CHAPTER 29 Basic Human Needs and the Globalisation of the Economy Xabier Barrutia, Alfonso Dubois and Patxi Zabalo We will begin with a theoretical reflection on the concept of development and its required ethical references. A characterisation of human development which takes as its defining element the well-being of all people leads us to the consideration of human rights as a necessary tool to achieve this global objective. In this consideration, we will examine to what extent the international community accepts these ideas and we will expose the limits of the Millennium Declaration. In the second section, we will look at the reality of globalisation. This process of globalisation is seen as economically exclusive and involves the neo-liberal construction of rules, such as those of the World Trade Organisation, which respond to the interests of the multinationals companies. As a consequence of this process of globalisation, inequalities in income distribution have increased and poverty and hunger remain persistent problems, while basic medical care is beyond the reach of most of humanity. This is due to market logic, which revolves around business profits rather than the satisfaction of human needs. For this reason technological advances, particularly those in the field of biotechnology, are not a solution in themselves, but rather require a reconsideration of the role of the public sector in order to change their orientation. 1. ETHICS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The consideration of the ethical dimension of economic activity with regard to developing countries is closely linked to the definition of development that has been dominant until very recently. Modern development economics, which began after the Second World War, had a limited view of development centred on the problem of identifying and quantifying economic growth, which has marked its later evolution. Although other elements were added at a later date, their inclusion did not alter this narrowly framed vision of the concept of development. It was implied that the study of development was in no way connected to the philosophical question of the need for a change of values or the search for new institutions and rules. Development studies were limited to technical solutions regarding the mobilisation and assignation of factors that would lead to previously established objectives. Thus, the development tradition has been characterised as being merely descriptive. The development debate has focussed more on the ways and means than on the goal. One single development objective was legitimised: the goal for all countries was modernisation. In this context, the ethical dimension is regarded as an added extra or comple- ment which acts to lessen the negative consequences of modernisation or in order to design specific social policies, but which does not question the objectives of development. 1 This does not mean that there was a complete absence of critical vision in the following decades, particularly in the 1960s, when the objective of redistribution with growth was proposed, together with the need to place job creation at the centre of development and the priority given to the satisfaction of basic needs (Thomas, 2000). However, the truth is that these attempts were not strong enough to question basic development objectives and their influence was short-lived. In the 1980s all ethical and evaluative consi- derations were abandoned and the idea of economic growth and the attainment of macroeconomic objectives resumed their central role. This was the era of structural adjustment. The terrible social consequences of this policy for the majority of the population led to the need to introduce the concept of «adjustment with a human face» and of the social dimension as a new task. However, the term development can be used in a normative sense as well as a descriptive one, that is to say it can be used either to describe an existing situation or to project a desirable alternative. Until now, the descriptive use of the term has been prevalent, with the normative use limited to critical viewpoints or to the defence of alternatives. For Goulet (2000), rather than this more common use, development is «above all a question of attitudes and human values, objectives defined by each society and criteria to determine which costs are tolerable and can be borne, and by who, in the process of change». Development is an ambiguous adventure that is born full of tensions between which goods are desired, by who and how to obtain them. Therefore the central