Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:54 am
Time: 11:54 am
Results for socioeconomic development
1 results foundAuthor: Mannava, Priya Title: Dependent on Development: The Interrelationships Between Illicit Drugs and Socioeconomic Development Summary: In spite of the complex interrelationships between illicit drug production, trade and use and socioeconomic development (SED), drug control and development policies tend to occur in isolation of each other, as exemplified by the lack of inclusion of illicit drugs in the Millennium Development Goals. A failure to acknowledge the interconnections between these two areas hinders the effectiveness of both drug and development policies and also undermines a human rights based approach to both illicit drug policy and development policies and programs. 1.1 Aims of the report This report highlights the multifaceted relationships between illicit drug production, trade and use, and SED, and then demonstrates the ways in which the implementation of illicit drug control policies often hinders development sector gains; and furthermore, the ways in which many development sector policies actually increase vulnerability to illicit drug production, trade and use. By raising awareness on the links between drugs, drug policy, and SED, this paper aims to facilitate future research as well as initiate dialogue and collaboration between development and drug control agencies. 1.2 Approach & Terminology The report is based on the hypothesis that ‘Equitable SED is necessary for successful control of illicit drugs, while effective and human rights based illicit drug control is required to foster sustainable SED’. To test this hypothesis, we begin by examining the impact of SED on illicit drug production, trade, and consumption, and then conversely the affect of the three processes on SED. In so doing, we consider ‘illicit drug production/trade/consumption’ and ‘SED’ as independent variables, and expect that outcomes will hold true for diverse settings at various times and for different drugs. We also note that we are exploring associations rather than causality, expecting that there will be limited, and largely anecdotal, evidence available – at least these early formative research stages. Here, we define ‘socioeconomic development’ as the processes of social and economic development in a society, whereby the ‘socio-’ in socioeconomic development consists of “social change designed to promote the well-being of a population as a whole” (Midgley 2005) while the ‘economic’ refers to “qualitative change and restructuring in a country’s economy in connection with technological and social progress” (World Bank definition). ‘Control’ is referred to here as the processes undertaken in order to minimize the harms associated with the availability and use of drugs in a community at a given point of time. In line with the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime, ‘illicit drugs’ are defined as drugs produced, traded, and consumed for purposes prohibited by law, as outlined by the international drug control conventions. 1.3 Methods We conducted a review of formal and non-formal English language literature published between 1990 and 2010 on the relationships between illicit drug production, trade, and consumption, illicit drug policies, SED, and human rights. 2. Sizing the problem: illicit drugs – an overview 2.1 The need to control Policies and programs that aim to control or eradicate illicit drugs have been justified by the real and potential harms associated with illicit drugs: health problems, crime, decreased productivity, unemployment, and poverty. An international drug control system, based on three international conventions, specifies the types of illicit drugs and how these should be regulated. Despite control efforts, supply and demand of illicit drugs continue to be widespread. 2.2 The extent of illicit drug use, production, and trading. Noting the difficulties in measuring indicators related to illicit drugs, it is estimated that around 3.5% to 5.7% of the world’s populations aged between 15 to 64 years (155 to 250 million) consumes illicit drugs. Consumption continues to be higher in the wealthier regions of North America, Western Europe, and Oceania, though sharp rises in use are being witnessed in East and West Africa, the Middle East, and South America. Production of opium, which increased by 80% between 1998 and 2009, is highest in Afghanistan, which accounted for 60% of the world’s supply during the same period. Supply of cocaine, largely produced in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru, was reported to have increased during the period of 2004 to 2007 as compared to earlier years, though the increase was not as dramatic as that of opium. Production of cannabis, the most widely produced illicit drug globally, and amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) is prevalent in countries world-over. The illicit drug trade is also widespread, though data on seizures suggest the problem is more acute in those surrounding nations where illicit drug production or consumption is high. 2.3 Understanding demand and supply Demand and supply of illicit drugs are influenced by many interrelated and complex factors. Various intrapersonal, micro-environmental, and macro-environmental elements create vulnerabilities to the use of illicit drugs, while the employment opportunities and profits arising from illicit drug production and trading act as incentives to supply. There are thus broader socioeconomic issues which impact on engagement with illicit drug economies. 