Dr. Salam Al Rabadi.
According to International
Labour Organization (ILO) reports, the Covid-19 pandemic has caused severe
damage to the work sector, with more than 250 million jobs lost, not to mention
the negative impact of the pandemic in terms of slowing or reversing the trend
of rising wages around the world, which affected low-wage earners[1]. In addition to the increasing inequality between the
rich and the poor and the increase in the poverty rate.Thus, it
must be recognized that the current economic developments and the free trade
growth process are still growing far away from the labor market, and have a
negative impact on the level of equality and social justice.
In this context,
it must be noted the basic problematic in the modern world on a level
relationship between sustainable development and economic growth are the
problematic of the gap between the rich and the poor. So, we must ask:
Do we in the era
of the economy for the economy and not for the community?
Facts based on
public interest remain the primary criterion for evaluating successful economic
policy. Therefore, far from theorizing and according to the statistics and data
on the economic gap, and if we take into account that the largest proportion of
citizens are workers or employees working for wages, we can say that the
economy no longer works for the benefit of societies. As it has become clear,
the gap between entrepreneurs and wealthy individuals on the one hand and
workers' salaries on the other hand, will increase doubts about the safety of
society. Accordingly, if freedom of trade and the movement of capital are what
secures growth and prosperity, and if the goals of the World Trade Organization
(based on competition, abolishing quantitative restrictions, unifying all fees
and making the world a free trade zone), here it is necessary to ask:
Are these
policies and objectives will lead to a deepening of the labor market crisis? Or
is it will serve as a point of change and positive transformation?
It has become
logical to say that these goals in the first place increased the intensity of
competition between countries (whether industrial or developing), which
inevitably led to disastrous results in terms of high rates of wage and salary
cuts and the erosion of their purchasing value. As all the efforts made by
politicians and economists to find alternatives to lost job opportunities in
all sectors did not achieve the desired results. The more free the pace of
commercial growth (in goods and services), the greater the difficulties at the
level of the labor market, where there is a reduction and rationalization that
leads to the loss of value of human labor. In this context, it
must be noted that there was no real globalization with regard to the labor
market.
Consequently,
many of the policies pursued did not lead to an increase in the well-being of
societies, but rather worsened the stagnation of the social situation and the
gap between the rich and the poor. For example, a decrease in wages in commodity prices
is reflected positively in the first place( and directly) on the rich or
high-income consumer, who has not lost anything of his income as a result of
reducing the cost of production. In contrast, it is the middle and lower
classes that lose a large part of their income and are therefore negatively
affected the most.
Accordingly, and
according to the economic repercussions of the "Covid-19" pandemic,
it is currently impossible to avoid and ignore research into a dilemma:
Who bears the
economic burden more: capital or workers?
Based on the
axioms of current economic policies, it is logical to say that governments
increase the tax burden on the labor sector. Also, tax exemptions and
facilities provided by governments to transnational corporations lead to a
decrease in the state's financial revenues, which they will compensate by
increasing taxes on other social classes, or by reducing social services and
health care.
Thus, it becomes
clear that if in the past the economic and financial equation reflects more and
more the widening gap between the rich and the poor, which focuses on the
principle: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But now, in light of
new facts and developments, this equation is no longer sufficient to explain
the changes, there is a new equation (or formula) based on the principle: the
rich get richer and the poor get poorer at a faster rate?
As it is not
entirely surprising that we know that there is a high speed in the provision of
funds in order to find a solution to any global financial and economic crisis
compared to the fact that there is extreme caution and stinginess when it comes
to financing humanitarian programs that related to lifting the less fortunate
(deprived and marginalized) communities from poverty and destitution. For example, only we need to tens of billions annually to eradicate
hunger and malnutrition in the whole world. And the United Nations has endorsed
several different programs to achieve this goal. But this programs still on
paper only due to lack of availability of the necessary funds.
Therefore, all
economic and political solutions related to the challenges of the "Covid
19" pandemic must be based, to the utmost degree, on the ability to support
all policies related to safeguarding the interests of the working class and the
poor. Where the central issue must be based on the logical criticism of the
actual existence of poverty and inequality, whether at the global or local
level.
These tragic facts
(away from the ideological dimensions in study and evaluation of the global
economy) put us in front of the dialectical next logical question: Is the
problem lies in the strategic priorities and options to states? Or Is it, in
fact, the problem of the actual possibilities available to States?
To sum up, the
possibility of achieving an actual renaissance that relieves the peoples of
poverty and material impotence depends on the type of economic thought that
should be pursued, as we need new visions that respond to the needs and
capabilities of societies. Consequently, this requires directing an
intellectual criticism of how to interact and deal with neo-economic
liberalism, because it is no longer logical and acceptable to deal with this
reality on ideological grounds only (whether for or against) without the
existence of practical economic programs, where here it is necessary to
confront a dialectical or problematic:
Why are there so
many ideas about how to distribute income, but there are not many ideas about how to generate income?
[1] See,"Covid-19" and the world of work:Updated
estimates and analysis", Seventh
edition, International Labour Organization Monitor(ILO), Geneva, January 2021.
Look: https://www.ilo.org/
wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_767028.pdf
Accessed on 04-27-2021.
