“Упрощенный анализ ситуации, представленный в данном докладе, неприемлем. Он обвиняет только учителей и выставляет в плохом виде тех, что продолжает преподавать, несмотря на многомесячное отсутствие заработной платы”. Так заканчивается комментарий глобальной союзной федерации учителей Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл. Данный комментарий опубликован в последнем разделе электронной дискуссии.

Этот комментарий - один из двух основных высказываний, которые приняли форму более длинных комментариев, распределенных по тематическим разделам всех семи недель. Второй из этих комментариев принадлежит Стивену Гастееру и Раулю Васвани, аналитикам в области сельского развития РСАП. (К сожалению, они предоставили только аббревиатуру).

Оба комментария предоставляют множество деталей. Высказывание Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл содержит подробности децентрализации в Индии и множество результатов и примеров того, что учителя смогли внести свой вклад в улучшение структуры и поставки услуг, а также примеров сопротивления со стороны местных властей.

Доклад также содержит сложный опыт ассоциаций учителей и родителей, указывая на то, что иногда эти ассоциации находились под контролем учителей, находящихся в главенствующей позиции. Это значит, что вместо того, чтобы усилить власть клиентов, ассоциации могли быть использованы для того, чтобы усилить власть учителей.

“Конечно, существуют основания для разговора о том, как улучшить ответственность”, комментирует Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл. “Два основных способа – укреплять местную демократию и помогать родителям в организации своих собственных ассоциаций”.

Противопоставляя демократию рынку как средство повышения ответственности, Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл скептически рассматривает роль родителей в выборе школ и ваучеров, веря в то, что, при скудности предложения, такие меры становились бы разделительными и несправедливыми.

Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл отмечает: “Для Всех” стало реальность в Северной Америке и в Европе во второй половине 19 века. Существуют вариации введения обязательного начального образования, но никогда – через рыночную модель.”

Не противореча предоставлению образования через неправительственные организации, а не государственные агентства, Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл выражает озабоченность тем, что может возникнуть разделение. Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл также указывает на потенциальную опасность, связанную с религиозными школами, в частности. Развитие такой неправительственной организации представляет определенный риск, связанный с созданием сектора образования, который разделен на три параллельные системы: неправительственные школы для бедных, государственные школы для среднего класса и частные школы с высокими расценками для богатых.

Эдюкейшн Интернэшнл также ссылается на исследование, предполагающее, что низкая зарплата и плохие условия работы учителей (по сравнению с другими профессиями, в том числе их клиентов) - основной фактор неявки учителей на работу.

Комментарии Гастеера и Васвани концентрируются на Главе 9 Доклада о Всемирном Развитии. В Главе 9 говорится о воде, санитации, и электричестве.
Они утверждают следующее: “Популярное предположение – это то, что необходимо приватизировать общественное обслуживание. Проблема в том, что в этой главе постоянно утверждается то, что рыночные методы повышают ответственность, часто интерпретируя события. В нашей критике, мы утверждаем, что данная глава не затрагивает некоторых реальных проблем, относясь к обслуживанию как к товару, и проблемами инвестиций многонационального частного сектора в этой сфере.”

Submitted by: Оксана Буранбаева -- June 07,2003
Country of Residence: United States
Country of Origin/Citizenship: Russia
Institutional Affiliation: Public World
Occupation: Модератор
Language:

Regularly we get delegations to Iceland from the World Bank and the IMF. One such delegation has just been in this country and the newspapers are full of their “recommendations” for “reform”.

As usual these representatives take sides with those who want to privatise public services. They encourage the Icelandic government to take further steps to privatise the energy sector and introduce private initiative in health and education on a greater scale than already has been done.

Today, the Icelandic papers report that the IMF delegation applauds the success the right wing government of Iceland has already had. The delegation made no attempt to contact public service unions who have been very critical of the structural changes of this nature made in the past years.

Apparently these specialists make judgements based on very one-sided information and on their own preconceived ideas. The public service unions in Iceland have said the following: We are willing to support structural changes provided it can be shown that they are of benefit to:

a) the user, i.e. the service becomes better;

b) for the payer and here we look to the taxpayer;

c) the staff, pay and working conditions improve markedly.

If proposed changes are likely to lead to better results in all spheres (and this is supported by evidence), then let us change our system. If, on the other hand, the answers are negative in all three instances, empirical evidence is lacking or negative, then of course we do not change the system fundamentally.

In Iceland, privatisation of public services has not been positive for the user/payer/ worker.

I will name only one recent example from Iceland. A contract was made with a private company to build and run a nursing home for the elderly. When it turned out that the contract was more expensive to the tax-payer than contracts with public authorities or non-profit organizations, politicians asked the Icelandic Audit Office to look into the matter. The office came to the conclusion that indeed the contract was costlier but then we must remember that the difference between public and private companies was that in the latter case the investors needed to have their profit!

