MY VIEWS 2000: April-May

 

April/10/2000/Communication: Comments on T.D.'s draft: Aid, Conditionality, Self-sufficiency, Permanency, and globalization

From: Lucio Munoz

Dear Mr. D., please receive my appologies for not having repplied you

sooner. My comments on your draft on Aid, ....and Globalization are the following:

a) I agree with most of what I read in the draft;

b) while I agree that the issue is how to reconcile opposites, in the

context of your Draft we may not be talking necessarly about opposite

stages, but different domination stages: eg. dominant/dominated or

developed/underdeveloped, which need not necessarly be extremely

opposite;

c) I also agree that sovereignty can be compromised only when there are

clearly tangible benefits in doing so as the EU case shows;

d) while a Tobin type of tax could address or could make economic agents pay for environmental degradation prevention or mitigation, still we need to find other sources of revenues to deal with social externalities and poverty, which would threaten both the economy and the environement if left outside the framework;

e) I see the over all framework of your draft from two concentric

cycles, an internal cycle and an external and supporting cycle:

The internal cycle is: Aid, conditionality, sefsuficiency, permanency,

globalization, and TAXES; and then again Aid. Then, we have the

external cycle linking the conections of the internal cycle as follows:

dominated stage, benefits stage, sustained stage, sustainability stage,

revenue generating stage, distributive stage, and again dominated stage. Each element of the external cycle supports the links between the elements in the internal cycle.

Hope my comments are helpful to you and please feel free of asking me anything you need for me to clarify.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

April/13/2000/Communication: Comments on 70% deforested areas/30% forested area

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: O.P.

With respect to your comment, 70% deforested areas /30% forested areas

We need research methods that allow us to look at deforested areas and forested areas in an integrated and holistic fashion, that is the central aim of my proposed method and theory, and to show how it could work in Central America when purposely choosing deforestatation and its perceived causality was the empirical goal. I could have chosen pollution and its perceived causality or both pollution and deforestation in unison. Flexibility should be the key so that we can devise ways to apply it to different issues or contexts.

The 70/30 ratio is important to me for several reasons:

a) more people live in the 70% portion and hence there is more poverty

there, however poverty efforts by international organizations like the world bank and the IMF are focused on the 30% portion only so I have argued that this may be a huge policy mismatch, which may explain while for example the world bank has not been able neither to reduce deforestation levels nor poverty, and it there is not change, it may never do it;

b) if the above is true, we have what I called "inverse development policy " or "backward development policy" as for example:

To tackle the poverty problem we have three ways: a short-term approach, a medium-term approach, and a long-term approach. The short term approach requires direct distribution of wealth from developed to developing countries and from the rich to the poor, and work from there. The medium term approach requieres massive investment in the restauration of existing deforested areas aimed at recreating nature on them in such a way that it is socially equitable, and then work from there. And the long-term way is first protect fully the 30% and create capital from it to appease the social factors in such a way as to keep them either voluntarily or by force within the boundaries of the 70%. For institutions like the world bank, the short-term way is not feasible, but the medium term and the long-term ways are feasible. However, eventhough the central goal of the bank is to

erradicate poverty, they have chosen the long-term way, instead of the

medium term way. The long-term way is focused on the 30%, where not many people live and where the impact on poverty levels is low.

c) the argument above justify my position of the sustainability way, by

addressing both the 70% and the 30% at the same time.

As you know, there are clear policies/interest on how to deal with the

remainning forest areas, but there is not clear program/interest on the

future of existing deforested areas, which is something I have pointed out to Bank officials.

Greetings;

Lucio

April/29/2000/ELAN: CIMMYT Y Patentes

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Estimados amigos, aca estan mis comentarios positivos sobre este mensaje, el cual yo considero es importante para mantener la integridad de investigacion y nuestra obligacion de incrementar o mantener el flujo de el conocimiento publico. A pesar que que estoy de acuerdo con la critica hecha por RAFI y con sus sugerencias a los miembros de CIMMYT con respecto a alternativas disponibles al patentatimiento mencionadas en el mensaje, todavia esto no soluciona el problema, el cual es COMO BALANCEAR O MINIMIZAR EL SECTOR PATENTE PRIVADO? ya que tradicionalmente ha habido y hay un estado de dominacion PATENTE PRIVADO el cual tiene su racionalizacion economica usualmente en los altos costos de investigacion y riesgo pero alto potencial

de beneficio. La introduccion formal de competencia publica atraves de

organismos publicos globales/regionales dedicados exclusivamente a la

produccion y proteccion de conocimiento para uso publico libre de patentes es necesario, lo cual se podria hacer atraves de instituciones

globales/regionales. A largo plazo, el esfuerzo de RAFI y otras

organizaciones similares deberia de enfocarse en este objetivo. La

racionalidad economica indica que el valor de cada patente y el costo de litigacion legal esta basado en su potencialidad y si la competencia publica conduce a un proceso donde la potencialidad privada tiende a zero, puede que no halla litigacion y tanpoco muchos incetivos para sostener un programa de patentes privados. A primara vista, la creacion de instituciones y programs dedicados exclusivamente a contra restar el proceso de patentizacion privado es bien dificil y parece imposible, pero dificultudes paralelas se presentaron cuando se empeso a contemplar la necesidad de eliminar la esclavitud, y hoy formalmente no hay esclavos. Una cosa es segura, si todas las instituciones como la CIMMYT deciden irse por el camino de patentizar todo, el sector PATENTE PRIVADO va a recibir una buena dosis de energia para crecer en terminos de acumulacion externa e interna: lo cual la teoria sugiere puede llevar a la eliminacion total de el conocimiento publico y hay ustedes imaginence el impacto de esto en esos paises/grupos/personas que no

pueden pagar. Una regla que parece ser verdadera casi todo el tiempo es NO MERCADO NO PATENTE.

Mis mas cordiales saludos y sus comentarios son bien recibidos.

----- Original Message -----

From: Barkin David -CE

To: ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:00 AM

Subject: CIMMYT y Patentes (fwd)

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:59:03 -0700

From: Gerardo Otero

To: anthap1@oakland.edu

Subject: CIMMYT y Patentes

http://unam.netgate.net/jornada/pol3.html

La Jornada, LUNES 24 DE ABRIL DE 2000

Censuran la decisión del Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz

----------

Patentarán la propiedad intelectual de investigaciones

Matilde Pérez U.; A unas semanas de que en Alemania se celebre el primer Foro Global de Investigación Agrícola, el Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) -uno de los institutos más

influyentes de la Revolución Verde y poseedor de los bancos de germoplasma de maíz y trigo más importantes del mundo- determinó patentar la propiedad intelectual de sus investigaciones. De esa manera terminó su crítica a esa acción a la que calificó como una amenaza al intercambio científico.

Organizaciones ecologistas, no gubernamentales y defensoras de los derechos humanos pusieron en tela de juicio la decisión y consideraron que el CIMMYT

-asentado en Texcoco, estado de México- cayó en la tentación de usar las patentes como una carta de negociación con los "gigantes genéticos". A su vez, la Fundación Internacional para el Progreso Rural (RAFI) -organización dedicada a la conservación y uso sustentable de la biodiversidad y al desarrollo social y ecológicamente responsable de las tecnologías útiles para los campesinos- manifestó su desacuerdo en torno a la determinación del CIMMYT……

May/02/2000/Communication: Comment on public/private lands

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "O. P.

Dear O., thank you very much for your message and your thoughts.

The process of conversion of public/community lands to private/ personal lands is based on the notion that land development under

private hands is more efficient. Hence, a process of reversion from

private/personal lands to public/community uses can be made if the

efficiency of the public sector could surpased that of the private sectors.

The difficulty arises when you realize that the one running the public

sector are the top of the private sector; and rational expectations suggests that it is unlikely that you will work against yourself. This is the core of the issue facing the road to sustainability, don't you think so?

 

May/03/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Globalization Article

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Thomas Eriksson"

Dear Friends, my name is Lucio Munoz and I am an independent

researcher interested in the subject from the sustainability point of

view, please visit my webpage at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

While I agree with Mr. Thomas Eriksson that we have to face

globalization as it is here to stay, I think that the conference is

approching poverty issues from the wrong angle: we should be looking at

how we can make existing globalization forces more poverty friendly

instead of trying to understand actual poverty impacts as they were not

designed to erradicate poverty in the first place as mentioned below.

As Jesus said "why to look for the living among the dead": to undertand

poverty links to glabalization, we need to look at all links: economic,

social, and environmental links at the same time; and act on them.

I read the article What is Globalization?, and these are my

comments:

a) I found the article misleading as it could be called better What is"

Economic Globalization" to be more precise with its content. There are

at least another 6 different ways to define globalization from the

sustainability perspective and I saw nothing about them.

b) what we know about economic globalization is that it was not designed as a tool to erradicate poverty, but as an expansion of localized economic development, a rational and logical choice from the economic efficiency point of view;

c) The only links to globalization described in the article are the

economic links, international trade, foreign direct investment, and

captital market flows, where are the poverty links?.

d) I strongly believe that if we are going to seriusly address the issue of "Talking past each others" we have to takle/discuss the non-economic linkages of globalization and their relevance to the poverty goals binding the mission of the World Bank.

I truely commend you for opening up this forum to every one. I am

looking forward to the thoughts of other participants on my views.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

munoz1@sprint.ca

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

May/03/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Globalization Narratives

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Norman Fairclough"

Dear friends, as my previous comment shows, I also found the article

What is Globalization? too skewed on the economic globalization side,

and as Norman Fairclough points out social links are left out as well

as, even that nobody has mentioned it yet, environmental links are also

left out. However, I want to bring the discussion to WHAT IS

GLOBALIZATION in general?, which is the true focus of this section so

that we do not go stray. What others think about defining globalization

just in economic terms to trace impacts on poverty?; which are the other views of globalization out there, let's share them?. Since

globalization is now a given process, can globalization be considered a

funtion of poverty(G(P)) or is poverty a funtion of globalization(P(G))?.

Your thoughts area appreciated;

Sincerly yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

munoz1@sprint.ca

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Norman Fairclough

To: Globalization E-Conference

Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 1:20 AM

Subject: [globalization] Globalization narratives

Globalization narratives

I want to comment on the "What is globalization?" article as an

example of a pervasive globalization narrative. What I mean by that is

that dominant accounts of globalization (exemplified by this article)

use a particular language to tell a particular story about it

(Fairclough 2000a, b). Putting it differently, they constitute a

particular rhetoric. I want to focus on the language and the rhetoric. Why is it worth doing so? Isn't it a diversion from the issues? I don't

believe so. As Pierre Bourdieu has argued (Bourdieu 1998), there is

always an ambivalence when people write or talk about globalization

between analysis of a real process and advocacy for a so-far incomplete

project. I think we need to be conscious of that in the debate over the

next four weeks. And that means being attentive to the rhetoric as well

as the content.

 

May/04/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Globalization is nothing new

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Errol Mendes"

Dear Errol, unsystematic globalization is not new(localized development

constrained by natural and human barriers), but systematic globalization is new(world development with only natural barriers).

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

munoz1@sprint.ca

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Errol Mendes

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:57 AM

Subject: [globalization] Globalization is nothing new

 

> My name is Professor Errol P. Mendes. I am a Professor of Law,

> specializing in isssues relating to Globalizaton, Technology and

> Social Justice. I am also the Director of the Human Rights Research > and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa. For more on our

> activities, see http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec

>

> Permit me to be a contrarian. Globalization is nothing new. It is indeed almost a thousand years old. What was colonization if not the beginning of globalization?

>

May/04/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Reducing Poverty

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Daniele Blain"

Dear Daniele, globalization is a process based on average thinking, and

therefore it will evaporate all the details relevant to specific components of the sample: if the average we look is wealth, then the ones who are extremely different, the poorest, will dissappear in theory in the globalization process, but in practice the poor is still there. Hence, we should not be surprised when we hear that globalization, as it is right now, is affecting the poor the most. The question becomes, how can we make globalization efforts to be consistent with localization efforts or vise a verse?. It needs a different way of thinking, holistic thinking.

Greetings;

Lucio

munoz1@sprint.ca

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Daniele Blain

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 6:44 AM

Subject: [globalization] Reducing diversity

 

Hello! My name is Danièle Blain and I work as a communications consultant.

Barry Coates' very good intro paper appropriately set the tone for this

debate. There's an important fact that runs across Mr. Coates' essay (see for example his points 4 & 7) without really being put in evidence: globalization reduces diversity, in all its forms, shapes and occurences.