3. The interrelationships between socioeconomic development and illicit drugs 3.1 Impact of socioeconomic development on illicit drugs Both poor SED and enhanced SED can fuel illicit drug production, trade and consumption. Rural underdevelopment, conflict and economic crises are all factors that contribute to farming of illicit drug crops. Characteristics of plant-based illicit drugs mean that these crops are often a more viable option than licit ones in settings of poor SED. In countries ranging from Afghanistan to Colombia, to Morocco and Myanmar, evidence suggests that regions cultivating illicit drug crops are geographically and/or socially isolated, underdeveloped with few economic opportunities, and may also be plagued by violent conflict. Conflict, and the resultant instability, not only helps to facilitate and proliferate illicit drug economies, but in turn, often sustains the conflict – creating a mutually reinforcing cycle. In countries such as Afghanistan, Colombia, and Myanmar, rebel and pro-government forces have used illicit drug economies to finance their activities. Conditions which contribute to weak SED such as unemployment, poverty, and marginalization may also create vulnerable environments for illicit drug use in both wealthy and less developed countries. For example, in the United States and United Kingdom, illicit drug use has been linked to socially and economically deprived urban settings. Similarly, studies in various countries of South America found that drug users were generally poorer, unemployed, and less educated. On the flip side, processes such as trade liberalization may in fact facilitate the flow of illicit drugs across borders. Though the type of association that exists between free trade and illicit drugs is yet to be understood, a modeling study suggests that in consuming countries, efforts to control trading may be hindered by free-trade policies. Modernization and the resultant change in values or norms that often accompanies SED may also lead to increased consumption of illicit drugs. In Indonesia and Pakistan, for instance, illicit drug use increased with newfound wealth and youth identifying themselves with images of Western popular culture. Within the socially marginalized Akha tribe in Laos, consumption of heroin and ATS increased following participation in the country’s market economy and in parallel with the country’s opium eradication program. 3.2. Impact of illicit drugs on socioeconomic development Simultaneously, illicit drug production, trade and consumption also affect SED. In the short-term, farmers and other members of impoverished communities benefit from illicit drug production and trade due to increased disposable income. At the national level, there may be a boost in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), reduced unemployment, and multiplier effects in other sectors, either due to increased expenditure in local markets or increased demand for production inputs of illicit drugs. For instance, a study dating back to the early 1990s found that a 10% increase in cocaine production in Bolivia resulted in a 2% increase in GDP and 6% decrease in unemployment. In Colombia, multiplier effects arising from the illicit drug economy helped to fuel growth in the property market. However, most of these short-term benefits are offset by the myriad of long-term adverse affects triggered by illicit drug economies. Firstly, the sheer volumes of money flowing from illicit drug economies help to encourage corruption. In several settings, there are reports of government and law enforcement officials turning a blind eye to illicit drugs in exchange for bribes. Secondly, social structures are disrupted as carers, such as single mothers or the income earner of the family, engage in risky trading of illicit drugs. As members of communities who participate in drug economies become richer, tensions in traditional power dynamics are created, thereby disrupting social harmony. Macroeconomic instability may also occur as a result of decreased investment in licit sectors, strengthening of the real exchange rate, and weakened effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policies. The evidence to support these findings, however, is more limited. Violence and conflict between drug gangs, as well as between gangs and members of law enforcement, causes substantial mortality and morbidity while also isolating communities. In Mexico for example, drug-related killings have reached 28,000 over the past four years. In the United States, homicide rates have fluctuated in tandem with crack cocaine markets in cities where consumption is high and market sizes are substantial. There are considerable health costs associated with illicit drug use; for example, injecting drug use accounts for 10% of all HIV infections worldwide, and 30% outside sub-Saharan Africa. Drug users are also likely to be less productive; a study by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 5 different countries found that occupational injuries were 2-4 times higher and absenteeism 2-3 times greater amongst drug users as compared to non-drug users. The relationships between illicit drug economies and SED are thus two-way and simultaneous. Causality is more difficult to determine given that illicit drug economies and factors that contribute to SED can interact in a mutually reinforcing cycle. Corruption, violence and conflict can for example facilitate illicit drug production, trade and consumption, which in turn can sustain corruption, violence and conflict. 4. Paradox on paradox: effects of illicit drug control policy on socioeconomic development International and national illicit drug control policies have traditionally focused on reducing demand and supply of illicit drugs. Policies that focus on minimizing the harms associated with drug use are increasingly being adopted by many nation states. Supply side policies comprise traditional law enforcement approaches, including attempts to eradicate illicit drug cultivation and production; this latter approach sometimes accompanied by ‘alternative development’ programs that focus on providing other economic opportunities to communities that farm illicit drugs. To date, evidence suggests that these policies have been largely ineffective in deterring cultivation of illicit drug crops, as supply of various drugs has either been maintained or increased. In response to eradication programs in Colombia and Mexico, for instance, farmers simply shifted to farming opium on smaller and more dispersed fields. These policies have largely been unsuccessful in part because of the weak acknowledgement of the fact that illicit drugs and associated harms are often a result of a broader range of political, cultural and socioeconomic factors. By adopting approaches that are guided by narrowly defined goals and are not based on the political, social or cultural realties of a particular development context, law enforcement and eradication attempts actually cause further, multiple, harms and thereby weaken SED in communities. Examples from coca-producing Andean countries, as well as from Afghanistan and Myanmar where opium poppy cultivation is