The political changes have administered some salutary lessons to all those inclined to push through their pet prescriptions without taking the trouble to diagnose the ailments or recognise the actual needs of people. There are huge dangers that lie ahead, currently epitomised by `nationalism' and regional factionalism.

Those dangers have been exacerbated by five years of relative neglect of social consequences of the reforms. The dangers are the outcome of growing disparities in incomes, between regions, sectors and age groups and between majorities and `ethnic' or other minorities. That is the unacceptable face of the transition.

This is the year of the rejection of the market economics that takes no account of distributional outcomes. Poverty is not just a matter of those living below some `poverty line'. It is about relative incomes, about inequality, in terms of status and opportunity as well as income. The antidote to false `leveling' and the corrosive inequality of bureaucratic centralism is not unregulated market individualism. It is a society in which institutions and regulatory procedures ensure a creative dynamism and a social sense of equity.

This is a year when the pursuit of economic, social and human `rights' for groups made vulnerable by the economic reforms should be put firmly back into the centre of political and social debate. This should apply to minorities of all kinds. This is why we chose workers with `disabilities' as the first group on which to focus for the first of our series of Policy Manuals. Some people have asked why we started by giving special attention to that group of people. There are many reasons.

First, the `disabled' are a minority, yet we all become part of that minority, sooner or later. Reflecting on the social and labour policy needs of that group highlights problems that we all have the prospect of facing. Second, it is a group for whom future policy is likely to be profoundly different from that of the past. For those workers, the future should be about `mainstreaming' and the promotion of human and citizenship `rights' and the means of securing those rights, not `regulations' and `directives'. Debates about civil rights and equality of treatment are so universal with respect to those of our fellow citizens who suffer from some physical or mental impairment that it shames us all to accept institutionalised neglect or inequality.

The Team's Policy Manual for Workers with Disabilities has been produced in six languages. We thank all those who contributed to it, including the UK Government, which assisted with funding, the German Government, which financed the Poznan Conference in February at which a version was presented, and the ILO Vocational Rehabilitation Branch (F/REHAB). We are now working on a more tendentious set of issues, the problems of discrimination and labour market disadvantage faced by minorities in countries of the region. We are glad to have established a good `team' to work on producing a Policy Manual that will identify policies pursued in different countries outside and inside the region and will identify the advantages and disadvantages of each type of policy for potential application in the region.

That is one issue that will preoccupy ILO-CEET in this year of redistribution. We are also working on the range of issues that arise in considering the status of reform, that is, the mechanisms by which particular sets of policies are designed, implemented and regulated, including institutional safeguards and the role of various interest groups in the process. As reported elsewhere, the Team organised its first tripartite meeting to consider such issues in Larnaca in March, and further efforts will be made in the coming months to refine a consensual approach to the governance of social and labour policy.

We believe that `tripartite' mechanisms will be the best approach, although we realise that these may have to take novel forms and should involve groups and representatives from outside what is normally regarded as part of the tripartite nexus. Yet without the involvement of such groups, reforms will not be legitimised or effectively implemented.

At the time of writing, the ILO has launched its work for a major report on employment and incomes in the world to be presented by the Director General in 1995, at about the same time as related work will be presented to the United Nations' Social Summit. We are sure these will be important avenues for extending the ILO's message on the vital importance of socially equitable labour markets, and we wish those responsible for preparing them every success. GS.