 

May/04/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Marginalized Countries

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Bayan Tabbara"

Dear Bayan, it will be difficult for you, and anybody else, in my opinion to find out an optimistic view from the developing country perspective when looking at global labour markets. There are many reasons, but one of the key one is that the global labour market is not one market, but a collection of two markets, developed(central pole) and developing markets(marginal), and theory suggest that the center will just feed of the marginal to be sustained, but how long the marginal will be able to perform their nurturing funtion before the whole system desintegrates?. Plus, this dual global labour market is not free(there is no free movement of people/labour). Notice that the social global market and the newer environmental market have

the same dual structure, which explains a common phenomena today,

globalization allows the central poles(dominat) to do outside home what they can not do at home and globalization makes marginal parts to feel hostage in their own land. I would be happy to hear about your final results.

Greetings;

Lucio

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Bayan Tabbara

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 2:56 AM

Subject: [globalization] Marginalized countries

> This is a great opportunity to exchange views on issues as > globalization.

> My name is Bayan Tabbara and I work for the Human Development Section > at the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. At present I > am researching the social impact of globalization on the labour > markets of the ESCWA region. The outcome of my work so far is very > pessimistic.

May/04/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Defining "free" and "Interest"

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Tom Davies"

Dear Tom, your comments are very interesting as freedom(free) and

benefits(interest) are two central components controlling the gap between the rich/dominant and the poor/dominated, and this situation leads to what I call the sustainability tragedy where the rich needs the poor to get richer and the poor is tied up. The how to break and balance this sustainability knot is immerse on controlling levels of freedom and benefits based on social, economic, and environmental justice.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

.

----- Original Message -----

From: Tom Davies

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 12:43 AM

Subject: [globalization] Defining "free" and "interests"

 

> This is Tom Davies, a student. I took part in A16.

>

> As long as we're defining terms, I have a couple to contribute.

>

> 1. Free, as in "free trade." >

> 2. Interests. That is, narrow, short-term, financial interests. A > question that should constantly be asked as we try to find answers to > widespread poverty is, "whose interests are served by the current > situation?" In short, cui bono? I'll leave it to those more expert > than I to suggest answers. But it does seem to me that if the current > situation did not serve the interests of First World governments and > multinationals, they would have been far more vigorous in solving it.

 

May/04/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: What I know and see in Peru

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "instituto de educacion y salud"

Dear Marion, I agree with with most of the concerns you have expressed

here and I would like to comment on the nature of GDP measures: before

the formal recognition of the existence of environmental and social

costs(before 1987 our common future), we can said that we had a pure

economy GDP measure; then efforts have been made to adjust GDP to

environmental concerns and we have several kinds of Green GDP measures

or adjustments or indicators in process, however, most of them, if not

all, still are not properly adjusted or not adjusted at all for social

costs. If any of these measures of GDP is used to look at the behaviour of globalization, it will be difficult to understand its impact on poverty as social costs are not accounted for yet. Accounting for social costs may be the next round of adjustments to GDP, which would be consistent with the expected very slow process toward sustainability.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: instituto de educacion y salud

To: Globalization E-Conference

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:20 PM

Subject: [globalization] What I know and see in Peru

 

3rd May 2000 Lima, Peru

I am Marion Baker , Mother , Wife , Nurse ., Midwife , Development

Worker and extreamly concerned citizen of the famous "global village". I am definitly no expert , I simply recognise a problem when I see and

live one and if there is one thing that we obviously all know it that "

we have a problem".

We also know that the now highly questioned GDP is not an acurate

measure of true grown or progess, it lacks greatly and in real terms

means nothing. According to David Suzuki and a great many others the

problem with the GDP is that it only adds and never subtracts , it makes no distiction between destructive and productive activities.

Chau

Marion.

May/05/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: Globalization Article

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "instituto de educacion y salud"

Estimda Marion, claro que hablo espanol. Yo tambien estoy interesados

en estos temas, globalizacion, sustenibilidad, desarrollo sustenido,

deforestacion...y lo hago desde Canada. Desde el 3 de mayo he estado

enviando mensajes a la conferencia, pero parece que los organizadores no recibieron bien mi critica frontal de el articulo relalcionado a que es globalizacion?. No mensaje han pasado incluyendo el que envie con copia a usted. Como ya estoy familiarizado con esto, cada ves que mando un mensaje le mando copia a el participante tambien para que no se pierda todo. Aca le mando copia de le primer mensaje que mande para su informacion. Yo continuary participando en la conferencia aunque sea solo de pescador si es que ellos asi lo quieren.

Hay que ser positivos, verdad?.

Saludos;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

 

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: Globalization E-Conference=20

Cc: Toledo/Lucio Munoz ; Thomas Eriksson=20

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:18 AM

Subject: Globalization article

Dear Friends, my name is Lucio Munoz and I am an independent

researcher interested in the subject from the sustainability point of

view, please visit my webpage at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

While I agree with Mr. Thomas Eriksson that we have to face

globalization as it is here to stay, I think that the conference is

approching poverty issues from the wrong angle: we should be looking at

how we can make existing globalization forces more poverty friendly

instead of trying to understand actual poverty impacts as they were not

designed to erradicate poverty in the first place as mentioned below.

As Jesus said "why to look for the living among the dead": to undertand

poverty links to glabalization, we need to look at all links: economic,

social, and environmental links at the same time; and act on them.

I read the article What is Globalization?, and these are my

comments:

a) I found the article misleading as it could be called better What is"

Economic Globalization" to be more precise with its content. There are

at least another 6 different ways to define globalization from the

sustainability perspective and I saw nothing about them.

b) what we know about economic globalization is that it was not designed as a tool to erradicate poverty, but as an expansion of localized economic development, a rational and logical choice from the economic efficiency point of view;

c) The only links to globalization described in the article are the

economic links, international trade, foreign direct investment, and

captital market flows, where are the poverty links?.

d) I strongly believe that if we are going to seriusly address the issue of "Talking past each others" we have to takle/discuss the non-economic linkages of globalization and their relevance to the poverty goals binding the mission of the World Bank.

I truely commend you for opening up this forum to every one. I am

looking forward to the thoughts of other participants on my views.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

munoz1@sprint.ca

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

May/05/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Democracies and Capitalism

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Roger Bowen"

Dear Mr. Bowen, the M-C-M formula works when no social pain and environmental pains are assumed, and not substracted fom the additional money generated. Capitalism works in different levels of democracy, up to now, capitalism has worked only on the side called undemocratic capitalism, and I believe all these forums of discussion will become more common as we find ways to move toward democratic capitalism as with the fall of socialist walls the option of democratic socialism appears to have banished. I found your comments about amorality very interesting.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Bowen

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 12:17 PM

Subject: [globalization] Democracies and capitalism (5-11)

 

I am president of the State University of New York at New Paltz, a small university of 8000 located 90 miles north of NYC.

I am enjoying this conversation, so thank you to all who are participating.

I recall robert Heilbroner's The Nature and Logic of Capitalism making the point that capital is simply a process where capital is forever being transformed from capital-as-money into capital-as-commodities, and then retransformed into capital-as-more-money. This is the M-C-M' formula made famous by Marx. The process acts independently of values or social goals, let along social justice. It is, in fact, amoral. How, then, can an amoral force be harnessed to do good? This question, in my view, is the central one to be asked about "globalization."

May/05/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Weak winners and strong losers

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: <wfengler@worldbank.org>

Dear Mr. Fengler, your view about the weak winners and the strong losers is consistent with a comment in different terms I made to a friend just a couple of days ago. It is said that public land/assets are converted to private land/assets because public agents are less efficient than private agents, which explains privitization processes. A simple solution, apparently according to theory would be to make the efficiency in the public land/asset sector higher than that in the private sector, but it is said that in practice it can never happen. One common reason given for this is that employment incentives in the private sector are higher than incentives in the public sector. However, something that usually scapes our minds, and

which may hold very often is that those who manage the public land/assess are usually the same ones that control private land/private assets, which could contribute to the apparently impossibility of fixing the inefficiencies allocated to public land/assets. In system theory this would be a source of system failure and this to me is one of the key challenges facing sustainability. I think, the above relates to the weak winners(public land/assets = society and environment) and strong losers(private land/assets = economy) as your comments apparently suggests.

Your comments would be very much appreciated;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <wfengler@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:01 AM

Subject: [globalization] Weak winners and strong losers

 

> My name is Wolfgang Fengler and I have joined the World Bank recently > as a Young Professional after completing my Ph.D. thesis on > impediments to economic reform in Sub-Saharan Africa.

>

> So, why has Africa in fact not adjusted?

>

> Economic reform in Africa may face a dilemma of weak winners and > strong losers. Therefore, poverty reduction and economic reform in > Africa are much more a political rather than a socio-economic issue: > Few political relatively strong losers resist reform beneficial to > the common good, because potential winners are too weak to articulate > their interests. The misperception of the development community did > not lie with the proposition of economic measures, but in the belief, > that the measures proposed would be implemented without any internal > resistance.

May/05/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: A genuine debate?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Chris Lowe"

Dear Chris, If I undertand correctly, your elements needed to redifine the globalized world economy would be consistent with the notion of optimal globalizaion, in theory, only then acceptable distributional minima to alliviate poverty.......valued lifeways could take place. But the world is not ready for globalization in general and less optimal globalization. However, not surprisingly, developed countries are ready, as theory suggest that those who get first may have better positioning in markets, and to have a chance to be among the first there, you need economic capital, which is bad news for developing countries because the economic capital is in developed countries.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Lowe

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:21 PM

Subject: [globalization] A genuine debate?

 

> This is Chris Lowe. I am a historian of Africa working as an editor > in Portland, Oregon USA.

> But if a globalized world economy is defined as having other ends > than maximizing wealth in the system, e.g. distributional minima to > alleviate poverty and open opportunity, sustainable resource use > regimes, workers'rights, maintenance of capacity to pursue > historically valued lifeways, etc. then profit-efficiency may be > inefficient to those ends.

>

> I am not yet convinced that even the World Bank, much less the IMF, > the WTO or my own government, really want such a genuine debate which > is open in that manner. Still less am I convinced that there is a > will among the technocrats and policy elites for revised *terms* of

> globalization that are globally transparent, accountable and >democratic.

May/06/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: Democracies and Capitalism

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Roger Bowen"

Dear Mr. Bowen, some hardcore socialist and environmentalist may

disagree with you on the basis that if you substracts the cost of social and environmental externalities from capitalist gains, you may have a situation where development as a whole may be less that it could have been if we would have had democratic capitalism instead of undemocratic capitalism from the beginning nurturing social, economic, and environmental benefits of the majority, not just the economic benefits of a specific sector.

I believe that development paradigms have taken place and are taking place within a natural process on which humanity unconciouly has been embarqued, that of achieving at the end true sustainability. Paradigms shifts appear to be ramdom because there are many different paths to true sustainability. I believe that humanity started with a form of democratic socialism. Then a paradigm shift led to undemocratic capitalism. Next, a paradigm clash led

to two antogonist paradigms to coexist, undemocratic socialism, and

undemocratic capitalism. Notice that the common thread in these two

different paradigms is that both have an undemocratic nature.

As long as no gains from "parnerships" are identified, contrasting

Paradigms are closed to each other, but opened internally to new paradigms pressures. Internal pressures within contrasing paradims appear to lead the next paradigm shift faster than external pressures between the contrasting paradigms, even though the other way around is also a theoretical possibility. Internal pressures are making undemocratic socialism to shift to democratic socialism today,

And internal pressures are setting the stage for the shift from undemocratic capitalism to democratic capitalism today, but this time around we may have two contrasting paradimgs, democratic socialism and democratic capitalism, with clear win-win options or possibilities for parnerships.

Notice that the common thread here is that both paradigms are under

Democratic pressures. The theoretical pieces I am working on suggest that when there are clear and identifiable options that provide mutual benefits, then we can have paradigms mergers where the will of dominant component prevails over time, in this case democracy. This sets the stage toward the next paradigm move, the spreading of sustainability paradigms. At the end, sustainability paradigm dynamics will pave the way to the final development shift, that of true sustainability. True sustainability is the paradigm shift that will accompany humanity to as long as in can exist as it requires optimal contiditions for everything: social, economic, and environmental as a mean of living sustainably now while mantaining the potential for life for the ones to come.

As you said we need the creation of global institutions that can smooth the ups and downs associated with paradigm shifts, this time globalization(both socialist and capitaliest countries appear to be in). I really appreciate you original comment and your reply.

