages of Nature (due to poverty-induced tree fellings, air-polluting, and insufficient care of natural environment, etc.) demonstrate it. On the other hand, as it is everywhere the poor, particularly in the “South”, who suffer the most all the consequences of the climate change, the latter itself contributes to the growth of inequalities.

Before concluding it is reasonable to raise a few questions in the light of those progressive concepts and steps occurring in the 1970s and 1980s:

1. Why are the international reform attempts to establish a new international economic order (UNCTAD) as well as a new educational and cultural (UNESCO), new employment (ILO), and new scientific and technological order (UNCSTD) forgotten, and also the UN project of disarmament – instead of renewing, revising and correcting them in the context of the interrelations of global problems? ^[10]
2. Why is the concept of a basic needs oriented development (in its original variant, as formulated by Louis Emmerij with a co-author for the 1976 World Employment Conference, which was addressed to the developed countries, too)^[11] also neglected – instead of putting it on national and international policy agenda?
3. Why is the the international solidarity contract initiated by Albert Tévoedjre, Director of the ILO institute is forgotten? ^[12]
4. Why is the project of general disarmament (as recently suggested strongly by the Pope) not among the priorities in UN today?
5. Why are lacking such international research programs as was the UNU’s “Global crisis and transformation” in the 1980s?
6. Why is so little attention paid in research and international conferences nowadays to the size and influence of the military-industrial and technological complexes in a growing number of countries, and to the harmful effects not only of wars but also of military exercises and operations of the army, on environment, and to the spread of the “culture” of violence via the media and also among the children?
7. Why is the UN Pogram of Preparation for Life in Peace which was initiated in the 1980s ^[13], replaced nowadays in practice by preparations for life in war – as can be observed in many countries?

Such and similar questions may underline and make also realistic, at least not too naive, the conclusions on what to do.

In view of all the above explanation, two general conclusions can be drawn both for science and politics, i.e. both for those scholars and those politicians dealing with global problems:

1. The various, cumulating global problems are not only interconnected by their more or less common roots or background, but also interacting by mutually influencing, partly causing or affecting each other in a dialectical way (i.e. with the change-over of the cause to consequence, and vice versa). Thus both their proper scientific analysis and their realistic political treatment (a) must necessarily take into account the common background and interrelationship of the various global problems, and (b) need to apply a multidisciplinary complex viewpoint which consists of a historical, a holistic and dialectical, as well as a critical, ideology-free approach together.
2. In order to overcome the existing global problems and to prevent their return or the rise of new ones, appropriate and coordinated actions are needed on international, regional and country levels, too, in accordance with the results of the related scientific research.

Such actions should aim, in general, at the reorientation of the process of development and the correction of its prevailing model, particularly at the liberation of human society from the decisive influence of capitalist profit-oriented interests and hegemonic power intentions fuelled by military-industrial complexes, which all hinder the reduction of inequalities, set obstacles also to peaceful conflict-solutions, to mutually favourable co-operations and to efficient protection of Nature.

Actions are needed to restrict the operation of market to the sphere of its original functions, and should also involve – as Professor Joachim von Braun concluded in regard to the global food and nutrition problem – technological and institutional innovations for improving ecological balance, biodiversity and satisfaction of real human needs (instead of luxurious consumptions and military purposes).

Coordinated actions on global and regional levels presuppose some substantial and democratizing reforms of international organizations, which would ensure proportional representation, would give appropriate role to civilian associations^[14] in decision making, and should help, not only by efficient development aid and cooperation but mainly by structural changes in the international economic order, by application of structural and cohesion funds, etc., he poor and underdeveloped part of humanity to catch up, and should also enforce efficient protection of Nature.

No doubt, the necessary actions and reforms require more than one-generation time. What can and should, nevertheless, be done immediately (before too late) is at least:

(a) elaboration, within or for the UN, of a complex program, with time schedule, of the required changes, reforms, resolutions, and its presentation for discussion and decisions,

(b) mobilization (perhaps by UNU) of all scientific academies and universities to contribute to the above work within a complex research program on all global problems (with special attention to possibilities of “positive-sum games” in case of general disarmament, restructuring of international division of labour for equal chances to develop, and rational, environment-protecting resource uses), and

(c) interventions of the latter within their countries and internationally together against the dissemination, in any form and by any media (particularly among children) of the “culture” of violence.

(Tamas Szentes, Professor Emeritus, Corvinus University of Budapest, since 1993: Mb. of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1998-2003: President of its Social Science Section, 1967-1971: Professor and Head of Economics, University of Dar es Salaam)

[1] This paper is a more detailed variant of the author’s co-referatum for for the international workshop, “Land quality, food security and food safety: biophysical and socioeconomic aspects”, Institute of Advanced Studies, Kőszeg, 22. May, 2023.

[2] Distinguished Professor, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Vatican.

[3] „Overcoming food crises – science, global policies and Europe’s role”. Keynote lecture for the international workshop mentioned above.

[4] This term is more relevant and correct, than either dependence or interdependence without attributive, because the former is one-sided (neglecting the mutual relations and the role of internal factors in it), while the latter assumes equal relations even between unequal partners. Asymmetrical interdependence expresses both the mutual and the unequal nature of relations. What follows for those suffering unequal position is that the aim and appropriate policy should be to reduce the asymmetry, instead of breaking out of such unequal relations and attempting isolation with autarky.

[5] For detailed explanation on asymmetrical interdependencies see Szentes, T.: World Economics II. The Political Economy of Development, Globalisation and System Transformation. (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2003.)

[6] For more details see Szentes, T. (2003), op. cit., or (1976) „The negative impact of the dualistic socio-economic structure on domestic market, capital formation and labour”, Studies on Developing Countries. No. 86. HAS.

[7] See among them  e.g. Szentes, T. (1984)  „The economic impact of global militarisation”, Alternatives. A Journal of World Policy. Vol. 10. No. 1. Summer 1984. Delhi / New York. Pp. 45-74., or in: Conflict and crisis of international order: new tasks of peace research. IPRA. 1985. Pp. 119-164.

[8] See Sundaram, J. K. – Chowdhury,A. (2022), “Sanctions Now Weapons of Mass Starvation”, IDEAs Articles (International Development Economics Associates, London-New Delhi. http://networkideas.org.)

[9] The relevant difference is like that between a ‘quiet’ May rain over a large area and a rough torrential downpour (or hail) that suddenly floods a narrow area.

[10] The UN documents on NIEO contained inconsistencies, missed to focus on necessary structural changes, and overlooked the ecological problems as well as the consequences of the arms race and militarization. (See Szentes, T. (1976)  „The need for a new pattern of the international division of labour”, ILO Information, 1976. No. 3., or “International trade and the developing countries: will the new international economic order be a really new?”, Labour and Society. ILO. Geneva. 1976. No. 3-4. Pp. 39-51.

[11] This concept was purposefully misinterpreted by reducing it to provide only subsistence minimum for the poor of developing countries, contrary to its original message to stop producing for luxurious and military purposes.

[12] About this concept see Szentes, T. (1978), “Solidarity Contract: on what, between whom and for whose benefit?”, Labour and Society. ILO. Geneva. 1978. Nos. 3-4. July/Oct. Pp. 292-301.

[13]  On this program see Szentes, T.  (1987) “Real emancipation and peaceful cooperation aiming at a New Democratic World Order” In: Thee, M. ed. (1987), Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace. United Nations University – Norwegian University Press, Oslo. Pp. 279-292.

[14] Such democratic associations as those embracing the civilian organizations of countries, which are independent financially and in membership, both of governments (NGOs) and owners of big capital (NCOs), i.e. NGCOs, and/or such professional ones as the representatives of trade unions, Chambers of industry, commerce, agrarium, etc.      .