Draft / Not for quotation

Challenge of Trade Intensification to Women Re-casting Governance

By Josefa (Gigi) Francisco

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this plenary entitled Women’s Voices in Trade and Globalization. I trust that you had a good discussion yesterday. Given the equally exciting topics lined up for today, I could only expect your interaction to become even richer and ever worthwhile. My congratulations to one and all, most especially to the organizers of the6th Women in Politics Congress!

Introduction

Trade intensification is a concept that comes from an economist who used the phrase in reference to the dominant economic thinking that promotes rapid and full opening of the economy as the only desirable way to go for governments(Rodrick 2001). Nowadays, we no longer hear government speak of ‘import substitution’, or ‘government owned corporations’, or ‘local content and equity’. Rather we often hear government enthusiastically speak ofthe need to “liberalize the economies”or“remove barriers to trade” or “attract foreign investors” or “export human resources.” Government is not only changing the language it uses, it is also changing its laws and codified regulations. Even Constitutions are being re-negotiated to ‘harmonize’ them with new global trade rules. Legal guarantees of patrimony, self-sufficiency or the social function of property are now superseded by terminologies such as ‘national treatment’ ‘most favored nation’, or ‘right of ownership for foreign individuals or corporations’. Allow me to share with you a constitutional provision on the social function of property in the Philippines that may not find a place in a revised constitution that may come out of the ongoing process of Charter change.

Box 1: Sample of social function of property

  • “The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.” (Philippine Constitution Article XII, Section 6)

Moreover, government is re-structuring its organization through strategies of right-sizing, out-sourcing, devolution, and privatization of public utilities. Poverty reduction strategies no longer talk of ‘people’ but of ‘human capital’. Government subsidized programs are being overtaken by income transfer strategies while long-term social protection rather than be treated as a state obligation – which it is - is now more widely viewed in government as “direct consumption and therefore unproductive” (Cook, Kabeer, Savannarat, 2003).

Governance, on the other hand, generally refers to a system of rules, mechanisms and organization for social control and discipline. In the past we understood governance in relation to the organizing principle of the sovereign state. Globalization has altered not only what governments can do but more fundamentally what the state is all about. Nowadays we speak of not only global and regional governance but also of sub-national governance. As women engaged in national politics and decision-making, I believe you will agree with me when I say that in Asia, governance by national governments is not just alive but strong. The state may be contested, the administration may be weak or politically beleaguered but there is a government that refuses to wither away. This gives credence to what some have claimed that the states (and therefore, national governments) remain relevant in globalization although “its primacy and its actual capacity as an actor is being altered (Held and MGrew 2000 quoted in Encinas-Franco, 2006).

Elsewhere I have written that Asian states with their authoritarian governments have been the prime movers of the political project of modernization in the 70’s and 80’s (Francisco and Fong 1999). Asian governments may have lost much of the charism and power that their past dictators enjoyed but these nevertheless still play a central role in pushing for trade intensification in economic globalization. Today, however, they do so within a context of governance in which global and regional institutions such as the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are wielding influence in the national governance sphere. The need for regulatory frameworks that could provide market stability, especially to avert market failures, such as, the devastating Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, became an impetus for putting the agenda of “good governance’ in the reform and development packages of the IFIs and the donor community (Encinas-Franco 2006; Bakker and Gill 2003).1Governance reforms related to macroeconomic and trade management has privileged the executive and technocratic branch of government, often without adequate political check and balance from the parliamentarian and judicial branches. DAWN calls this phenomenon as the ‘marketization of governance” (Taylor 2000).

Women, politics and governance

Women’s exclusion from the state as citizens and as political agents has been a long running issue of women’s movements everywhere. Feminists have characterized the relationship of the women’s movements with state and state power as ambivalent (Taylor, 2000), ambiguous (Shaheed 1997), complex and contradictory (Vargas, 2000). But there is nothing ambivalent nor ambiguous nor contradictory in the consensus of 189 countries in Beijing when they pledged to promote the equality of women in decision-making and in strengthening national machineries for enabling women’s co-equal governance with men.

Certainly the responses from women’s movements were widespread and varied. Women’s actions in many parts went beyond the limits of governance into the expanse of issues relating to women’s citizenship and issues of democratizing power relations at all levels (Vargas, 2000). Some of the more prominent responses included the following: taking to task governments for making true their promises in Beijing; women’s participation in politics and entry into political parties as well as government positions; lobbying for laws that protect women from all forms of violence; and gender mainstreaming. Ten years after Beijing, the overall sense coming out of several studies in the region is that the goal of state transformation through women’s equality was far from being achieved. Worse, reversals of earlier gains had been noted, linked to the emergence of a more difficult political climate and challenging economic environment. (FES & SEAWWATCH 2005; FES-ISIS-SEAWWATCH conference 2005).

Before we proceed, it might be good to challenge ourselves with this quote

“… while the state is correctly seen as patriarchal and clearly biased against women, much of the (women’s) movement’s activism is, in fact, addressed to the state and carries a definite, albeit unarticulated expectation that the state will, or should, or must, support women’s rights and equality” (Shaheed 1997).

In light of trade intensification, what are our challenges and strategies?

Academicand policy-oriented work on women’s rights, gender and trade is new and research is sparse.A renowned feminist economist says: “While there was a time when trade negotiators were barely noticed by the average citizen, since the 1990’s, in particular, we have seen an increasing attention paid to trade issues – due to their importance for the economics and politics of globalization and of everyday life” (Beneria 2003, p. 57). But the research is seriously outpaced by the changes that are taking place. These factors were identified in a recent scan of gender and trade in the Asia Pacific (Durano and Francisco 2006): First, trade rules have expanded and now include new areas related to the import and export that were not previously covered by the GATT. Among the most important are services, investment fisheries, and trade-related intellectual property. Trade negotiations at the present time are also giving more emphasis on non-tariff measures and as such are producing agreements that increasingly impinge on a host of domestic regulation.