widespread, show how law enforcement and eradication programs actually wipe out the livelihoods of poor farmers social and economically disadvantaged communities. With few viable economic opportunities available, these households often resort again to farming of illicit drugs, simply from survival necessity. Successful alternative development programs are rare, although in Thailand a long-term (highly subsidized) approach has met with some success. Interdiction – programs aimed at reducing or stopping trading – has contributed to a diversification of smuggling routes, often to countries where law enforcement is weak. For example, the low-income country of Guinea Bissau has become a new trading corridor for drugs being smuggled to Europe. Ironically, a systematic review that found a positive correlation existed between increased law enforcement and increases in violence and crime. This is explained in part by the fact that law enforcement activities can create a riskier environment in which illicit drug trading and dealing occurs, making the situation more volatile and prone to drug gang power dynamics when members or leaders are arrested. There is even less evidence available on the impacts of demand side policies, which include primary prevention of drug use (mass media campaigns, community based programs, and education), treatment (secondary prevention), and law enforcement. While studies on the effectiveness of treatment for drug users have found that it helps reduce crime and risky injecting behavior, stringent law enforcement practices directed against drug users have only served to increase risky behavior, shift patterns in drug use, and deter health seeking. Studies examining the impact of law enforcement on drug use in Vancouver and Sydney found that drug use did not decrease, but riskier forms of use did. Following a ‘war on drugs’ campaign in Thailand, drug users reported increased reluctance to seek healthcare. Thus, social and economic costs to society are only sustained or even intensified, and are therefore likely to negatively impact SED. Harm reduction (policies and programs aimed at reducing harms associated with drug use) encompasses many components in immediate impact, harm reduction as currently defined is cost effective and has positive impacts on social development. There is a need for harm reduction approaches to be further developed and integrated, and be more broadly defined so they can have more impact across the range of drug issues. Studies suggest that benefits include: reduced risky drug use behavior, decreased transmission of HIV, safer disposal of injecting equipment, and less public nuisance. These findings indicate that social and health costs to societies may thus be reduced, thereby helping to enhance SED. 5. The forgotten victim: human rights Not only do some illicit drug policies have potential negative impacts on SED, but they also lead to violation of human rights. Eliminating families’ main source of income without creating viable alternatives robs them of their livelihood and dignity. Harsh law enforcement and militaristic approaches to controlling supply and demand of illicit drugs have had serious human rights implications, with physical abuse, sexual assault, public humiliation, denial of legal representation, and mortality being reported in the name of law enforcement. Moreover, in many countries, drug users are forced to undergo ‘treatment’ which is not evidenced-based. Stringent drug laws have often been used as an excuse to discriminate against poor and marginalized groups of society, especially ethnic minorities. Worldwide, drug users continue to be discriminated against, and are denied treatment and other social rights on the basis of their consumption of drugs. 6. Conclusions The interrelationships between illicit drug economies and SED are real and complex. Factors linked to SED may lead to or deter engagement with illicit drugs, while illicit drug economies negatively impact on SED in the long-term, despite possible shortterm benefits. By not acknowledging these linkages, illicit drug policies which focus solely on reducing demand and supply through law enforcement or forceful measures have often had consequences that adversely impact on SED, and also violate human rights – causing more harm than the drugs themselves. Thus, our original hypothesis that illicit drug policies are development policies are interdependent holds true based on the evidence available. The limitations of our review must be recognized. Our findings are based on limited evidence, which includes very few quantitative and detailed studies on the interrelationships, as well as a lack of rigorous evaluations of drug control programs. Our expectation of limited data availability was therefore also validated. In addition, there are inherent issues with determining impact of and on SED, and in this study we have assumed impact based on anecdotal and qualitative information rather than modeling or quantitative analyses. Having said this, our review substantiates the need for greater collaboration between illicit drug control and development agencies. It is imperative for development agencies and governments of developing and transitional countries to investigate and account for the impact of development on vulnerabilities to drug production, trade, and use. All aspects of development, ranging from infrastructure projects to education programs, especially if donor funded, must consider implications for illicit drug production, trade, and use, as is currently done with respect to poverty, the environment or gender dynamics. At the same time, current illicit drug policies need review in light of their inequitable and damaging effects in relation to social development. While acknowledgement of the link between both fields has been increasing, further research in the area will help to provide a stronger base for advocacy to ensure that theory is translated into practice. Details: Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2011 at: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Dependent-on-Development.pdf Year: 0 Country: International URL: http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Dependent-on-Development.pdf Shelf Number: 121880 Keywords: Drug Control PoliciesDrug EnforcementDrug TradeDrug TraffickingDrugs Abuse and AddictionEconomics and CrimeGangsPovertySocioeconomic Development |