Since the “green revolution," structural adjustment schemes have been prioritised by institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as suitable measures to provide advantageous solutions to Third World economic and growth management obstacles. The effects of structural adjustment are by no means uniformly beneficial. The programmes are often accompanied by markedly greater income disparities, lower employment security and overall higher unemployment, restricted progress in occupational health and safety and environmental protection, and long-term difficulties with welfare problems arising from the subjugated position of workers in the economic hierarchy.
As we have seen in India, labour opposition to structural adjustment and the privatisation schemes, not surprisingly, is strong. Reaction from workers in other South Asian countries can be expected too who are characteristically the first victims under the new ‘adjustment’ program. In fact, structural adjustment has already taken place throughout Asia. The paradigm of Asian industrialisation is the ‘little dragon’ model of development, typified by a top-down authoritarian government, harshly restricted labour rights, and intense exploitation of both agricultural and industrial work-forces. Forms of improved democratic representation and the introduction of more equitable civil and human rights, including labour and economic rights, sometimes arise in the form of reluctantly tolerated sequels.
The South Asian workers’ experience can be very important for Asia. The struggle against structural adjustment has to stand on two poles: first, the labour movement must develop a thorough critique of the economic solution prescribed by the state, the World Bank and TNCs, and it must have the capacity to mobilise the workers and masses to enforce participatory development policy-making.
In East Asia, however, awareness of the issues among unions and workers’ groups is not as strong as in South Asia. Perhaps one difference between the two parts of Asia is that in much of East Asia, despite being relatively more industrialised, union rights are still strongly suppressed. Unionists are more concerned with gaining the basic right to organise freely and openly. In this issue we have the opportunity to publish a revealing interview with “exiled” unionist Han Dong-fang. Understandably, under China’s present circumstances, any critique of market reform among free or independent labour activists may still be inadequate.
Labour groups need to develop a critical analysis of the new market patterns and find new and appropriate ways to defend the interests of workers in these new economic and political circumstances.
Contents
Cover Story
News
Feature
Regional round-up
Health & Safety
Viewpoint
Resource update