Please, receive my warm greetings from Vancouver, Canada;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Bowen

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 8:12 AM

Subject: Re: [globalization] Democracies and capitalism (5-11)

 

> Thank you for your comments. But I beg to differ. M-C-M' works

> REGARDLESS of (and is indifferent to) "social pain and enviornmental

> pains." But I think we agree on one point: that capitalism is a > virtual force of nature that needs to be democratized.

>

> Roger Bowen

May/07/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: My posting and the what is globalization article

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Chris Lowe"

Dear Chris, thanks for your message. I appear that somehow we see the

issues around globalization in a very similar fashion.

I was looking forward for a very open and if not heated, serious

exchange of thoughts with traditional minded officials all over the

world, but it look like we are just going to hear what people say and

there will be no real debate. I perhaps started my participation too

direct this time with the conference organizers, see my first posting

below, that apparently they have left my contributions out. I have sent several after my first message, including your, but I think that I will never see them again, to apply my proactive lessons, I sent copy to the conference and copy to the participants whose messages I used in my comments. That is fine with me, perhaps they have too many messages or any other reason, but I will continue to exchange my views in a positive and professional fashion. Sometimes, talking to stones makes you feel good and at peace, right?.

Greeting and thank you for your comment.

If you have time, take a look at my homepage, it is called TRUE

SUSTAINABILITY, you may find it interesting.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: Globalization E-Conference

Cc: Toledo/Lucio Munoz ; Thomas Eriksson

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:18 AM

Subject: Globalization article

 

Dear Friends, my name is Lucio Munoz and I am an independent

researcher interested in the subject from the sustainability point of

view, please visit my webpage at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

While I agree with Mr. Thomas Eriksson that we have to face

globalization as it is here to stay, I think that the conference is

approching poverty issues from the wrong angle: we should be looking at

how we can make existing globalization forces more poverty friendly

instead of trying to understand actual poverty impacts as they were not

designed to erradicate poverty in the first place as mentioned below.

As Jesus said "why to look for the living among the dead": to undertand

poverty links to glabalization, we need to look at all links: economic,

social, and environmental links at the same time; and act on them.

I read the article What is Globalization?, and these are my

comments:

a) I found the article misleading as it could be called better What is"

Economic Globalization" to be more precise with its content. There are

at least another 6 different ways to define globalization from the

sustainability perspective and I saw nothing about them.

b) what we know about economic globalization is that it was not designed as a tool to erradicate poverty, but as an expansion of localized economic development, a rational and logical choice from the economic efficiency point of view;

c) The only links to globalization described in the article are the

economic links, international trade, foreign direct investment, and

captital market flows, where are the poverty links?.

d) I strongly believe that if we are going to seriusly address the issue of "Talking past each others" we have to takle/discuss the non-economic linkages of globalization and their relevance to the poverty goals binding the mission of the World Bank.

I truely commend you for opening up this forum to every one. I am

looking forward to the thoughts of other participants on my views.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

munoz1@sprint.ca

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

May/08/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Desintegration of national economies

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Herman E. Daly",

Dear Prof. Daly, to put your comments into my perpective I would add the following:

a) I believe that the desintegration of national economies, specially in less developed countries, is the result of two consecutive and close related processes based on average thinking, localization(country level development policies) and globalization(world level development policies). Localization is aimed at internal desintegration so that national economic indicators can register higher efficiency at country specific levels. Globalization is directed at external desingtegration so that global economic indicators again can register greater efficiency at the world level. Under average thinking, the relevant information of the very marginal or the very different or the poorest get lost as in our aim to produced average information we eliminate the details relevant to specific cases or group of cases.

b) As we all know, just very recently the policy of the world bank was

focused on localized or national development based on a very unsystematic approach, the economy only approach, and then it moved to a partnership approach, the economy and the environment only approach. Surprisingly, the feedback or results from the practical application of these localized or national policies in social and/or environmental

terms seems to have been mounting on the negative side in most countries as many participants have stated. This indicates that local or national policies, eventhough they are or may be working for one or two components of the system, they are not working for the other components. The reason in my opinion is that unsystematic approaches like economic based or eco-economic based models lead to advances in some components of the system at the expense of others.

c) Since globalization can be considered an extension of the localized

development model as it is, hence it should be expected to lead to parallel impacts, with the difference that global forces are still more detached from the marginalized and the different than local or national forces. This leads to a situation in which the marginalized or the very different or the poorest is under the influence of two sucking forces at the same time, one close by and the other far away.

d) In conclusion, as things are right now, neither localization or

globalization are geared to launch a frontal attack to alliviate poverty, which is the heart of the world bank mission and policy. This is the time for change, before it is too late. Erradicating poverty seems to be the priority concern of the majority of the member states of the world bank too, so why not to make the erradication of poverty a function of both localized and globalized development?.

I truely appreciate your participation, and greetings to all.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Herman E. Daly

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 8:34 AM

Subject: [globalization] Disintegration of national economies

 

This is from Herman Daly, professor at the University of Maryland, formerly senior economist at the World Bank. I started following this discussion late, but have found it stimulating, and wanted to make a small contribution. I hope that the Bank will entrust the task of responding to the discussion to the office of the Chief Economist, not to the Public Relations Department

.....

Integration of the global omelet logically requires the disintegration of the national eggs-- the dis-integration of the separate national economies. There is a loud silence on this. Does the IMF-WTO-WB believe that the economic disintegration of their members is in the interests of their members? Whose interests are they serving? The interests of the ³global economy² we are told. But what concrete reality lies behind that abstraction? Who benefits? Overwhelmingly it is transnational capital--not labor, not small business, not peasant farmers, not the environment. Already some 52 of the 100 largest economic organizations are corporations and 48 are nations.

......

May/09/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Weak winners and stronglosers

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <wfengler@worldbank.org>

Dear Wolfgang, thank you for your reply. There is a perception and the

practice support this that the private sector manage assets most efficiently than the public sector, but in theory the opposite could also happen given the right incentives, and more so if the managers of the public sector are not the leading figures of the private sector. Is there any evidence that under perfect competition and similar incentive structures a person who owns assets would be a better manager of public assets than a person that owns nothing?. In theory, a person who owns nothing with the right incentives could be a better manager of public assents than a person who owns assets as at least there would not be neither a perception of conflict of interest. Do not you agree so?. Under these conditions, the weak winner would become the big losers and the strong losers would become the big winners. Hence,

who manage the public purse is a true concern in terms of, for example,

erradicating poverty as we known that declining poverty levels can take

place when there is economic growth even when the redistribution of existing assests is not in the formula.

Greetings and thanks for your comments.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: <wfengler@worldbank.org>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 6:20 AM

Subject: Re: [globalization] Weak winners and strong losers

 

>

> Dear Lucio,

>

> your comment is very sophisticated but I think that I understood the

> essence.

> I agree that the private sector manages most assets more efficiently > than the public sector. I would relate this fact to the nature of > human being, in which there is always a stronger commitment towards

> something you own yourselve than towards public goods

> The weak winner - strong loser paradigm comes in when explaining why

> privatization did not take place: a small number of political elites

> benefit directly or indirectly from state owned company, while the > general public or the taxpayer as such is politically very weak.

> However, when privatization happened it was always optimal either. In > weak institutional environments (particularly weak legal framework) > an efficient market economy can not be created either. Often public > monopolies have been transformed into privat monopolies (see Russia > and the latest comments by Joseph Stiglitz). Therefore, when > formulating economic reform policies the focus should be competition > as the core of a market economy rather than privatization per se.

> Still, tehre is the necessity of common goods, when markets fail. > These need to be provided through the state or supranational > institutions. But on your last analogy in relating the weak winner - > strong loser paradigm to private/public land I do not agree. As I > have tried to explain with privatization policies, there are also > vested interests in an (inefficient) system of public land, because > the political elites could determine the allocation of the land > without social or economic considerations. However there may be > similar structures in a system of private land ownership. However, > the ideal case of a competetive market economy does not match with a > general concept of public land.

>

> Hope this helps

>

> Wolfgang

May/09/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Challenges and options

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: LUIS SANCHEZ

Dear Friends, I agree with Luis that globalization provides alternatives that could be used to reduce poverty. And this leads to the question, how can this be done?. The way the globalization structure is set right now can not be expected to deliber acceptable poverty reduction targets plus the monitoring structure of globalization is not in place yet. For example, under localization (national or local development) the positive and negative internal impacts on the marginalized or the poor can fairly easily be detected and monitor as they take within specific bounderies. In the case

of globalization, there are no bounderings which will complicate the fair allocation of rigts(benefits) and responsibilities(cost) as the sources are as now moving targets.

The complaint that localization efforts is not effective because local

goverments have weak institutions is thought to be one of the main

limitations on implementation and monitoring of national development

policies. As things are right now, it can be seen easily that the

institutional limitations of globalization are still worse. Hence, we have to move with our globalization thoughts with a full book of the

precautionary principle in hand.

Greetings Luis and all.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: LUIS SANCHEZ <lsanchez@care.org.sv>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 1:22 PM

Subject: [globalization] Challenges and options

> My name is Luis Sanchez and I am an economist from El Salvador

> working for an American NGO in my country. In recent days, the question about how to cope with poverty - where the institution target population is and reduce it - has risen within the new vision and mission of the institution worldwide.

>

> In this sense, I feel that globalization provides a set of problems > but also a set of smart options that could help reduce poverty. On > the one hand, no benefits are "globalized", just the costs

> (environmental degradation, human and labour rights violation, etc.). > Wealthy structures all over the globe concentrate the benefits from

> globalization, like large corporations, telecom companies,

> commodities export companies, but the poor are excluded from this new > way of wealth distribution. In my country, an official institution in > charge of technological transfer for the agricultural sector once

> adopted the motto: "from the land plot towards globalization", > meaning by that that a farmer with less than 1 hectare has access to > a globalized market. As third world countries, we only experience the > side of the story which ressembles to the colonial imperialism of the > 19th century, when markets were open violently. The only difference

> is that this openness is made through more civilized means: tariff > reductions, free trade agreements, elimination of non-tariff > barriers. Nevertheless, this process is asymetric, for it is only > applied to third world countries, while the most developed countries > in the world keep their markets protected from foreign competition in > sensitive sectors where third world countries can really compete.

May/09/2000/RESECON: What type of Man was Tolstoy defining?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Dear Friends, which type of men is Tolstoy refering in this quotation sent by Dr. G.? Is Tolstoy refering to the rational man or the irrational man?. It appears that it can not be both as we can not have two absolute majorities in the same sample of men. What do you think?.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: H. G.

To: <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 8:08 AM

 

> I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the

> greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most > obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity > of conclusions they have reached perhaps with great difficulty, > conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, > which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, > thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

>

> --Leo Tolstoy

May/09/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: The either-or mentality

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Desta Mebratu"

Dear Friends, I totally agree with Desta that we should find ways to

designed and implement development goals systematically. One way this could be done sustainably in four general steps, can be expressed as follows:

a) Devised a general development model that is based and holisticly linked to submodels so that internal and external links to each peace in the over all model can be traced and monitor. For example, if we can breakdown world development (G) into two components, national development(N) and local development(L), then we could defined global development(G) as a composite funtion of both national and global development, as follows:

G = G(N(L)) or G = N.L in qualitative system terms

Hence, what happends at the local level affects the national level and

affects the over all outcome of globalization(G) or vise a verse, which

underlines existing dependencies and interactions.

b) then we agree to build and strenthen the right fundamentals, which are:

Regulations(national and local institutions) and Incentives(national and local rights and obligations);

c) next, we defined the specific goals targeted, which can be:

Social goals(eg. poverty)

Economic goals(eg. growth)

Environmental goals(eg. sustainable use)

or a combination of them.

For example, if the goal is reducing poverty(P), then the model in a) can be

stated as follows:

Gp = G(Np(Lp) or Gp = Np.Lp

Hence, growth and sustainable use technology have to be geared to

specifically support these stated poverty reduction goal of globalization.

d) And finally, polinized knowledge should be used to better implement a systematic program, polinized knowledge means here the combination of the best local and non-local knowledge to achieve the task in a truely

cooperative manner.

As Desta indicates, these type of systematic approaches are feasible if the will and resources to do it are there.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Desta Mebratu

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 6:16 AM

Subject: [globalization] 'The either-or mentality', Week 1

 

> Greetings,

.

>

> According to systems dynamics, any systemic transformation is > dependent on the fundamental factors that defines the path and the > facilitating factors that determine the pace along the defined path. > Facilitating factors, however attractive they are, would be of little > use in the abscence of the fundamental factors. The evolution and > development of locally responsive human and institutional capacities > are two of the key fundamnetal factors for any societal > transformation. Unfortunately, neither SAP nor the other development > initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa have given due attention to these > factors. They were more inclined towards transforming the region > through the flow of capital,technology and know-how from North to > South.

> This has perpetuated even more dependency rather than promoting > progress. The institutional reforms that has been undertaken under > SAP has further eroded existing institutional capacities rather than > reorienting and building upon them. That is why SAP has failed in > sub-Saharan Africa as much as it seems to be successful in terms of > creating the facilitating factors.

>

> In my opinion, for development to happen in sub-Saharan Africa, the

> facilitating factors have to be designed in accordance with the

> fundamental prerequisites that are available within each and every > country. That is what leads to a multiple framework of liberalization > that is responsive to the local dynamics. In parallel to these, the > international community have the moral responsibility to assist > Africa (which has been the victim of series of global injustice > perpetuated over the last hundreds of years)to build its human, > institutional and infrastructural prerequisites by taking the > positive elements from the locally available knowledge systems and > combining them with the modern knowledge systems. This implies the > development of a dynamic framework that evolves with changing . > variables. This may not be easy to experts who are used to crunch > numbers that are generated from the application of a single model on > multiple realities. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.

May/09/2000/RESECON: Which type of man was Tolstoi defining?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Robin

Dear Robin, I found this quotation interesting because a couple of months ago I read something called the Lappier Experiment(I do not remember the exact source, but I can find it)where it is shown that people do not do what they say they will do and when they do, they do what they said they would not do. This indicated to me a theoretical reason contradicting rationality. Then, I was reading work of Charles Ragin on the unity of social research where he described the one to one relationship between reality and ideal or practice and theory. And the rule is that the theory must match the practice to be validated as scientific. Tolstoy quotation indicated to me a practical reason as you said of the gap between theory and practice, specially when we

present theories in general as dogma. Just that.

Greetings and thank you for your comment;

Sincerely;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Robin

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>; <RESECON@lsv.uky.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: Which type of man was Tosltoy defining?

 

> Lucio

>

> Fallacy of misplaced correctness: don't get the models of > rationality confused with reality! Leo, of course, was talking about > actual people, not an ideal type defined by a model of rationality. > If anything, he was referring to human psychological rationality, and > savouring the contrast with conventional notions of rational > behaviour. I imagine it gets posted to this list in a spirit of > irony.

>

> For some reading on multiple conceptions of rationality, see Paul > Diesing 1962: Reason in Society, Herbert Simon - many titles (and > follwers), John Dryzek 1987: Rational Ecology, Environment and > Political Economy.

>

> Robin

May/10/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: The poor already stretched to the limit

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: Robert

Dear Robert, when looking at the internal structure of globalization, it can be shown that it reflects only economic and environmental goals as it is being apparently pushed by internationl economic and environmental stateholders, social goals are being left out because unsystematic processes need weak components in the system on which to feed. As the pressure on the social agents(the poor) increased over the coming decades, they will be forced to move more and more into the irrational domain(eg. consuming remaining critical capital). This will lead to a crashed between the eco-economic man and the social man, as I called them. And a global crash between global economic and environmental agents and social agents will breakdown the now sustained system in the years to come. Unless we incorporate social concerns into our models of localization and globalization, this clash has a real posibility, and may come sooner than we think. I raised these concerns in an article called " An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market" published

by the Journal of Environmental Management and Health, January/2000.

Thank you for listing all these statistics and sources of information;

Sincerely;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <rmwj@soonernet.com>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 9:17 AM

Subject: [globalization] The Poor are already stretched to the limit

 

> My name is Robert, I am a member of the Oscar Romero

> Catholic Worker House community, which offers assistance to and

> solidarity with the poor.

>

> 1. The already thin margins of the poor everywhere are being

> stretched to the breaking point.

> The world's poor are hard workers and creative in meeting the

> challenges of their lives. But as fast as they can create wealth,

> it is transferred via politicized marketplaces (in which they

> have no voice) into the pockets of transnational corporations and

> the international finance system. This isn't an accident of

> history, it's the way a system that politically exalts Capital

> over Labor and imposes "development" from the "top down" is

> designed to work. Nobel economist Amartya Sen says, "The battle

> against the unfreedom of bound labor is important in many third

> world countries today for some of the same reasons the American

> Civil War was momentous." (Development as Freedom) As long as we

> are stealing interest payments from the rice bowls of the poorest

> of the poor, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It's

> time to declare peace in the "war on the poor" before its too

> late.

>

> Robert

> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House, Oklahoma City

> http://www.justpeace.org

May/10/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Week 1 Summary

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, I read the summary you sent, I think it reflects in general terms the key points of the issues raised.

However, a few aspects are missing, which I think should be highligted, at least for reference or future discussion.

1) What is globalization?

Globalization is not just about economics, otherwise we should call it plaintly economic globalization;

Not other views or concepts of globalization were either posted or presented to the conference, and they exist.

2) Is globalization a new process?

Partial globalization is not a new process, but full globalization is. Full globalization feeds mainly on the desintegration of external links between countries. Just a partial globalization processes were unconected to poverty reduction goals, full globalization as of now is also unconnected to poverty reduction goals.

3) What are the impacts of globalization on poverty and development?

Most of the impacts on poverty and development posted were on the negative side. If there are positive impacts documented, where are they?. From what was posted, no positive impacts are recorded yet. Or these cases were not posted?.

4) Who benefits from globalization, and who shape it progress?

Based on the messages posted, it is clear that there is a feeling out there that the poor and developing countries are not the beneficiary nor the ones shaping the globalization structure.

5) The role of government?

The role of governments seems minimal as the aim of globalization is to bypass government regulations, and this can be done better when the government has no role at all.

6) Are there forces other than globalization that explain some of the

effects associated with globalization?

The commens about corruption and incompetence posted applied to specific country conditions in my view, not to globalization as a whole. However, if corruption and incompetence takes place at the national level, what can we expect at the global level where the sense of accountability without proper institutions is desipated still more.

I wish to congratulate you for opening such an opportunity to at least exchange ideas on issues that can not be solved the first time around, but that must solve sooner or later.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <moderator1@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 3:45 PM

Subject: [globalization] Week 1 Summary

 

Please note that the French, Spanish and Portuguese translations of this

summary will be posted shortly.

SUMMARY OF WEEK 1:

Globalization, Poverty and Development: What do we know?

Week one featured a lively and complex debate on the definition, scope and implications of globalization, the extent of our knowledge of its effects, and its underlying causes and motive forces. The goal of Week 1 was not to debate and resolve all the issues and controversies surrounding globalization, but to assess what we know and where the major areas of disagreement are. It was noteworthy that a substantial majority of the messages submitted by participants during Week 1 were critical of current trends in globalization and of the role of international institutions in fostering globalization, and focused heavily on the negative effects of globalization on developing countries. There was a strong thread of perceiving globalisation as a process that "includes" some and "excludes" others from its benefits; differences in whether this is a systemic and inevitable division, resulting from the very nature of liberalised capitalism, or whether with political will and support the so-far excluded could be enabled to join in.

May/11/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Comments on paper Trade, Poverty, and Inequality

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Desta Mebratu", "Robert"

"Herman E. Daly"

Dear Friends, I have a few comments on this paper.

a) all information provided about poverty is average information, and we know that average values may not have anything to do with specific country values: people complaining about globalization in the postings are from a particular country which may be far away from the average, how are we going to determine how to best help them?, average policies won't do it. How can we devise ways of getting both average and specific information in a holistic and consistent maner so that globalization is consistent with localization?;

b) no reference is made to the social and environmental externalities

associated with growth all this time;

c) economic based GDP is used for the analysis and it appear that a

consensus is being reach that unless adjusted for social and environmentalcost, this could lead to unreliable analysis, do not you think so? Does green GDP leads to similar conclusions even thouth it still does not account for social costs?;

d) in theory, trade under perfect competition would work under equality

rules and therefore, it can have a positive impact on poverty reduction; in practice the dichotomies landconcentration/landlessness and powerful/marginalized is the dominant in most countries, and therefore trade is operating on already rooted inequalities that continue to increase poverty even when there is growth because of what I called the CONE EFFECT, where the percapita income(and increases) of the landlords and powerful are greater than the percapita income(and increases) of the landless and the marginalized as the top get more than the bottom during the income filtration process from top to bottom;

e) since globalization is implemented on the top of the above mentioned

inequalities and a CONED WORLD, I suspect that globalization will strenthen and increase the gap between unequal conditions simply because globalization is not designed to by pass those inequalities. Based on this, if globalization has a positive impact on per capitat income, again the rich get more than the poor, and so the rich is a winner in a program that you are expecting the benefit the poor the most. Can globalization be targeted to benefit the poor? If yes, it could ever get the backing of internaltional stakeholders?. If the poor could be seen as potential customers may be, but in this case the huge demand created would have a huge environmental impact associated with the economic boom, would this be acceptable to environmentalists?.

f) I believe we are going into a situation where environmental concerns will prevent globalization from benefiting the poor, and as long as this allows for economic growth, eco-economic partnerships will take over, but if social concerns are not incorporated into the globalization process, critical capital will be the food of the poor, perhaps in our life time or one later.

Greetings;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <moderator1@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:04 AM

Subject: [globalization] Paper 2

 

> (Moderator's note: We encourage those of you with Web access to

> view the online version of this paper, which contains graphs and > charts that could not be reproduced here. It can be found at:

> http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/pb/globalization/paper2.htm

>

> Does More International Trade Openness Increase World Poverty?

> (Part 2 of a 4-part series)

>

> Rather than leading to economic benefits for all people, it (economic

> globalization) has brought the planet to the brink of environmental

> catastrophe, social unrest that is unprecedented, economies of most

> countries in shambles, an increase in poverty, hunger, landlessness,

> migration and social dislocation. The experiment may now be called

> a failure."

> - Extract from the Sienna Declaration, prepared by the Board of

> Directors of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), and

> signed by over 40 organizations in 20 countries.

> http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/siena-cn.htm

>

> There is no greater problem facing the world at the beginning of the

May/12/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: Local Efforts

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "C. Ridings "

Dear Rev. Ridings, a quick answer to your questions is that the solution to keep the local as much preserved as possible is for local stateholders, social, economic, and environmental stakeholders to get a common voice to make globalization efforts consistent with sustainability goals. In a paper published in the International Journal in Environmental Management and Health called "An Overview of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market", I point out that we are living in a different world where there can be more than one invisible hand in the same market, but academics still keep entertaining old development thought and tools to deal

with today's market. I am affraied that this paper provides theoretical and possible scenarios that contradicts most of the world bank's views. For example, they are looking at problems from an economic point of view to a globalization process where both economic agents and environmental agents are becomings almost equally strong, but social agents are becoming weaker and weaker and weaker. People interested in local goals must find a common way to stress that the way better for all is sustainability, not economic or ecoeconomic globalization. I think the world bank will adjust their globalization policy sooner than expected, however, social stateholders may

have by that time taken up some of the scarce critical capital to meet their basic needs. If you have your own thoughts, please let me know. You may find my webpage called TRUE SUSTAINABILITY interesting at

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

Greetings and god bless you;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: C. Ridings

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 6:19 AM

Subject: Re: [globalization] Local efforts

 

> Greetings Lucio

>

> I agree with local initiatives.

>

> In this the community is preserved.

>

> But how do we protect the local community from being swallowed up by the plutocrats?

>

> Shalom,

> Rev. C. Ridings

> http://www.atu.com.au/~tutu

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

> To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 3:49 AM

> Subject: [globalization] Local efforts

>

>

> > I agree with Luis that globalization provides alternatives

> > that could be used to reduce poverty. And this leads to the > > question, how can this be done? The way the globalization > > structure is set right now can not be expected to deliber > > acceptable poverty reduction targets plus the monitoring structure > > of globalization is not in place yet. For example, under > > localization (national or local development) the positive and > > negative internal impacts on the marginalized or the poor can > > fairly easily be detected and monitored as they take within > > specific bounderies. In the case of globalization, there are no > > bounderies which will complicate the fair allocation of > > rights(benefits) and responsibilities (cost) as the sources are as > > now moving targets.

> >

> > The complaint that local efforts is not effective because local

> > goverments have weak institutions is thought to be one of the main

> > limitations on implementation and monitoring of national > > development policies. As things are right now, it can be seen > > easily that the institutional limitations of globalization are > > still worse. Hence, we have to move with our globalization > > thoughts with a full book of the precautionary principle in hand.