The need to examine with a gender and rights perspective the changes in domestic regulation - what will be taken away or will be put in place in support of trade liberalization – and how these impact on entitlements enjoyed by women and other groups or are guaranteed by international agreements other than trade, presents itself as a critical response. As well, the need to support the women’s movements, social movements and parliamentarians indemanding accountability and transparency from technocrats, trade negotiators and executive branch of government as well as to defend socially oriented domestic regulations is strategic.

Moreover, the WTO and the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have reached a formal coherence agreement that is meant to coordinate policy direction and negate inconsistent or conflicting advice given to governments (Floro and Hoppe 2005). Newer forms of regional and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) are equally important. Especially since the WTO talks collapsed twice, there has been an increase in the number of regional and bilateral FTAs whose scope, coverage and depth of liberalization exceed those found in the WTO. Related agreements such as bilateral investment treaties and bilateral labour agreements that have caused some debates in the WTO are being integrated more easily into the FTAs.These multiple and concurrent developments make it difficult to establish causality that is often asked from those tackling macroeconomic, trade and gender issues.But what has also been noted is a lack of sex segregated data to support empirical studies (Fontana 2003 cited in Durano and Francisco, 2006). Hence, strengthening the capacity of national governments to collect sex segregated data and making these available on a regular basis is important.

Research on the relationship between gender and trade have tended to focus on women’s employment and incomes and women’s livelihoods or enterprises. Economists assume that trade intensification will bring in jobs for women (and men) and will expand the market for women’s (and men’s) products (Durano and Francisco 2006). The same literature review found out that these linkages to trade are unclear and results are mixed. What comes out are “winners and losers” so that to insist that trade openness will benefit all women is simply to repeat an already discredited mantra. The expansion of rural markets, for instance, does not always have a positive impact on women’s crops and livelihoods that are central to the household’s food security. One way to respond to this is to encourage academic or independent research that will explore alternative paths of economic development, using feminist economic perspectives on social reproduction. Investing in the development of feminist economics programs in the universities or promoting economic literacy on gender and trade within the women’s movements and among those in governance are some steps to consider.

Trade intensification which places the distribution of power and wealth on the market, reduces the state to a mere regulatory agent and “emphasizes the technical and quantitative over the social and human components” (Bakker and Gill 2003) is anathema to the feminist vision of a caring, socially oriented and rights-based world order. Such is an economic globalization that puts corporate and finance interests above the common good and the people’s rights.Hence, another recommendation is for women’s movements and women in government to give more focused attention on the inter-linkages among (a) short-term social safety nets, (2) long-term social protection programs, including asset redistribution through land reform, and (3) social services for the poor and the vulnerable. The over-emphasis on micro-finance projects or access to credit need to be balanced out by a more thorough accounting of its costs, its real impacts, and the outcomes it had generated.

In ending I want to reiterate what DAWN has time and again said: “Our engagement with the state is one that is simultaneously and an act of cooperation but also of maintaining critical distance” (Taylor 2000) Indeed such is a difficult balancing act but it is also what is needed if we are to remain true to the vision of re-casting politics and governance in order to re-position rights and people’s welfare over corporations and markets.

Notes

1The UNDP has twice broadened the governance discourse from its narrow focus on ‘sound economic management’ to encompass citizens’ rights and participation (Jayal 2003 quoted in Encinas-franco, 2006). However, Bakker and Gill (2003) sees this as a very limited attempt.

References

Bakker, Isabella and Stephen Gill (2003). Power, Reproduction and Social Reproduction.

New York: Palgrave-MacMillan

Beneria, Lourdes (2003). Gender, Development, and Globalization Economics As If All

People Mattered. New York and London: Routledge

Cook, Sarah, Naila Kabeer and Gary Suwannarat (2003). Social Protection in Asia. New

Delhi: Har Anand Publications and the Ford Foundation

Durano, Marina Fe and Josefa Francisco (2006) “Gender Issues in International Trade in

the Asia-Pacific”. Paper submitted to UNIFEM-New York. International Gender and Trade Network

Encinas-Franco, Jean (0ngoing) “Report on Mainstreaming Women’s Rights and Gender

Equality in Selected Governance Reform Initiatives in the Philippines: An Indicative Study” Manuscript. Women and Gender Institute

Floro, Maria and Hella Hoppe (2005). “Engendering Policy Coherence for

Development,” Occasional Papers Number 17. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Francisco, Josefa and Stella Fong (1999). Political Restructuring and Social

Transformation: Critical Feminist Perspectives in Southeast Asia. Manila: Development alternatives with Women for A New Era

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and South East Asia Watch. (2005) Gaining Ground: Ten Years

After Beijing. Manila: FES and SEAWWATCH

Rodrik, Dani (2001). “The Global Governance of Trade: As If Development Really Mattered,” Background Paper. New York: UNDP. ( 5 November 2005)

Taylor, Vivienne (2000).The Marketization of Governance. Fiji: Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era.

Shaheed, Farida. (1997) “Women, State and Power: The Dynamics of Variation and

Convergence Across East and West” in Neelam Hussain, Samilya Mumtaz and Rubina Saigol. Engendering the Nation-State. Lahore: Simorgh Publications

Vargas, Virginia (2000). “Democratic Institutionality and Feminist Strategies during the

Nineties” in About Women’s Powers and Vision. Montevideo: DAWN and REPEM

1