Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations
reactionary, and the sometimes revolutionary characteristics of the regimes that embody the dominant ideology-to capitalize on the real or perceived failures and shortcomings of the social democratic approach to government. One of the major problems was high unemployment, which still gravely affects a number of affluent countries that are otherwise reluctant to espouse all the tenets of the neoliberal doctrine. These same countries, and social democratic and socialist regimes in general (and certainly communist regimes), were accused, often rightly, of suppressing or failing to facilitate the freedom of opportunity and initiative-with the attendant rewards-that comprise economic justice. A victim of neglect, social justice took on a soft image. It became associated with the protection of the weak and the rewarding of personal failure; it was often perceived, owing in part to the propaganda of the opposite camp, as encouraging laziness and social dependency. Courage, dynamism, enthusiasm, optimism, responsibility, and faith in the capacity of human beings to overcome adversity and lead successful lives were all virtues once attributed to the quest for social justice but later attached to liberalism and to the regimes and societies perceived as incarnating its values. Even youth, whose attitudes and values traditionally reflected the most fervent idealism, were largely abandoning the old-fashioned dream of social justice. The idea of international justice and the dream of closing the gap between developed and developing countries suffered much the same fate. The normal difficulties confronted in the process of development were interpreted as failures requiring a complete change of strategy, the most recent of which has centred around the rapid and complete integration of all economies, regardless of their size or strength, into the world economy. Occurrences of misuse of financial and technical aid by recipients and by donors were construed as indicative of a basic flaw in the very idea of international cooperation for development. Instances of corruption were publicized in a way that implied the overall incompetence and malevolence of Governments and public institutions in general. Deficiencies in public services were used as an excuse to weaken them further and replace them with private institutions. The reluctance of transnational corporations to be subjected to an internationalcode of conduct was seen as sufficient reason to allow them to undertake only voluntary and non-binding commitments. Each of these developments is partially attributable to weaknesses in the previously dominant ideology and its application. For instance, the once widely accepted, public-oriented, plan-inclined and interventionist approach to development grossly neglected the role of the private sector of the economy. Large corporations and the multiplicity of small and medium-sized enterprises that constitute an essential component of a well-functioning society were subjected to the same degree of suspicion and State control. The reluctance of Governments to risk the potential social upheaval linked to liberalized, profit-seeking market activity translated into a