Lars Anell and Birgitta Nygren: The Developing Countries and the World Economic Order. London: Frances Pinter, 1980.

One of the large projects carried out by the Swedish Secretariat for Future Studies has been "Sweden in a new economic world order". Several reports and discussion papers have been published since the start in 1978. The first, "international" part of the project was finished by 1980. Of the publications available in Swedish the most interesting are perhaps "Världsordningen och välfärdsstatens kris" (The world order and the crisis of the welfare state) by Lars Anell, "Produktion utan gränser" (Production without frontiers) by Staffan

Laestadius and "Om morgondagens ekonomiska världsordning" (On tomorrow's economic world order) by Anell, Laestadius and Birgitta Nygren. The first of the project's main reports, "The Developing Countries and the World Economic Order", has been translated into English.

The book consists of two parts. The first is dedicated to a historical description of the international economy, world development, and the developing countries' demands for a New International Economic Order. This survey is comprehensive but sweeping. Its main function is to give a good introduction to the general reader — and so it does.

The second part of the book consists of a critique of the demands associated
with NIEO and a plea for an "equitable world order". My comments concern
only this part of the book.

The views of the authors are a particular, although by no means uncommon, bland of realism and moralism. They look upon the transition from one international economic order to another as a process during which the economic forces and the relative: strength of countries gradually change. The two earlier functioning international orders were both managed by a single dominant country, Great Britain and the United States respectively. The core of the problem, according to the authors, is what force can hold a more democratic order together (p. 122). This difficult question does not, however, receive any direct answer.

The authors present a rather subtle case against the central demands associated with NIEO. Scrutinizing the proposals for indexation of raw material prices, an integrated commodity programme, a redistribution of the international maritime traffic and debt cancellations, they arrive at the conclusion that the countries which will benefit from a new order are primarily those that are already doing fairly well under the old. Even now they have a relatively well-developed industrial capacity, can borrow on the international capital market, and are effective competitors with the enterprises of the industrialized countries. The least developed countries, and the poor masses in general, would not stand to gain in any appreciable way. The front line in the struggle for a more equitable world does not primarily run along national frontiers;, and, in so far as it does, it is not along the frontiers between the industrialized and the developing countries. Accepting the view that power matters in international affairs, let the group of 77 try to push through their demands, but we should not encourage or support them on any moral grounds.

What we should try to promote instead is what the authors call "an equitable world order". The components of this world order are more aid to the least developed countries, a basic needs strategy internationally and above all nationally, and discrimination against undemocratic regimes, exemplified by the idea of a "social clause" in international trade. Thus the industrialized countries should arrange their relations with developing countries on the prin

ciples of morality, promoting the situation of the poorest, whereas the developing
countries should be allowed to pursue their egoistic ends as far as they
have the power to do it.

It surely is legitimate and desirable that developed countries, such as the Nordic ones, should try to elaborate their own idea of how a new and better world economic order should be constructed. The contribution of Anell and Nygren is very welcome from this point of view. There is, however, a moral problem which comes out rather clearly in reading the book.

Here we have a large group of countries demanding equality in the world system as nations, asking for their rights as sovereign states and equal members of the world community. The answer given by Anell and Nygren to this pledge is that you can have it if you can get it, but that there is no moral justification for it. Realism shows us that the privileged countries are not going to give up their positions freely, so power will still decide in these matters. However, we are prepared to offer you something else, a world order which is geared to the advancement of the wretched of the earth. Drop your unrealistic and morally questionable NIEO demands and settle for a really equitable order instead!

The subtlety of this argument is that we know that the strength and coherence of the group of 77 come from the joint demands of nation-states. It certainly is good morality to try to help the poor people of the world, but they cannot put any power behind their demands in the international system — except perhaps through a handful of nation-states. Therefore the "equitable world order" would be a gift from the rich countries, of course provided on their terms. Such a gift could even be a rather low price for avoiding a NIEO.