> >

> > Sincerely yours,

> >

> > Lucio Munoz

> > Vancouver, Canada

> > http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

May/12/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Development a matter of scale/Desarrollo: un asunto de escala

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Rafael Arias"

Dear Rafael, everything that you mentioned here is in my opinion what

globalization is not about. Globalization is about economic rights, and even though is has not been mentioned yet by the bank, it is also about environmental rights as economic and environmental stakeholders are pushing this process in partnership. Globalization is not about social rights and obligations and devolution of rights and allocation of costs, and as I have seen in the presentations from the world bank what they have in mind is to find a way to subsidize the persistence of poverty, not to significantly reduce it and worse of not, not to eliminate it. From this eco-econmic partnerships, economic agents still can continue a policy of growth and environmental agents can soften the impact of this growth on the environment, but it only can take place at the expense of social agents. Basic and simply system theory, you can not maximize the goals of all components of the system at the same time, and hence, the weakest pieces of the system must bear the brunt of the externalities. And I agree with you, what is relevant to linked globalization to poverty, inequality, and I would add landlessnes in the poorest countries and regions is to know details

about what has happened so that we can traced their links or lack of links to the average information provided; everybody seems to agree that these countries are the most affected and need help, yet they are far away from average information that appears to be at hand.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Rafael Arias

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:58 AM

Subject: [globalization] Development: a matter of scale/Desarrollo: un

asunto de escala

 

> This is Rafael Arias from the Universidad Nacional de Costa

> Rica, currently doing a Ph.D. at the Geography Department of the

> University of Minnesota.

>

> I'll follow Marion Baker's suggestion to write contributions in both

Spanish and English.

>

> Along with John Friedman (1992) we should ask the following questions

> regarding the social and economic impact of globalization on the > Third World: What has been happening to poverty? What has been > happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? As > we have been able to see in many valuable (theoretically and > empirically) contributions in this conference these structural > problems have been growing worse in the majority of poor countries > during the last two decades. Thus, it seems to be apologetic to call > this result "development", even if per capita income or GNP doubled.

May/12/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Markets

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "SRINIVASAN"

Dear Srinivasa, excellent posting. Two things are the key to me: market discipline; and the poor has no purchasing power and little to sell(I think they have cheap labour and cheap local knowledge to sell, but there are no buyers).

From my view, globalization is the soul of a market that wants to scape

local, regional, and national discipline as it feels threaten when in

limited space: persistent market failures under a close system can be

detected fairly easy than under an open system and discipline applied

easier to sources of failures. For example, once local pressures on market accountability started to be common as the result of local social or environmental complaints, then we move to market regionalization. When regional market models again started to feel the pressures of regional accountability or discipline calls, we move to national market models. Now that discipline pressures or accountability calls became too powerful in your own country, we move to globalization. I imaging that the next market expansion has to be the space race as we have only one earth to globalize and global accountability and discipline pressures for sure will come, and

the market needs to keep spanding to accomodate market failures and avoid discipline. As you know, full cost discipline and enforzable laws may discourage globalization and favor sustainability models, but we are not ready for that yet. The earth still appear to be healthy, socially, economically, and environmentally.

.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: SRINIVASAN <gsns@vsnl.com>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 11:40 AM

Subject: [globalization] Markets

> I am a development banker from India, trying to enter this discussion

> edgeways; but moderators won't allow. A serious discussion attempting > not to understand others is a commonplace occurence; but this attempt > at not even posting views is the first time for me. Still let me try > for some space.

> A globalising marketplace has no space or time for the poor. Poor > hardly have anything to sell. They have many things to buy but lack > the purchasing power. How poor can influence markets if they have > nothing to sell and cannot pay a price to buy anything.

>

> Markets fail to address strategic interests like food security (Iraq > is finding out this truth the hard way), self sufficiency, stable > exchange rates(What Indonesia would not do to achieve this), curbing > volatile hot money flows (ask Malaysia), protection to local > employment(Is not the champion of globalisation, USA having the most > rigorous visa regime), etc.,

> Can we find a way of disciplining the market, instead of praising its

> primacy and supremacy?

>

> N.Srinivasan

May/13/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Globalization, the WB, and Structural Adjustments

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: <wfengler,

"Desta Mebratu"

Dear Wolfgang, I respect your point of view on market failures, but it

would be easy to show in theory that you may be wrong or have a twisted view of how and why markets fail. Markets may fail due to internal and external pressures and the interaction of these pressures determine in the long-run the sustainability of development models. The socialist model and the capitalist model are just two of at least 7 possible and different development models, and as the theory of deep paradigms indicates that while they may be sustained in the long haul, they will break sooner or later. Just as in the absent of external binding pressures, internal pressures have led the socialist and communist

system to fall and/or adjust, also in the absent of external binding

pressures the capitalist system will have fall and/or adjust on the face of internal pressures, if not with globalization,

it will be with sustainability, but it will have to adjust sooner or later. In both cases, there are market failures, in one with full government control and a non-economic market, and the other with no

goverment control and a full economic market. There is a market failure when at least one component of the system is not reflected in that market leading to illusionary valuation/pricing and allocation of resources.

With respect to your other view of strong losers and weak winners, in my replies to you through the conference and privately I thought I showed you that your weak winner/strong loosers argument is wrong too if we look at who really is managing the public purse, but you still keep using in this posting the same argument, why?. Was my argument to you wrong?.

Greetings;Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <wfengler@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:51 AM

Subject: [globalization] Globalization, the WB and structural adjustment

(12-20)

> Given that there has been some reaction to my position, I am happy to > come back to the critics of globalization, the World Bank, and many other features and institutions related to both of them. However, I can not address all the issues. There are also other with more competence that can explain Stilglitz's position, etc.

>

> On the state vs. the market:

> History has demonstrated, that economies often failed when their states play a dominant role in the mangement of economic activities. This is broadly why so-called socialist systems collapsed and market economies survived. There is one model which clearly failed, but there are many which have survived. Alone in the western hemisphere there are so many different types of market economie - just compare the economic systems in the USA, France, Germany, Sweden, and many others. In broad terms all of these models have been successful in increasing the wealth of its citizens. What these very different countries and successful developing countries have in common, is a rule-based legal system, the predictability of the macroeconomic framework and the possibility open up a private business relatively easily (and many other important factors). Hence, they created environments to make them benefit from globalization.

> This brings us to the issue of the role of the state. There is broad

> recognition that successful development needs a strong state, for instance in executing its laws, and not a soft state. With its Development Report of 1997 "The State in a changing World" the World Bank has been contributing to this debate.

>

> On Africa: So why were most of African countries not able to improve the lives of many of its people since independence? It is because most government resisted pro-poor reforms. A predictable macroeconomic framework, social sector spending favoring rural areas, introducing a rule-based legal system are among the components that need to be addressed in most of the countries concerned. So why did most governments not do it? Because in environment of neo-patrimonial clientelism (Jean-Francois Bayart) it is the (political)

> elites that benefit from economic inefficiency. They have lived so nicely (see Mobuto) that they were follish to change their economic systems. This is one element of the weak winners vs. strong losers concept, I introduced in my earlier contribution. Therefore, it is correct that the World Bank and many others (e.g. USA, France) helped to sustain an inefficient economic system to the detriment of the poor in these countries. In poor policy environments Structural Adjustment Program often helped governments not to adjust, because huge amounts of resources were granted without applying the conditionality the credits were made available. It is not structural adjustment which is the >problem but the failure to adjust….

May/15/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: Globalization, the WB, and Strucutural adjustments

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <wfengler>

Dear Wolfgang, yes, it is fine. Please, take care;

Sincerely;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: <wfengler>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:23 AM

Subject: Re: [globalization] Globalization, the WB and structural adjustment

(12-20)

 

>

> Lucio,

>

> thanks for all of your thoughful comments. Unfortunately, I have just

> returned from a mission from Sudan and are a little under pressure. I > will come back to your comments on Thursday.

>

> Thanks for your patience

>

> Wolfgang

>

May/15/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Trade, Poverty, and Inequality: A response to Lucio Munoz

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: <Mbrahmbhatt>,

"Desta Mebratu",

"Abbas Ali"

Dear Friends, thank you very much for your reply. As you may see from my posting, I do not look at globalization with a black eye, but with the sustainability eye. I believe that sustainability theory can shape the globalization process to optimal conditions which would be closer to the poor than maximization conditions.

My posting on these subjects was aimed just at calling attention to the need to look beyond average values; the need to fully account for

externalities; the need to state upfront when we are using just economic GDP or green GDP or sustainability GDP so that buyer be aware; our responsibility to start our analysis from the reality that we are departing from an already unequal world, between and within countries; our undertanding that with existing inequality conditions(inequality of

ownership of assets and power, not of income as you mentioned is the root problem) and other things being equal, all processess social, economic or environmental that lead to positive or negative impacts reinforces these existing inequalities; and our understanding that as long as we leave parts of the development system out of the market there will be market failures who will affect the marginalized the most. You asked about possible options or policies to address this, there are many, but I can summarized them in three groups: the most radical, the less radical, and the worse policy.

The most radical policy would be a two tier policy, one where

globalization is targeted to eliminate extreme poverty and extreme wealth at the same time in order to approximate optimal conditions, but this would be a hard sell unless we are sure that the earth will desappear in X number of years if we do not do that. A less radical policy would be to leave the extremely rich alone, and try to find some form of "symbiotic development" where regulation or incentives(temporary or permanent) ensure that more goes

to the poor when there are benefits and less go to them when there are

costs. The worse policy would be to leave both the rich and the poor alone in the same market, we know who the winner will be under either perfect or imperfect competition.

In theory and based on the work presented by the Bank's officials and moderators, the less radical policy seems to be the preferred or chosen one by the world bank, but based on the posting of the participants in the conference it looks that in practice the policy so far has been the worse one of the three options above. Notice that if we continue the way we are going, and if we reach the point where decisions are to be based on sustainability theory as a preservation machanism, not as a proactive mechanism, then the most radical policy will come into the few viable development options that will remain. By the way, do you think that there is a positive relationship between global warming and the rich/poor gap? Suppose that yes, then if globalization results in an unending process of widdenning this gap, then a clear relationship between global warming and globalization may result.

Please, receive my warm greetings, and thank you for your comments;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: <Mbrahmbhatt@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:32 PM

Subject: [globalization] Trade, poverty and inequality: A response to Lucio Munoz

 

> Lucio Munoz has provided some thoughtful comments on our World Bank

> Briefing Notes on trade, poverty and inequality. Let me note where I

agree and disagree with him. (Obviously, these are personal views, not

> necessarily those of the WB.)

>

> (1) The results of the broad cross-country studies are - by their nature -average ones, and do not focus on the countries that have had a harder time, below the average. Athough Lucio doesn't mention this, they also don't focus on the equal number that have had a better time, > above the average. Correct. But the result DOES refute the anti-

globalist claim that IN GENERAL, or ON AVERAGE, globalization hurts the poor and increases inequality. It does not. On the contrary, the key result is that on average it raises incomes, and it raises the incomes of the poor at the same percentage rate as the incomes of other groups. Another way of stating the latter point is that, on average, it has no > systematic effect on income distribution.

May/16/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Modes of development/More than one invisible hand

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: "Rodney Shakespeare"

Dear Friends, I think that what binary economics as described by Rodney does is to attach a poverty safety net to the traditionaL economic growht model, and we need to move beyond that. The reason is that it appear that the binary economic paradigm still assumes that only the economic invisible hand runs the market today. I believe that there can be more than one invisible hand in the same market, and the relative strengh of one hand over the others or "handshakes" through partnerships determine the outcomes. I

call today's paradigm the Eco-economic development paradigm where the

economic and environmental hands are the rulers. I have presented the basis for this alternative thinking to that of Rodney's and friends in my paper called "An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market" in the January/2000 edition of The Journal of Environmental Management and Health. In my view, the binary economic model falls outside the eco-economic domain, which may be perceived as a step backward by environmental stakeholders.

My comments on the Binary Economics thoughts presented here are the

following, which are made in a very positive and professional fashion:

a) it has a circular framework: poor, labour, jobs, economic security,

consumption growth, production growth, and back to poverty;

b) it assumes that because all the structure linking poverty and economic security is broken, then consumption growth and production growth are not at the levels they should be; and therefore, this is hurting the poor still more;

c) while the thought is atractive it may be or, it is still incomplete in sustainability terms for following reasons:

1) the role that the rich may have in stimulating consumption growth and production growth, which could be targetted to ensure the economic security of the poor is missing?. What are we going to do with the rich?;

2) the environmental impacts of both increased consumption growth and production growth from the booming poor majority do not seem to be

accounting for in the capital shares to be given to the poor. Are we going to continue using negative impacts as income?;

3) what type of capital are we going to distribute to the poor,

economic capital, social capital, environmental capital or a mixture of all. Are we going to continue considereing basic need's fulfilment only economic ones?what about basic social and environmental needs? what about non-material basic needs?

4) what type of capital managers are the poor. who is going to manage or pool the capital shares of the poor? the rich? where are the asset shares still in the hands of the rich?

5) what is the advantage of issuing assets shares to the poor, instead of direct wealth redistribution machanisms?

d) the absent of environmental stakeholders. would environmentalist accept a perispheral role in the binary economic model?

While I agree that economic growth and sustainability are not imcompatible, I dissagree that models based on maximization principles could be thought of achieving over all sustainability levels. Maximization assumes that there is a component in the system somewhere ready for us to exploit. In traditional economic thinking, the rich exploit the poor, is the binary model be based on the poor exploiting the rich?. General sustainability requires optimal conditions(optimal hand shaking), and I do not see that in the Binary Economic's position. However, the thoughts on which the binary position is based are an improvement over traditional economic based only models, in my opinion.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney Shakespeare

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:15 PM

Subject: [globalization] Modes of development

 

> This posting is from Rodney Shakespeare, binary economist.

>

> The Week Three debate is focussed on the subjects of growth,

> consumption and sustainability. The debate, however, is unlikely to come> up with much new thinking on these subjects because it will be based upon the assumptions of the conventional economic paradigm. One of those assumptions is particularly relevant -- that the poor have, and will always have, only their labor by which they can be economically productive.

> That assumption, which is embodied in today's reality for the poor, has huge negative implications for growth, consumption and sustainability.

> Thus, at present, with only access to jobs (and remember that jobs are not always available; that jobs often pay little; and that many people, e.g. carers, the young, the old and the sick, cannot labor) the poor are certain to be inadequately productive. Consequently, growth is suppressed and will remain suppressed until the poor are allowed to > produce more and so be in a position to consume more.

May/16/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: Trade, Development, and Poverty

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Charles"

Dear Charles, thank you for contacting me. Most of my postings have not been passed to the list, and two or three that did have been well

received. Please, feel free to use those thoughts in your class. I

will post all my posting sent and the feedback received in the section

MY VIEWS in my personal webpage at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz.

Here you will find thoughts that have made some of my friends in

specific discussion groups to rethink things. One of my papers

published in MBC/Environmental Management and Health would make things a little more difficult for traditionally thinking professional where I

introduce the notion of the possibility of having more than one

invisible hand in the same market, and how these markets differ from

the economic market, and the implications of these for development

policy. If you are interested in deforestation issues, you can check my other site at

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/people/impacts/deforest/index.html There I introduce my views on how deforestation assessment and =

planning can be done by means of Rapid Qualiative Comparative Means, and use Central America as a practical case.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Charles

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:47 AM

Subject: Re: trade, development and poverty

 

Dear Lucio Munoz

I thought your exchange with xxxxx on trade, poverty and inequality

was very stimulating and I would like to use it for a class I am

currently teaching on the globalisation of food. Would this be OK? Also, could you please direct me to the Briefing Notes you refer to - I haven't been able to find it on the World Bank site.

best wishes and thanks

Charles Mather

PS, great web site!

May/16/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: Trade, Development, and Poverty

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Charles"

Dear Charles, the paper is at:

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/pb/globalization/paper2.htm

There is paper1, paper2, paper3, and paper4 as the bases for the whole

conference.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Charles

To: Lucio Munoz

Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:43 PM

Subject: Re: trade, development and poverty

Dear Lucio

Thanks for your quick response and for giving me permission to use the exchange. It should make for an interesting tutorial/lecture session. To make it complete, however, I would need a copy of the Briefing Notes that you referred to in your exchange with the World Banker. It was on trade, development and poverty. Could you please direct me to a digital copy of the briefing notes, if they are available.

Thanks and best wishes

Charles

May/18/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Trade, Growth, and Inequalities: Assertions versus Evidence

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: <Akraay@worldbank.org>,

<Mbrahmbhatt@worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, please receive my warm greetings. Apparently, due to the

limited space for posting, not all contributions reach the list which leads to inneficient exchange of ideas and to the potencial of making simple issues complex issues. I believe that if Mr. Kraay would have received my e-mail reply to Mr. Mbrahmbhatt dated may/15, which suggest three possible policies that could be used to support programs for poverty reduction through globalization processes, perhaps he would have quoted my message in a more accurate manner or perhaps he would not have mentioned me in his repply. But I am glad, he did because the disagreements, theoretically and empirically, could be solved very easy through dialogue.

I could critize the relevance of your data, or the relevance of your chosen indicators of globalization or the relevance of the five years you have chosen to base your analysis or the relevance to your analysis to the countries that bare worse of these inequalities, but that is not productive.

Evidence that we live in a Coned World is not hard to find between

countries and within countries, as the vertices of this world could be

summarized as being "asset concentration", "power concentration", and "the poor" assuming that environemtal stakeholders are sharing in the

concentration of assets and power as on average it is said that they are not poor. Working on these conditions, the previous model(EM) while working very well in economic terms has led to a contantly increasing gap between the rich and the poor(R/P Gap) suggesting a positive relationship between economic growth and the rich/poor gap(participants have directly or indirectly used this view),

which can be expressed as follows:

EM = K(R/P Gap), where K > 0

Since globalization(G) is just an expansion of the previous model(EM) and we know that it is still being implemented under the three conditions characterizing this Coned World, then rational expectations suggest that what globalization will do is to extrapolate the impacts of the previous model in an amplified manner, which can be expressed as below:

G(EM) = G[K(R/P Gap)] , where G(EM) > EM and G[K(R/P Gap)] > K(R/P Gap)

One of the advantages of the above view is that the posibility of reaching global growth[G(EM)] by means of reducing the rich and the poor gap(R/P Gap) while keeping K constant exist, and this could be done by slowly making the Coned World either rectangular or square by mean of allowing the poor access to assets and power. This concept can be easily understood by drawing a cone figure inside either a ractagular or square figure, and then see that as the skewed end of the poor starts to flaten, asset concentration and power decrease. Hence, globalization and the R/P Gap could support each other if it is planned and implemented that way. These are my views and I may be wrong, and I

honestly respect your views. I would be happy to be able to extend these view from the sustainability angle when the opportunity comes.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

> On Lucio Munoz's contribution of May 11:

>

> Lucio advances a "CONE" view of globalization, which predicts that

> globalization should raise income inequality. Lucio elaborates at length on this view, but does not subject it to the litmus test that should be applied to all hypotheses - is it consistent with the facts? On this, it is useful to consider the evidence in Figure 4 of briefing paper 3, which graphs changes in openness to international trade against changes in income inequality. Each data point in the graph corresponds to an observation on changes in income inequality and changes in trade over a period of at least five years for a country. The graph contains over 200 such points, reflecting the diverse experiences of 80 developing and industrial countries from all regions of the world. This graph shows a striking absence of any correlation between changes in trade and changes in income inequality. As countries trade more, the evidence in this graph suggests

> that the distribution of income is as likely to improve as to worsen. A careful discussion of the merits and shortcomings of this type of

empirical evidence (and of course there are many) may be more useful to the discussion than a mere reiteration of assertions that > globalization raises inequality.

>

May/18/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: List on FAIR wealth distribution

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Al "

Dear Alfred, it will be a pleasure to receive your e-mails, and exchange views. Most of my contributions have not been posted too, but I have learned not to take that as a negative. My sustainability views suggest that it is rational for dominant views to behave in manners that may appear irrational. Just being able to get this far on these issues of development and poverty should be a cause of joy as free and open minded academic reasonning can lead to changes faster than expected. We just need to be focused and get the ideas out.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz = TRUE

SUSTAINABILITY

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: munoz1@sprint.ca=20

Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:59 PM

Subject: List on FAIR wealth distribution

 

Greetings, Lucio Munoz.

This is to alert you to emails you will be receiving in response to

your offering on the World Bank list on poverty and globalization, and

your reference to "rooted inequalities." At T.P. Institute our

focus is on economic *justice* at the structural level. We contend that

under true economic justice the complete *elimination* of poverty, not

just its reduction, would be one of many favorable results. The emails

we will be sending you shortly were rejected by the World Bank

moderators -- because, we presume, they were too threatening to existing *structures*. Therefore, we will be sending them out ourselves, to people like yourself whose messages *have* been posted. We do so in the hope that we can generate a non-WB list of persons who will seriously address the issue of truly *fair* wealth distribution, so that everyone can benefit in truly fair ways the financial and other benefits from what we call "Our Common-Heritage Wealth."

When you receive these emails we will be hoping for your response,

either to the entire list of those receiving them or to us at Tom Paine

Institute only. Incidentally, between now and the time you begin

receiving the promised emails you can get a strong hint regarding their

content by clicking on links on our Web Site (given below) beginning

with "Natural Capital, Key to Economic Justice" and then moving to the

link called "Envisioning Just/Fair/Humane/Liberating Political/Economic

Structures, Local to Global"

If you do not want to receive these emails please let us know as soon

as possible

Warm greetings,

Alfred

May/19/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Globalization and Liberty: I AM CONFUCED

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: <Mbrahmbhatt@worldbank.org>

Dear Milan, I thought you were going to address the issues generated by your postings academically, but instead you are attacking everybody in general as antiglobalist. My contributions and my exchanges with you show that I am an independent researchers looking for ways to channel globalization efforts in a more poverty friendly manner, which is supposed to be the central goal of this conference and it is the mission of the world bank. Do not attack everybody who disagree with you, convince them academically if you can, that is the best way out. Let's be positive and open minded to create the conditions for serious exchange of ideas. As technology advances, we will need better theories and better results to support those theories, and there

will be for sure more challenges, and it was my undertanding that the BANK has been learning from past experiences/mistakes, at least in terms of the forestry policy, why not on poverty policy. I will pretend I did not read your message.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <Mbrahmbhatt@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:50 PM

Subject: [globalization] Globalization and Liberty: response to Martha Ture on native Alaskans etc

 

>

> Now, of course, our present day anti-globalists do not think of >themselves as bad people, as they pen their half-arsed critiques of >poverty data, paint their faces, and prance around in the streets with >their Giant Puppets. But, despite the profound depths of their >subjective self-approbation, their ideas remain rooted in the worst, >most barbaric and primitive delusions that humanity has ever suffered >under. Genuine progressives will always be irreconcilably opposed to >these icy grasping hands from the grave. Our cause remains as of old: >Liberty! Free Trade! Free Enterprise! (And - need it be said? - >freedom for Sioux to live as they will!)

>

> (And, oh yes, before I forget - this is a personal opinion, not

necessarily shared by the World Bank!!!! )

>

> Milan Brahmbhatt

May/21/2000/FORUM ON FAIR DISTRIBUTION: Openning message

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Al "

Cc: Forum list

Dear Alfred, I imagine that people in this list are interested in a more open and realistic discussion on the topic of How to eliminate, minimize or significantly reduced poverty all over the world, and how

globalization or any other form of development can be used to achieve

that. I believe it is important not just the criticism the current

paradigm to induce improvements leading to the desired poverty goals,

but also the proposition of new or improved proposals. Then, we can

focused on examining the feasibility and reality of new and improved

proposals taken past paradigms and the results from their applications

as the bench mark. However, we need to be open minded as we can not

expect fast change when you do not take the time to lay down your

contra-arguments in equivalent academic fashion as the poverty discourse in my view can be solved by academic means first so that we can not walk around saying that we can not test or predict our poverty related theories due to lack of clear links or data or prolong the resolution of the problem. Sustainability suggest that if you complaint because one element of the system is exploiting you, and then you want to turn around, empower yourself, and past the exploitation to another componente of the system, there will be still a system failure.

The mere reevaluation of policies in most institutions, specially

global institutions(eg. the world bank) indicates that things have not

been working as expected, whether on purpose or not, this is a reality.

The only different alternative view provided in the e-conference of the

worldbank is that of Binary Economics, and my observations on its

limitations or needs for improvements were not posted. I hope people

will bring forward their alterantives on how to achieve better results

than the satus quo.

Alfred, I will try to summarize your proposal for facilitating

discussion:

a) you want that somebody(presumibly a global government) place all

existing natural wealth(original plus improvements) in trust;

b) that this be leased to social and environmental stakeholders only and that the proceedings from the leases be distributed equally to all human beings;

c) this redistribution of benefits will instantly and for ever eliminate poverty

d) somebody(presumibly a global government) should compensate both the

poor for being poor and the rich for private ownership of resources;

e) and you predict that once there is a fair redistribution the rich

will cooperate truely.