My question is, then, the following: when delegations of the IMF and the WTO travel throughout the world hailing the success of privatisation, how do they define success, from the point of view of the user, taxpayer and staff on the one hand or the investor on the other?

My suspicion is that it is the interests of capital owners they primarily have in mind. This is also the reason why representatives of these institutions are faced with growing hostility of people trying to protect basic services from the clutches of international capital.

Submitted by: Ogmundur Jonasson -- June 06,2003
Country of Residence: Iceland
Country of Origin/Citizenship: Iceland
Institutional Affiliation: Confederation of State and Municipal Employees, Iceland
Occupation: Chairman
Language:

We have written a critique of Chapter 9 of the draft WDR. Our critique is entitled 'Water, Sanitation and Electricity Services -- From Voice and Compacts to Services Democracy' and can be obtained from sgasteyer@rcap.org. The following, and comments posted in other sections of this e-discussion, are drawn from our paper.

We find that the working assumption of Chapter 9 is that the goal is to privatize delivery of public services. What is troublesome is that the chapter argues repeatedly that market based approaches improve accountability - often stating as fact interpretations of case studies and events.

In our critique, we argue that the chapter has failed to adequately address some of the real concerns with treating basic services as commodities, and the very real problems with multinational private sector investment in this field. We briefly detail the track record that is not adequately addressed in the current draft, referencing this track record to key issues cited in the chapter.

Submitted by: Stephen Gasteyer and Rahul Vaswani -- June 05,2003
Country of Residence: United States
Country of Origin/Citizenship: India
Institutional Affiliation: RCAP
Occupation: Rural Development Analysts
Language:

I am making these remarks on behalf of ABVAKABO FNV, the Dutch trade union for public services, which represents 365,000 workers in public service. ABVAKABO FNV is the second largest trade union in the Netherlands and is an affiliate of PSI.

Let me start by stating our appreciation for parts of the draft WDR for 2004. In the WDR, there are several balanced and sensible analyses. We cannot support all recommendations of the policy agenda, but on the whole we consider the report challenging and an interesting starting point for further discussion.

Still, I also have to make some critical remarks. We would like to comment on the overlooked role unions can play in improving the quality of public services, and on the overestimation of the possible contribution of corporation in this field.

Misleadingly, throughout the report unions are described in a negative way. Nowhere in the draft is any recognition of the positive role unions can play in improving the quality of public services. In many countries, unions co-operate closely with their governments and public employers in promoting partnerships for quality. This constructive role of trade unions is neglected in the draft WDR.

In this respect, the draft WDR clashes with the recent publication by the Bank of ‘Unions and collective bargaining: economic effects in a global environment’. This study rightly notes the valuable contributions of unions to improving both equality and economic growth. It states clearly that trade union members receive better training and have healthier working conditions than their non-organised colleagues. In other words: unions can play an important role to ensure that public services workers are well-trained and properly equipped, which enables them to deliver quality services to all people who need them. It is quite remarkable these findings are totally overlooked by the writing team of the draft WDR.

Moreover, we think that the WDR is too optimistic about the behaviour of corporations in delivering public services. Even if the market can provide some real advantages in some service provision, the report overestimates the societal benefits. In the utilities sector, the whole debacle of the Dabhol project involving Enron points to massive corporate abuse of the political process, including undue influence from embassies. In the Netherlands, the experience with privatisation of public transport teaches that more market does not automatically mean more quality of service.

In sum, it happens too often that companies cannot deliver services to the poor. They just do not have the capacity to deliver on the scale needed. And without the public purse, they will not deliver services to the poor. So, the market will not work in these circumstances.

Furthermore, in cases of replacing public monopolies with private ones, the market forces do not provide the control, accountability or regulation that the Bank assumes throughout the paper. In fact, the market leads to further distortions and even less accountability and control than under less than ideal public services. This is certainly the case when you attempt to impose market dynamics in small, rural or isolated villages. Competition and choice simply do not exist on a scale that allows choice, control and voice.

I hope the World Bank will seriously take these comments, and those of other unions, into account. This will strongly contribute to the societal support the Bank will need to successfully implement its reform agenda.

Submitted by: Guus van Huygevoort -- June 03,2003
Country of Residence: Netherlands
Country of Origin/Citizenship: Netherlands
Institutional Affiliation: ABVAKABO FNV
Occupation: Chairman
Language:

Why is Chinese not included in languages allowed in this e-discussion? You are ignoring more than 20% of the whole world.

Submitted by: Chunbai Zhang -- June 02,2003
Country of Residence: United States
Country of Origin/Citizenship: China
Institutional Affiliation:
Occupation:
Language: