Globalisation on the world of work

Consider the implications of globalisation for the world of work.

Since the introduction of the International Labour Organization in 1919 (ILO, 2014), the idea of the ‘world of work’ has become part of discourse. Despite much debate regarding globalization, it is apparent that all nations have become increasingly globalized in the last 30 years, especially with the rise of internet and computing technology. Slaughter and Swagel (1997) describe globalization as the international integration of goods, technology, labour and capital and which can be seen everywhere. What is noteworthy here is that they mention the international integration of labour, and so it is immediately evident that labour has changed as a result of globalization. I will argue that globalization has had major implications for the world of work arguing that neither exist in a vacuum separate of the other, consequently leading to the summary that the world of work is a complex structure from which globalization has had a negative impact on.

The Race to the Bottom

‘The Race to the Bottom’ is a central topic when debating globalization, and one from which many other topics originate. The race to the bottom is discussed by many commentators, however, Pearson and Seyfang (2009) expose the idea in the simplest form: the lowering of wages and/or working standards by the state to attract investors and companies from across the world. The argument here is that this is because of the rise of Neoliberalism in the 1980s, which reduced the likelihood of countries enforcing voluntary codes of conducts; “despite widespread ratification of many of the labour standards conventions, adverse judgements from the ILO were increasingly unenforced” (pp. 219). It is undeniable that the rise of Neoliberalism in the 80s has played a key role in the idea of a race to the bottom. By this, I refer to the policy agendas of pivotal nations such as the presidency of Raegan in the US, and UK Prime Minister Thatcher, but more importantly, the growing neo-liberal social policy from bodies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF, 2014). As Pearson and Seyfang argue, the rise of neoliberalism equated to the acceleration of flexible labour, through labour market deregulation and restrictions on collective bargaining. This ties in with globalization in that industrialized welfare states were no longer seen as attractive when foreign direct investment could be made in East Asia, as well as other developing parts of the world, where the low working standards and lack of workers’ rights meant fewer costs of production. Additionally, Koechlin (2005) talks about how the increasing ease of capital, goods and services moving across national borders is a result of the advances in technologies of transportation and communication, and it is this which has fundamentally changed the geography of production. Henceforth, it is clear that we can see the connection between the rise of neoliberalism and globalization; the increased flexibility of the international labour market, and the changes in the geography of production have resulted in the race to the bottom, whereby nation states lower wages and working standards to attract foreign investors. And so, the race to the bottom has had serious implications for the world of work. This is most particularly the case, as previously discussed, in East Asia.

One of the greatest examples of how the race to the bottom has implicated the world of work is in the development of Indonesia. In the case of Indonesia, Pilger (2001) comments how Western politicians and businessmen worked alongside Dictator Suharto to open up Indonesian resources and labour market to America and the wealthy west. The outcome led to high-street brands exploiting the cheap labour provided in Indonesia, where it is reported that women and children are living on just 72 pence a day, with many children ‘undernourished and prone to disease’. Handayani (2012) further discusses the statistic evidence of this in more recent times, stating how the number of poor people in Indonesia is on the rise, as well as absolute poverty reaching 43 million by 2011. International Development, although distinct in its own right, has a noticeable overlap here in that development is hindered, or restricted, by the globalization of labour, specifically the race to the bottom as can be seen in Indonesia. Thus, in summary, the implications of globalization on the world of work have not only been of upmost importance, but there has also been negative products of globalization with the race to the bottom devaluing human labour and life. With these negative externalities still providing monumental barriers to international development, it seems certainly possible to view the growth of Capitalism in this way as a form of Capitalist Imperialism; the exploitation of labour in the developing world by multinational corporations. And so, picking up from a neo-Marxist perspective, it is socially and ethically apparent that globalization has had a negative impact on the world of work.

The Welfare State

Globalization has had a very significant impact on welfare states throughout the western world. George and Wilding (2002) argue how the balance of power between capital and labour has shifted as a result of globalization because the increased locational freedom in a more global world has weakened the bargaining power of labour whilst strengthening capital. George and Wilding use statistics about trade union membership in the US in order to demonstrate their point; in the 1970s, membership was around 35 million, but had fallen to a mere 15 million by the 1990s. This is explained through the ability of multinational corporations to increasingly use locational threats to weaken trade union power and extract concessions. Doogan (2014) discusses how Bronfenbrenner adds to the debate by talking about the ‘précarité’ discourse, the idea of precariousness or insecurity, whereby companies have created job insecurity through the threats of relocating: a threat only possible because of increased capital mobility, which in turn is the result of globalization. However this is not the only side effect of the shift in the balance of power between capital and labour: “the risk of losing credibility with the financial markets has been used by governments to counter demands for improved benefits” (George and Wilding, pp. 49). Without too much inference, it is obvious that the point being discussed is in regard to the weakening of national governments to stand up in support of their welfare system over multinational corporations. For instance, Swank (2005) highlights how globalization has allowed for welfare state retrenchment because by ‘economic logic’, social programmes and public spending “negatively effects products, investment and job creation” (pp. 186). Once more, it is evident how the race to the bottom argument can come up again, however it can be seen that globalization is having more of an impact than just that discussion. So far it can be seen that globalization has created a précarité society through the shift in the balance of power, as well as indicating potential welfare state retrenchment. However, from a broader approach, globalization has also contributed to the collapse of social partnership.

An agreement to disagree is how George and Wilding (2002) have expressed the relationship between labour and capital; although complementary, their relationship also is one of inevitable hostility. The implications for the welfare state and social construction of each state do not seem clear at first, but because of the role globalization has had, social partnerships come under much strain. The commentators emphasize this by giving the example of Sweden during the rise of neoliberal economics in the 1980s: because the Swedish system is traditionally both politically and economically socialist, the rejection of industry seeking more flexible production and investment strategies ultimately meant the model failed. For a more recent example, George and Wilding point out how Germany with a historic national consensus culture is being weakened by globalization. This is of much interest because of the different make up between Germany and Sweden’s welfare state – where Sweden can be described as Social Democratic, Germany are seen to be Corporatist (Esping-Andersen, 1990). It is argued that what is emerging is a ‘competitive corporatism’, fitting in with an increasingly globalized society with flexible labour and capital mobility, and so in turn giving “much less emphasis to the redistributive aims of traditional corporatism” (pp. 50). The welfare states of the two countries contrast in many ways in regard to their approach to the provision of welfare, but are progressively coming under the same attacks from multinationals to improve productivity and competitiveness. And so it is ever apparent that globalization is having fundamental implications on the welfare state because the welfare state has to break free of its historic traditions in order to compromise for globalization. This naturally means that the world of work is impacted too – because of the role welfare states have in mostly delivering for those that do not work, such as pensioners, the unemployed, and even to some extent the disabled, then changes in the nature of the welfare state will in the long run change the nature of labour and working. Thus we can summarise here that globalization is once again having a negative impact on the world of work. This is because of the negative externalities that come into play as a result of financial pressures from capital, for example decline in trade union membership. As an extension of this, the weakened power of labour also has created an insecure or précarité society, and looking at welfare more broadly from across the western world, the economic pressures of globalization are, so far, having negative consequences for the nature of different welfare states.

Rising Inequality

The effects globalization has had on the world of work are as explained, disadvantageously for the welfare state and through the widespread concept of the race to the bottom. However, the most effective way of establishing how the effects of globalization have had negative implications on the world of work is through redirecting talk back to generic reasons as to why globalization is harmful, as this leads to discussion about labour. Rising income inequalities and wealth distribution are a result of the combination of many factors already discussed – and they lead directly into the world of work because they are continuously growing. This indicates that the sheer nature of globalization is one in which capitalist imperialism continues to exploit human labour, denying many workers the rights and wages for which it could be argued they deserve.

One of the most pivotal thinkers on the effects of globalization is Mishra (1999, 2009). Although a direct speaker about the effects globalization has had on the welfare state, Mishra can also be mentioned in the context of rising inequalities. In my opinion, this sits distinct from the welfare state in that the rising inequalities as a result of globalization are present throughout the world and not just in the states where welfare provision may or may not have led to such wide income disparity. Nevertheless, I’ll begin by using the statistics that George and Wilding (2002) expose when they mention Mishra’s ideas of globalization increasing income inequality; in the early 1970’s, households in the top 5% in the US earned 10 times that of the bottom 5%, but by the 1990s, they earned 15 times as much, with similar income patterns present in the UK. Politizane (2012) produced a popular statistical video last year when showing how the income distribution between the top 1% and the rest of the country is extremely vast – the importance of this is very high in that it demonstrates how the income inequality of wealth distribution has continued to increase at an alarming rate between the 10 years when George and Wilding debated the effects of globalization on income inequality in 2002. But, it does not compare to the level of wealth distribution when analysed from a global perspective. Maps such as the one produced by World Mapper (2006) show the extent to which wealth is unfairly distributed in the world (see Appendix 1). As can be seen in appendix 1, the wealth of the US and western Europe evidently distorts the global picture, with Africa appearing as just a mere line on the map, and other developing countries such as those in south east Asia and South America hardly visible either. Mishra (2009) examines the relationship between globalization and income inequality; it can be argued that globalization has exacerbated the income inequality of the world’s population primarily because of the race to the bottom, but also because of the downward pressure on systems of social protection: the welfare state. As already analysed, this has implications for the world of work because it identifies the role globalization has taken in limiting international development, with absolute poverty still similarly as problematic as it was from the introduction of the Millennium Development Goals by the UN in 2000 (United Nations, 2014).

Conclusion

In conclusion, I reflect on the two main approaches my argument has taken: how the race to the bottom and the welfare state have both been negatively impacted as a result of globalization, leading to wider disparity and growing income inequality. Whilst extending these points, the ideas that international migration and immigrants, and the changing relationship of the economic superpowers such as China and Brazil, appear to have been neglected in discussion over the implications for the world of work. Nonetheless, their implications do not necessarily contribute to the main theme of my debate in that globalization has allowed for rising inequality, something discussed as a consequence of ‘Capitalist Imperialism’. In my opinion, whether you agree or not, the statistics regarding income inequality are undeniable, whilst also being ethically, socially and morally devastating. This is because they are ever growing. The implications that globalization has had on the world of work are easily accessible in most academic sources, whilst anecdotal evidence also appears to support the idea that “the rich are getting richer, whilst the poor are getting poorer”. And so, I finish by restating that globalization has had a negative impact on the world of work because of increasing income inequality and disparity of wealth distribution.

References

Doogan, K. (2014) Long Term Employment Precariousness and Manufactured Uncertainty. [Lecture to BSc Social Policy: Societal Change and the Transformation of Work] 17^th March.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press

George, V., Wilding, P. (2002) Globalization and Human Welfare. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Handayani, P. (2012) Beyond Statistics of Poverty. The Jakarta Post [online] 23^rd Feb. Available at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/02/13/beyond-statistics-poverty.html (Accessed: 18^th March 2014)

ILO (2014) International Labour Organization: Origins and History. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/history/lang--en/index.htm (Accessed: 18^th March 2014)

IMF (2014) Debt and Painful reforms (1982-89). Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/about/histdebt.htm (Accessed: 19^th March 2014)

Koechiln, T. (2005) ‘US Multinational Corporations and the Mobility of Productive Capital: A Sceptical View’, Radical Political Economics, 38:3, pp374-380

Mishra, R. (1999) Globalization and the welfare state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Mishra, R. (2009) ‘The Logic of Globalization: the changing context of the welfare state’. In: Yeates, N., Holden, C. (2009) The Global Social Policy Reader. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 275-280.

Pearson, R., Seyfang, G. (2009) ‘New hope or false dawn? Voluntary codes of conduct, labour regulation and social policy in a globalizing world’. In: Yeates, N., Holden, C. (2009) The Global Social Policy Reader. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 217-237.

Pilger, J. (2001) The New Rulers of the World. [Online Video]. 18 July. Available from: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world (Accessed: 1^st March 2014)

Politizane (2012) Wealth Inequality in America. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM (Accessed: 6^th March 2014)

Slaughter, M., Swagel, P. (1997) Does Globalization Lower Wages and Export Jobs? Pamphlet, Economic Issues 11, International Monetary Fund.

Swank, D. (2005) Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Welfare State Retrenchment in Capitalist Democracies, Social Policy and Society, 4:2, 12 April

United Nations (2014) We can end poverty: Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015. Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (Accessed: 19^th March 2014)

World Mapper (2006) GDP Wealth. Available at: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=169# (Accessed: 19^th March 2014)

Appendix 1

GDP Wealth (2006) – this map shows territories wealth when GDP is compared using currency exchange rates (courtesy of World Mapper).

HIV/AIDS and the impact on development

Discuss the extent to which HIV/AIDS has had an impact on development.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic can be pinpointed back to 1981 when the first cases of the disease were reported by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Los Angeles, USA (AIDS.gov 2014). As Dossier (1992) explains, a meeting in France in 1987 brought together leaders of development assistance agencies where it was discussed how the disease had the potential to threaten many Third World development achievements. As it can be seen, HIV has been a major factor to consider in the field of development since it was first discovered in the 1980s. Therefore, I will argue how the spread of HIV/AIDS has become one of the greatest challenges to development in developing nations, not only in terms of a “health risk”, but as something which has found it’s in way into every area within the field. It is undeniable that HIV/AIDS has had a very important impact on development. To argue this case, I will directly refer to a study by Maxine Ankrah of Uganda’s Makerere University as quoted by Dossier (1992, p.48), where it is argued 5 areas of need have been created as a result of HIV/AIDS; 1) medical care, 2) basic food and housing plus income or economic assistance, 3) accurate information and health education, 4) HIV testing opportunities for spouses/regular partners, and 5) psychological and social support. It is within these 5 areas that I believe HIV is having the biggest impact on development. As well as this, I will empirically analyse development as a process to suggest how HIV/AIDS provides a different problem for development than other basic human needs, and the role in which women have played in the pandemic.

HIV/AIDS risks the development of healthcare

First of all, the pandemic is essentially a concern for the development of healthcare in developing nations. One of the greatest problems to providing healthcare has been the difficulty in ensuring essential medicines for all, especially on an affordable, sustainable basis (Barton, 2013). According to the World Health Organization (2004) “about one-third of the world’s population still has no regular access to essential medicines”. Although many academics provide much theory and research into why essential medicines has been so difficult to achieve for all, it is not disagreed on that the problem is something which looks achievable. However, much of the discussion into how we can provide medicines for all has now been greatly affected by HIV/AIDS, which now central to the debate, is something of a major obstacle to those working for the development of healthcare. It appears than in order for development to be a success, providing treatment for those with HIV/AIDS is of pivotal importance. Flint and Payne (2013) argue how a HIV free generation is a realistic possibility, but will only be achieved through mounting a serious challenge to the World Trade Organization on intellectual property rights for drugs (patents). As outlined in the TRIPS agreement 1994, “when a pharmaceutical company first markets a drug, it is usually under a patent that allows only the pharmaceutical company that developed the drug to sell it” (News Medical, 2014). This has directly led to inequality amongst HIV victims with only the richest able to afford the best medication to fight the disease. An evident example of this is explained by MSF South Africa (2009), who describe how there are only 2 lines of ARV therapy in the country, whereas victims in the UK have the choice of 24 different lines of therapy. It is apparent that patented drug laws have become extremely problematic across the development of healthcare, however there is vast evidence to support the view that laws restricting the widespread use of the very best HIV medication are the biggest area for obstructing development. The level of impact here is very opaque; HIV/AIDS is threatening the healthcare of nations, because as part of the international protection on pharmaceutical drugs, getting treatment to the most deprived areas has been a great challenge due to the unaffordable and unsustainable costs of the different lines of therapy.

HIV/AIDS – grassroots or top down decision making?

Moving onwards, International Development is seen as a global problem, and in an ever-increasing globalized world, is also seen as something which can be tackled globally. Statements like this appear straightforward and unquestionable, especially with institutions like the UN writing the Millennium Development Goals in order for development to progress with a targets approach (UN, 2014). The impact of HIV/AIDS cannot be denied as anything but a serious, top priority for development, with the central concern of MDG 6 to “combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and other diseases”. Nonetheless, speakers at a recent International Development Conference discussed how a community driven approach is much more beneficial for development. Hook and Wynne (2014) comment on how their NGO ‘Temwa’ (a project fighting HIV in Malawi) “don’t incorporate the MDGs in their goals because there is no need, with people in Malawian communities having never heard of them, and cooperative government officials never mentioning them when talking about development”. Their community driven projects are all about listening to the community, involving them at the heart of their projects with the idea of only helping them in areas which they want the help. Other talkers, such as Slujis-Doyle (2014) also promote the theme of community driven approaches, promoting the idea that it is a grassroots approach and not top down decision making which is the most effective form of development in the poorest areas of the world.

This has a bigger impact for HIV/AIDS then it appears. Dossier (1992, p.46) explains how the disease is often called the “family disease” in some parts of Africa. HIV is first and foremost a sexually transmitted infection, and thus, the virus predominantly attacks the sexually active. However, because of the long incubation period, young men and women with the disease can have no idea that they are carriers, so can pass it on to their partners and children before they are even aware. Henceforth, HIV can be seen as a “family disease”. The implications of this are apparent in that culturally, there is a strong, negative stigma against people with HIV/AIDS in many parts of Africa. And even if there are family members who are HIV free, the stigma is still attached to the whole family. When someone falls ill of any disease in developing countries, most particularly in rural areas, the burden lies heavily on the extended family for assistance in coping, such as labour, care, food, or even just basic economic support. Because of the longevity in the nature of HIV, the cultural stigma, and the fact that it can easily affect the whole family, it has resulted in coping mechanisms being strained to the point of collapse, especially as the greater number of households affected by the disease in any community increases, the strain on wider social coping systems can become ‘too heavy’. With much development assistance coming from a global level and treated as a global problem, the sheer process and nature of many top institutions like the UN results in a less efficient, limited method of development. As Hook and Wynne, and Slujis-Doyle (2014) explain, unless a community driven approach is taken, which will consider the culture and traditions of each community, combatting a disease as threatening as HIV will always limit the amount of development which can be made. This is not a closed minded opinion, with sufficient evidence available to support the view. Working alongside Purple Field Productions, Temwa released the video “People Like Us” (Purplefieldonline, 2008) to highlight the changing views of HIV in Northern Malawi. Since 2009, Temwa has tested 9,000 people positive for HIV in Northern Malawi (Temwa, 2014) and it is statistics like this which further strengthen how a community based project has successfully been able to work alongside culturally rich deprived areas to try and eradicate the disease from these rural communities. Establishing social solidarity has taken a long time, but it is something achieved quicker than most of Africa, where communities still hold a negative stigma towards HIV sufferers, such as the ignored prevalence by truck drivers and sex workers along the trucking routes in southern Africa (beattheZOG, 2009). Additionally, Dossier (1992, p.49) explains that when more individuals and households within a community are affected by the disease, “discrimination can give way to greater understanding and willingness to give support, with communities functioning more cohesively as death becomes a more ‘commonplace’”. It is evidence like this which suggests that the impact of HIV/AIDS on development has been hugely significant because of the problems it has intensified for development processes in the 21^st century. Due to the sheer nature of the disease, the disease has been treated as a pandemic when being combatted, henceforth globally. Community work has since then gone to show that if the disease is treated as an epidemic, looked at differently from the perspective of each different community or village, success rates in eradicating and supporting people has been higher. And so it can be summarised that HIV/AIDS is creating an even more significant obstruction to development than first appears because the disease limits the capabilities of international institutions to effectively and efficiently fight it.

Women and HIV/AIDS

Gender inequality is a very important issue to institutions across the world, none more so than for developing nations. The inequality in different roles of males and females is still a pressing issue in the wealthy west, yet for those in the developing world, great strides are required to reduce the gap between men and women, with extreme patriarchal societies and communities throughout the developing nations. The role HIV/AIDS has had to play in this disparity has been substantial, with the disease aggravating gender inequality on a global scale, but rather dangerously for poorer, more deprived areas. All over the literature, many commentators discuss how young women are the most at risk of HIV, for example, Grundfest-Schoepf (1993) argues that “more than 90% of women whose major source of subsistence comes from the sale of sex to multiple casual partners are reported to be infected with HIV in several cities in central and east Africa; not surprisingly, young women are at highest risk for AIDS” (pp. 52). She later goes on to mention how discourse about women and AIDS in Africa is amplified by ‘racialist constructions of African sexuality’. The implications of HIV/AIDS and women for development is monumental as it provides yet another barrier for the exclusion of gender based inequalities.

As previously discussed, the disease is first and foremost a sexually transmitted infection, and so the role that sex plays in developing communities is of primary concern. The suggestions made by Grundfest-Schoepf (1993) to do with prostitution in central and east Africa, as well as the earlier mention of sex work along the trucking routes in southern Africa, expose one of the greatest inequalities of gender. Prostitution mostly operates in a way of which women sell themselves to casual partners for immediate cash in order to live. The men are willing to pay and most men will pay more in order to have sexual intercourse with these women without the use of a condom. Naturally, it is too much of a tempting offer for these young women to refuse, as they are doing so in order to live. This sexual manipulation of young women poses an even greater threat to their health, with the risk of catching or transmitting HIV at maximum level. Robin Gorna (beattheZOG, 2009), a senior health and AIDS advisor for international development in southern Africa, explains how it is extremely hard to change pleasurable behaviour, especially when looked at from a western perspective through studies in smoking, eating and drinking. She says how sex is not separate from this, and especially in southern Africa, where it is a cultural, economic norm to have sex with many different casual partners. This is where prostitution differs from that in developed countries, where paid for sex is seen as a commercial interest. But because it is so difficult to change people’s behaviour, particularly pleasurable behaviour, many individuals don’t want to see the negative consequences of unprotected intercourse. With the added dimension of a long incubation period for HIV, the spreading of the disease is still rife throughout developing communities. And therefore, this is putting the greatest risk at the young women selling their bodies in order to feed and clothe themselves and their children. With intensive labour still male dominated throughout developing nations, gender inequality is an issue at the top of the agenda. Because it is such a challenge to change individual’s behaviour, gender inequality is something of even greater importance because of the way in which it is perpetuated by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Hypothetically arguing is never the greatest way to explain a situation, but it is extremely probable that even if HIV/AIDS didn’t exist, sex work would still be as great a problem, if not greater, for development as a gender based issue. Nevertheless, the fact that HIV/AIDS does exists means that sex work has this added dynamic of being highly secretive. Berer (1993, ‘dedication’) is quoted as saying that:

“women should be treated with respect, integrity, and care, no matter how many partners they have had… whether the experience is positive or negative, women are taught not to reveal it… perhaps if women begin to name experiences openly, they will help each other to find the strength to value themselves and their needs more, and will take more pride in themselves as women”.

What can be taken from this quote is that sex work wherever, but mainly inside developing nations, is threatening the chances of women to ensure gender equality. Women still act as men tell them to, and with something like sex, men are still being able to manipulate women. HIV/AIDS results in further restrictions for women to break out of their situations, especially because if these women do fall victim to the disease, they are limited in their abilities to do much else for help. If they open up about sexual experiences, or tell the men they sleep with they have HIV, then the men do not want to sleep with them. And as has been mentioned, these women do not choose sex labour, they are forced into these roles if they want themselves and their children to survive.

In summary, the exploitation of women in developing nations is a pressing matter. It is something that is being taken seriously by top organizations such as the UN, with MDG 3 being to “promote gender equality and empower women”, but with HIV/AIDS in the mix as well, millennium development goals such as this are difficult to work towards because of the further restrictions and limitations the disease provokes. And so consequently, the extent to which HIV/AIDS is having an impact on development is huge because of the way in which it prevents gender equality.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the main points of discussion have been healthcare, development processes, and gender inequality. What they have all contributed to is the argument that HIV/AIDS has had a significant impact on development. The health risks associated with HIV/AIDS mean that the healthcare of AIDS sufferers poses an even greater challenge to the development of healthcare systems across developing nations, as well as the fact that patented drug laws have restricted the abilities of developing nations to cope with each and every HIV epidemic. Moving on, the processes through which development has been a factor have also had repercussions for development itself. HIV/AIDS has been treated in an ineffective manner, so it has further restricted institutions like the UN in their abilities at developing the most deprived. And finally, gender inequality has proved to be a stumbling block for development because of the way in which sex and HIV are culturally problematic for developing many regions. Nevertheless, it still seems apparent that despite all of these negativities associated with HIV, there is the rather controversial opinion of some that actually HIV has provided a scope for which development has been able to spread further rather than limit it. This opinion sits on the basis that because the disease is a pandemic and can affect anyone regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, race, sexuality, class, culture and so forth, those with the social and economic means in the developed world have been more willing to help those with the disease in the developing world because it is something which anyone and everyone can relate to. Yet in argument against this, I would say that malnutrition, dehydration and such are just as pressing matters for development, but in fact, everyone can relate to that. A HIV free world would not reduce the social and economic support for development. In fact, because of the points mentioned associated with health, communities, and gender inequality, a HIV free world would actually make development a lot easier. And so, I thereby conclude that HIV/AIDS has had a massive, negative impact on development to an extent far greater than anyone could have predicted upon its discovery in 1981.

References

AIDS.gov (2014) A Timeline of AIDS. Available at: http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/ (Accessed: 1^st March 2014)

Barton, C (2014) ‘What is meant by ‘Medicines For All’ and how important is it?’ SPOL20055: Health Policy in a Global Context. University of Bristol. Unpublished essay.

BeattheZOG (2009) African Prostitutes Work Knowing They Have AIDS. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nejZuRbR-os&feature=related (Accessed: 20^th February 2014) (Upload Date 1^st Aug 2009).

Berer, M. (1993) Women and HIV/AIDS: An International Resource Book. London: Pandora Press

Flint A and Payne J. (2013) ‘Intellectual Property Rights and the Potential for Universal Access to Treatment: TRIPS, ACTA and HIV/AIDS medicine’. Third World Quarterly. 34 pp. 500-515.

Grundfest-Schoepf, B. (1993) ‘The Social Epidemiology of Women and AIDS in Africa.’ In: Berer, M. Women and HIV/AIDS: An International Resource Book (eds). London: Pandora Press (pp. 51-53).

Hook, J., Wynne, S. (2014) Bristol International Development Conference: Fighting HIV and AIDS – A Community Driven Approach.  University of Bristol, Bristol, 8^th March 2014.

MSF South Africa (2009) Access to essential medicines – World AIDS Day. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IntAjNVRjhQ (Accessed: 27 November 2013)

News Medical (2014) “Drug Patents and Generics” Available at: http://www.news-medical.net/health/Drug-Patents-and-Generics.aspx (Accessed: 23^rd November 2013)

Purplefieldonline (2008) People Like Us – TRAILER. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kVKv4SUL0iA (Accessed: 9^th March 2014)

Slujis-Doyle, J. (2014) Bristol International Development Conference: Community Empowerment to Promote Gender Equality. University of Bristol, Bristol, 8^th March 2014.

Temwa (2014) How To Help Us. Available at: http://www.temwa.org/page/how-to-help-us (Accessed: 9^th March 2014)

UN (2014) We Can End Poverty: Millennium Development Goals and Beyond 2015. Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (Accessed: 10^th March 2014)

World Health Organization (2004) “The World Medicines Situation” Available at: “http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6160e/9.html” (Accessed: 8^th Jan 2014)