In my view, you are proposing as an extreme solution to an extreme

situation, and the theory of the extremes indicates that those who are

in the middle will suffer more and the most. Do we need to burn the

poor more to get them out of poverty?, I think we should not. In my

mind, we need to create a process with a short-term, medium-term,

over-medium term, and long-term that leads to the ideal objective of a

truely fair world. The short term goal is the creation of the WORLD

POVERTY FUND, which could be used to ensure that the priority goal of

globalization is the elimination of poverty at the local level in all

places at the same time; the medium term goal would be to induced and

support, international and local development agents, in achieving

significant redutions in poverty levels; the over-medium term goal could be the attaiment of a permanent minimization of poverty levels; and the long-term goal would be the total elimination of poverty on earth. The World Poverty Fund would use sustainability theory to tight

globalization processes toward the four step poverty elimination program and to incorporate functions such as promotion, monitoring, and accountabiltiy enforcer in a holistic and consistent manner. The World Poverty Fund would use the rich/poverty gap as an indicator of progress instead of economic income per capita measure. This is my view.

With respect to your proposal Alfred, it is not clear to me whether

you are seeking the total elimation of the economy(what would be the

role of the market) or the role of environmental agents as active

components in your model(Do we own biodiversity so we can share on its

value as humans?) or the role of the poor after receiving their shares

of benefits(Can we trust the average poor as good managers) or the role

of the social component(are you intending to create a permanent safety

net?) or the role of the government(are you considering a representative government of all humans as one nation or a mixed government?).

I am interested in what the views of others are in terms of your

proposal or the work done so far by the world bank.

Greetings to all from Vancouver;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 12:46 PM

Subject: Message opening Forum on Fair Wealth Distribution

 

This is the first message of those promised in announcing this Forum

on dealing at the *structural* level with the problem of achieving truly fair distribution of wealth. As promised, it includes a message rejected by the monitors of the World-Bank-sponsored online "Conference on Globalization, Poverty, and Development." It is being sent out to the roughly 150 persons who have not rejected our initial invitation (we have received 4 rejections). Roughly 100 of these have had their

messages posted by the World-Bank monitors. The other 50 are persons

estimated to be interested, based on previous contacts, and who have

been somewhat informed about what these monitors are reporting.

The rejected message, which appears below, speaks for itself. It is

offered for your comments. Your comments may be sent to the entire list, to individuals, or to me at Tom Paine Institute. Any sent to me will be shared with the entire list, unless for some reason it would be

inappropriate to do so or they are off the subject of this Forum. You will see that said rejected message sets forth a vision of what would

constitute a fair distribution of wealth and the financial and other

benefits from it. More complete and more detailed statements can be

found on various links on our URL, given below.

Here, then, with my warm greetings, is the first of the messages which were rejected by the World-Bank monitors:

Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 6:00 PM

Subject: What I "know" about Globalization, Development, and Poverty

 

My name is Alfred F. Andersen. I have been "retired" for several

years. But my mind is more active than ever! I am co-director of Tom

Paine Institute, committed to "sustainable justice for all in both

current and future generations." For more, visit us at

http://csf.colorado.edu/sustainable-justice.

As for what "we know" about "Globalization, Development, and Poverty,

I know, personally, that the major lack in the lives of poor people is

the lack of *wealth*. I experienced the Great Depression in Bridgeport,

Connecticut, USA as a child -- having to sell cookies my mother baked,

and seeing my childhood home taken over in a bank foreclosure. If my

parents had had sufficient wealth they could have not only paid off the

mortgage but invested in other property, and thus could have built

wealth upon wealth as the wealthy elite do all over the world, today

greatly aided by travel in cyberspace.

I also know that the absolutely essential ingredient in all wealth is

*natural* wealth: some combination of land surface; land fertility;

water, minerals, fossil fuels; physical space; cyberspace. Of increasing importance is high-tech *knowledge* of natural patterns and of how, thereby, *natural* wealth can be modified into wealth which is not only more useful in itself but more productive of ever greater wealth -- in the form of homes, factories, machines, computers, robots, and countless "consumer goods."

I also know that the justice to which I am committed requires two

things regarding wealth distribution: (1) that the financial and other

benefits from our common-heritage *natural* wealth should be distributed in some fair way among all the earth's conscious beings; and (2) that the financial and other benefits from any *improvement* on natural wealth (in the form of home, tools, or factory) should go to persons to the extent that each has contributed to that improvement. I conclude from this that natural wealth should *not* be privately owned, and that all improvements on it definitely *should* be privately owned.

Since there is no practical way to divide up natural wealth

(especially today's all-important cyberspace) for general distribution,

natural wealth should all be held in local-to-global Trusts, leased out

at market value, *though for socially and environmentally responsible

use only*, and the financial and other benefits from such leasing

distributed among human and other conscious beings, extending into

future generations. This would not just *reduce* poverty, but put an end to it! Also, given a basic common-heritage income everyone would have leverage for bargaining for truly fair wages. Indeed, such economic justice would inspire fairness in all aspects of life -- crime would become rare, and family and community life would reach an unprecedented level of physical, psychological, and spiritual health. Granted, if such a vision of economic justice is to come about in a just/fair way those who presently have private ownership of our natural wealth must be fairly compensated. Also, time for adjustment to any new arrangement must be permitted. In short, it will take many years to bring about such a just economic structure in ways which themselves are truly just.

But, since the elite-few existing owners of the bulk of our natural

wealth are right now, every day, benefiting from it to an unjust extent

(and thus billions are getting "ripped off") it is only just-fair that

today's victims of this structural injustice be compensated immediately!

One way would be to *increase* safety-net programs rather than decrease

them (i.e., as David Korten suggests, as reported in Barry Coates'

posting). Such programs should be paid for by taxing persons and

corporate bodies to the extent that they have benefited, and continue to benefit, from their private ownership of, and income from, our

*common-heritage* natural wealth. And I predict that the wealthy will

gladly cooperate when they experience even a taste of what it is like to live in a truly just world order. Again, for details, visit our URL,

given below.

Warm greetings, Alfred

May/21/2000/FAIR WEALTH FORUM/Communication: Buarque's proposal

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: " Cristovam"

Dear Christovam, I did received your message from the world bank's

discussion. I think your proposal is very good, but limited to the

education link to poverty only. There is no doubt that if implemented,

it could have very positive short-term and long-term positive impacts on poverty reduction, but from my view point, the poor also has other basic environmental and economic needs that must be addressed at the same time and on a continous bases from generation to generation. My proposal of the need for a WORLD POVERTY FUND is based on the family unit too, but includes a sustainability deal with specific social, economic, and environmental programs that are central to "basic needs" and funding can be done by globalization taxes and local and international debt swapping and family responsibilities similar to those you mentioned are key as well as a set of policies designed to reward those families that behave the best. Once corporations and environmentalist realize that eliminating family poverty is the key, not just personal poverty, to create a strong, but environmental concious consumer everywhere, they will be for it. I would be pleased to exchange ideas and support with you, and if your project goes first globally, it could be the first step toward my idea of the World Poverty Fund under sustainability plans.

However, Christovam, the initial reply from Alfred to my critic to

his view on the fair wealth distribution forum indicates to me that they may not be interested in ideas like ours, but on more radical approaches not even consistent with scientific thought or reality. He sent a personal note after inviting me to post what I thought of his posting to all. Perhaps the world bank or other international organizations later on is the best bet for ideas like yours or mine.

Still I will wait to see what others think on this new forum.

Please, feel free to contact me, and I wish we could do something

together.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Cristovam

To: Lucio Munoz

Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: Message opening Forum on Fair Wealth Distribution

 

Dear Lucio Munoz:

I do not know if you receive this mesage. After reading your last =

mesage, I thought to send it to you.

Best Regards

Cristovam

Dear friends:

First of all I am sorry to write in poor english. I thought it would

be more productive than writing in a good portuguese. I am a teacher at

the University of Brasilia, where I was the Rector, from 1985-89. Now,

beside to keep my teacher position, I am in charge of a NGO called Child Mission, to fight for universal educational for children.

I have been following our debate about globalization and decidds to

recommend for discussion an idea we introduced in Bras=EDlia, during the time I was the governor of Federal District of Brazil/Brasilia, from 1995-1999.

The idea is based on a project we implemented in Brasilia, begin in

January 1995, with the name of BOLSA ESCOLA. Now it is already

implemented in many brazilian cities with a very well developed project

in all Mexico and begin in Ecuador.

The idea is quite simple: if poor children do not study, because they

have to work, let' s pay their family to put them at school, instead of

working. As a matter of fact we are doing with children what we do to

posgraduated studants: paying schollarships do keep them studying its

PHD, instead to go to the labor market. The family has to have all its

children at school and no one of them can miss more than to days classes per month. The Mexican put another condition, the family have to take their children to a doctor once a month. If one of them fails three days classes, the family would not receive the money on that month.

This project is doing an educational revolution every where it is =

implemented. And was evalutated by Unesco, Unicef, IDB, BIRD. But its =

range is bigger than education. It is a good aproach to abolish poverty. First of all because it takes on account a new kind of poverty cicle, instead the economic cycle, a generation cycle: a poor child will be a poor adult whose children will be poor again. If we stop the cycle, through education, we are abolishing poverty on the long term. But, the project has imediate impact on poverty relief. On paying an income to poor familyes everything begins to change around them. We already measured 28 imediate impacts such health, women empowerment, drug reduction, economic growth, etc...

But, the idea I want to discuss is a proposition I have been done for

the last five years, to swap external debt for Bolsa Escola.

If we consider US$40,00 per family per month, world wide, as the

opportunity cost of its children, and the 250 million working children

in the world, according to UNICEF, and three children per family, it

means 83 millions families to be beneficiaries, the global cost to a

worldly Bolsa Escola program would be US$40 billion, it means 13% of the external debt service paid in 1997, or around 0,1% of the world GNP, or 5% of the global cost on weapons. Not so much. But the cost could be shared, half by the international financial system and rich countries governements, and half by each poor country. The total cost will be around 3% of the public costs budget of these countries. Sure, each country has its own data and situation. But the global accountability afford to see the feasibility of the project.I have been taking the idea on international forum, and it begins to be acepted. During his speach on the last Dakar meeting on Education for All, Mr. Kofi Annan did a specific commment recomending the Bolsa Escola project. Many people talked about the idea of a debt for education swap program, and the Bolsa Escola could be a good way to do it: easy to manage and with imediate and long term impacts.

I would like to hear from you about the idea and I am ready to send

data, informantion and even book about the idea.

With great expectation with our debate, Cristovam

May/21/2000/WEALTH DISTRIBUTION FORUM: Communication

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Al "

Dear Alfred, your reply surprise me because my response to your view is

that we need to structure this basic structural change in four steps

through a world institution called the World Poverty Fund based on

sustainability plans. This would ensure a solution for this generation

and the others to come using todays reality as the starting point and

some global taxes and the swapping of a sustainability basic set for

local and international debt. As I told you, the moderators did not

publish, I think, 95% of my contributions, but that is fine with me

because when these ideas go formally out they may review them again. If you do not want me in the forum because I may not agree with you with the methods or approach to reach the same goal, that is fine with me. However, I will wait to see what others think.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: Lucio Munoz

Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 1:34 PM

Subject: Re: Message opening Forum on Fair Wealth Distribution

>The purpose of this list, Lucio Munoz, is not to exchange on how to

>reduce poverty. If that is your main concern I suggest you get off >this list and stay with the World Bank list. The focus here is how to >achieve the fair-sharing of wealth, and its benefits, especially our

>common-heritage wealth, by means of basic "structural" change. In >future submissions to this list please make that the focus.

May/22/2000/WEALTH DISTRIBUTION FORUM

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <MarthaET>

Dear Martha, your message was very appropriate to me as it is not clear what "wealth" means in the message sent by Alfred, and I thought that my posting was appropriate too, but it was not. It seems to me

that Alfred has already decided what to do/how to do the fair wealth

distribution regardless of what other think so there is no point for

discussion, a position still more inflexible than that of the Bank's

moderators to me. I will be in the sidelines from now and on. Thank you for your message.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

MAY/22/2000/WEALTH DISTRIBUTION FORUM

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "versluysen"

Dear Eugene, I sent a message raising similar concerns as you relevant to my expectations with this second forum and providing my critical views to ALfred's posting, and an alternative according to me. He replied personally to me giving signs that he only wants to hear perhaps agreements on his thoughts, and then I received a message that my posting has been not delivered. Did you received my message in response to Alfred's posting?.

