View source for The Poverty Issue, Debt Cancellation, and Alternative Visions for Globalisation

==Reforming Globalisation==

The economic dimension of globalisation also comprises analyses and  assessment of revenue and wealth distribution throughout the global economy,  including the ‘underside of wealth’, i.e. poverty. Recently, two of the most  influential economists – apart from Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winning Indian  professor, who has been dealing with poverty for a long time – have expressed  their views on this aspect of globalisation: former World Bank’s head economist  Joseph Stiglitz (also a Nobel Prize winner and honorary doctor at Charles  University), and an advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Professor  Jeffrey Sachs (see Stiglitz 2003, and Sachs 2005). Both seek the same purpose:  the reformation of globalisation so that it benefits the poor as much as the  rich, thereby bringing an end to poverty. The issues of poverty and debt  cancellation for the poorest countries are perpetual, but they re-emerged with  new urgency on the agenda of the global financial institutions prior to the  Millennium Year 2000.

==Debt Cancellation and a Confidence Crisis==

The issue of debt cancellation for the most indebted developing countries is  a good textbook example of how seemingly clear economic problems are in fact  ambiguous and controversial, and how even good intentions may be a path toward  intensifying a problem. It seems obvious on the one hand that the trap of credit  indebtedness and ‘interest slavery’ which some African, Latin American and Asian  countries have fallen to is so deep that there is practically nothing left to  debate about: they will never be able to repay the debt anyway. The histories  behind the fall into the trap vary, but tend to have a lot in common. Creditors’  consortiums and World Bank ‘development projects’ are often found equally guilty  in tripping countries up. The current governments in politically unstable  regions even tend to refuse to assume responsibility for the debts of previous  governments.

On the other hand, the debt cancellation issue does not only concern the past  and past errors made by both the debtors and the creditors. It is also a  question of future and learning from past errors. Debt cancellation sets the  learning from past errors in a risky light as it may evoke the feeling that  ‘your debts will eventually be paid for you anyway.’ Until political, and often  military conditions for a new path toward the future are set up, debt  cancellation itself will not solve much. More effective institutional warrants  on credit agreements between credit banks and developing country governments, or  better still, private businesses in developing countries, need to be developed.  Effective bankrupt procedures for debtor country governments as an ultimate  means of enforcing their obligations toward creditors have been lacking.