Seeing your posting and now seen that you perhaps have been blocked, I

started wondering if all who disagree will also be blocked. I told Alfred that it was ironic that you complaint that your postings are not posted and then you do the same to others. Some of my posting were not posted in the bank discussion, but that is fine with me, I still can interact directly with the individuals posting originally. Any how, as you I will just be in the sidelines as to me this is part of rational behaviour.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 9:40 AM

 

> Greetings to all.

>

> My first attempt to send this failed, and was returened with all >"users unknown". This is a second try. If it is a repetition, I >apologize

> For the past three weeks I much enjoyed the messages posted on the >World Bank's E conference on globalization. The discussion was >reasoned, most people expressed themselves clearly and there was much >to-ing and fro-ing among the contributors, myself included. The >conference also offered opportunities to have one-on-one email >conversations with contributors.

May/22/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Your response to Amitabh Sharma

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>Cc: <SandeepMahajan@worldbank.org>

Dear Sandeep, I undertand your position well and your reliance of the

documents given for discussion to base your case, however, you need to go outside the discussion paper to see things from a different angle. The following points are importante:

a) If your discussion papers and research show that globalization has and will have no impacts on inequalities, why is the bank about to embarque fully in implementing a policy that you know before hand that will be inequality neutral if it main goal of the Bank is TO ERRADICATE POVERTY?;

b) why are you looking to changes in the relative positions of rich and poor in specific countries as the result of globalization impacts?it would be right to do so if you were looking for localization impacts which are driven mostly by local dynamics. If you are interested in looking at the impacts of globalization on the rich and poor in India compare them with the rich and poor in the western countries that are financing globalization in India;

c) if the above is right, it is possible that Swaminathan may have looked at the wrong data in his aim to look at links between globalization and the rich and the poor in india without comparing them instead with the rich and the poor in the countries funding globalization in India(or the foreign corporations changes in assets and profits). I am not surprised that he found that globalization has bypassed everybody, rich and poor in India, as it will not surprise me that globalization will bypass the rich and poor in developing countries on AVERAGE and that is nothing wrong as that is exactly

what globalization, the way it is structured now, is supposed and expected to do, OR NOT?. However, I think that the data that Swaminathan discusses relates more to localization impacts from national conditions, than globalization impacts. But it is possible, that globalization impacts have led to national neutral inequality forces as global profits are transfer somewhere else;

d) why is that for the World Bank and its employees changes in income per capita is a better measure of progress toward reducing poverty than changes in the rich and poor gap? is there any practical or theoretical evidence indicating that per capita income is a better measure than the rich and poor gap?;

e) if the data and evidence indicates that globalization as it is it is

leading to unchanged inequality, the issue moves to how can we ensure that globalization leads to the erradication of poverty?. I think that to do that we may have to go beyond the Bank itself and create A WORLD POVERTY FUND(WPF) directly solely to the erradication of poverty based on Family as a target group and a sustainability plan(social, economic, and environmental) to ensure family basic needs(material and non-material), which could finance its way out by a global sustainability tax and the swap of international and national debt for the implementation of this sustainability plan at the family level world wide on a continuos basis.

The World Poverty Fund would then use the global taxes and the debt funds to implement country plans designed to carry out specific family sustainability packages consistent with local conditions. The impact could be short-term and long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability for this generation and the ones to come in all countries at the same time. The funding and operation of the WPF Fund would adjust a we progress toward the total erradication of poverty.

As you may know I have sent some positive comments to the author of the papers you mention, but they have not reply yet. I would be happy to hear your views on the points above since they are very relevant to your argument to Amitabh Sharma as they may either support or undermine your argument.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <SandeepMahajan@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 1:51 PM

Subject: [globalization] In response to Amitabh Sharma

 

I am Sandeep Mahajan, an economist at the World Bank. I am writing in

response to Amitabh Sharma's contribution "Poor people's view from India (dated 05/15). My response reflects my personal views and should not be attributed to those of the World Bank.

Amitabh Sharma, in his passionate May 15 contribution, begins by hitting the nail on its head by blaming lack of access to education and economic opportunities in the developing world for the continuance of mass-scale poverty. This, in fact, is consistent with a long-held view within the World Bank and other multilaterals that improvements in education and health services, infrastructure, public sector management, financial systems, and business environment are critical in improving a country's growth rate and hence its poverty situation. Unfortunately, he ends this objective analysis rather early and muddles it with unsubstantiated assertions. For example, ….

May/24/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Evidence and Experience

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "W, Keith"

"D. Mebratu"

"T., Martha E."

Dear Keith, very interesting comments. However, your comments about the Tabacco industry and the increase in smoking in developing countries or other areas can be applied to most industries facing tough accountability at home. Based on the notion of "Trash and Keep", industries(corporations)can be classified in four groups or syndromes, where Trash means displaying unmitigating behaviour and Keep means mantaining your home address.

Polluting industries with binding constraints at home will most often

display the "trash and keep symdrom". Notice that home here means any

country or area. This specific symdrom reflects the notion that polluters will tend to relocate pollution activities away from home(trash) while holding tight the home address(keep). These is a syndrom that rationality suggest that all polluting activities will follow increasingly as accountability at home tightens, in one way or another, which has very strong ethical implications because what is harmful in your home is harmful in anybody's else home. Without globalization, this syndrom would be more rare, and with globalization, if unchecked, it will simply just spread.

Sadly, in the short-term and medium term, the globalization of this trash and keep syndrom will help to reduce economic poverty, but will increase social and environmental poverty at the same time. The challenge to the globalization and poverty discourse from my point of view is how to reduce economic, social, and environmental poverty at the same time.

As I mentioned before in other contributions, the creation of a World Poverty Fund based on a basic sustainaility plan targeted to urban and rural families may be the best way to go to ensure that globalization leads to the minimization of the rich and poor gap through time. One of the possible implications of this minimization could be a more sustainable behaviour which may include the possibility of inducing the preference of smaller families and better economic, social, and environemental behaviour world wide.

Please recieve my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Keith W.

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:09 PM

Subject: [globalization] Re: Evidence and experience

> In the US, we rarely REALLY consider the effect advertising has in

>actually constructing us, in our most personal senses of self. Lots of >economists will howl at this, advertising only sells us what we want, >blah blah blah.

> Seems to me the evidence indicates otherwise, people strive to keep >up with the Joneses (the neighbors), yesterdays extras become today's >needs, today's fashions become tomorrow's discards. No, the world has >not followed lockstep into US consumerism, but all the forces that >created US consumerism are fruitfully multiplying across the face of >the globe. This is demonstrated by the fact that the reductions in >cigarette smoking in the US, that have come about by an enormous anti->smoking advertising campaign (as well as incontrovertible science) >have been offset by increasing smoking elsewhere, especially in >developing countries (hey, what does the advertising look like

> out there, anyway? I'd be interested to hear...).

May/25/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Who is in control?plus should the mission of erradication of poverty remain with the world bank?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "tom abeles"

Dear Friends, I totally agree with Tom's comments, which lead me to the

following thoughts:

a) all these years the mission of the world bank has been the erradication of poverty, yet despite of all the money spent on the ground, poverty gaps have been increasing, should not the bank had adjusted its policies a long time ago as soon as it was obvious that the bank mission was not being achieved?Why it can not be done now?;

b) looking at the situation closer it looks to me that it should not be the role of any bank to be given the mission to erradicate poverty as just thinking about combining the terms BANK(money making machines) and POVERTY looks contradictory and these objectives can easily be placed in conflict when as indicated by Tom corporate influences become dominant;

c) I believe that the best way to proceed if we are seriously thinking about using globalization to erradicate poverty is the creation of a WORLD POVERTY FUND based on a basic and ongoing sustainability plan(basic material and non-material social, economic, and environmental needs) targeted to families(rural and urban), and which could be finance with swapping of local and internation debt, technology swapping, and a global poverty tax. These program could be implemented step by steps with four consecutives goals:

first goal(short-term), the estabilization of the rich/poor gap; second

goal(medium term), the reduction of the rich/poor gap; thirdr goal(over

medium term), the miminization of the rich/poor gap; and the final

goal(long-term), the elimination of the rich/poor gap.

What better target than the family, this program could be used to induce preferences for smaller families and perhaps induced negative population growth(as mentioned by Martha T.) on earth for a while while providing the bases for a more responsible social, economic, and environmental behaviour all over the world at the same time. Moreover, a sustainability plan like the above would address the basic needs of the current generation to plans the seeds for future sustainability behaviour;

d) by forming the WORLD POVERTY FUND we can target the issue of poverty head on and leave the world bank to do what it can do the best MAKE MONEY: It would be nice to see if there is a positive relationship between the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and increasing profits at the bank since it began operations, my guess is that there may be.

In conclusion, now seems to be the time to take the world bank mission of erradicating poverty away and the creation of this WORLD POVERTY FUND is a possible way of doing it while the world bank then can focus on what it is good at as claimed: ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY. I would be interested in your opinions about this proposal, which I will be trying to put in more formal details in the coming days.

My warm greetings to all:

Lucio Munoz

Independent Researcher

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: tom abeles

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 6:36 AM

Subject: [globalization] Who is in control?

 

> Looking on these exchanges with over 30 years of international

> consulting/education experience, I am increasingly concerned with the

> focus on the data as presented in the WB report.

>

> In many ways arguing about the "facts" has become a misdirection.

> Herman Daley hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the issue was more in the area of "control", an issue on which all who have

> commented have either overlooked or avoided.

>

> The question is that of national sovereignty. Multinational >corporations and financial interests are increasingly pressuring >countries for "open borders" and the sanctity of business needs over >country interests. With multinationals being invited to sit pare passu >with countries in international decision making, with companies whose >annual profits are greater than many country's GDP and with >corporations able to use the WTO to abrogated national environmental >decisions, is it any wonder that there is concern when the WB and IMF >seem to be hand maidens to developed world industrial policies.

May/25/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: SUMMARY OF TOPIC 3

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this conference. I read carefully your summary of week 3's discussion, and to me it reflects in general terms the wide range of issues raised. I just would like to add the following:

a) to be able to achieve progress in reducing poverty, we should not spend too much energy in trying to find somebody to blame the most as implied at the end of the summary, we should focus on discussing, accepting, and implementing strategies that fits today's realities and therefore, that have a higher potencial to reach a general concensus to tackle the problem head on;

b) at least in my case, even though maybe around 90% of my contributions were not posted, I believe that the ones that were posted had relevance for the discussion in general;

c) while I first felt a little unconfortable to see posting that I

considered relevant not posted, I realize now that the moderation process was also in a general sense appropriate, and fair. I tried to joint a parallel discussion group to discuss the postings that were not posted, hoping more openness, I thought, than with the world bank, but it turned out to be a very bad experience: no freedom to disaggree and to propose alternatives.

I would like to sincerely congratulates the organizers of the conference for such an important step, and I hope that as the discussion narrows down to the best ways to address the problem, then appropiate action will quickly follow.

Thanks to all the participants who took the time to participate directly and indirectly, in one way or another, this shows that as a group, we all care.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <moderator1@worldbank.org>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 2:48 PM

Subject: [globalization] Summary of Topic 3

 

(Moderators' Note: We will distribute later today or tomorrow the French, Spanish and Portuguese translations of the Topic 2 Summary distributed late last week. We apologize for the delay. The translations of this Topic 3 Summary will be available in a few days.)

May/31/2000/Communication: Thanks for contacting me

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <david>

Dear David. I received your message, thank you very much. I just did a quick look at your site and I am happy to see you are doing tangible

things on the ground. I agree with the need to conserve as much as

possible remaining forest, not just tropical forests as you said in the

site there are alternatives to deforestation. However, I think that the alternative to deforestation is what I call PRESERVATION PLUS, not just preservation. If you look at the data I am providing on my site as poverty increases deforestation pressures increases and as ramaining forest areas decreases, they indicate increases pressure on

deforestation. Hence, there is a link between preservation and poverty

which must be addressed to achieve sustainability in my view, otherwise

we are just extrapolating deforestation into the future. We know that

the behaviour of the poor, while it appears irrational to non-poor, it

is rational behaviour specially when there are not alternatives. I

would happily exchange ideas with you and your group as there is a lot

of room for cooperation. As you may know, I am an independent

researcher and the views expressed in my TRUE SUSTAINABILITY SITE AND

THE DEFORESTATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA SITE are my humble means to steer

some positive change, which requires cooperation and networking. I will be presenting very soon some alternative proposals to deforestation and to address poverty, which at least will provide food for thoughts at the local and non-local level.

Greetings;

Lucio