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

To: "Barbara

Cc: "Toledo/Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Dear Barbara, could you please pass the following comments to Mr. Dunn.

Thanks;

Lucio

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

......................

Dear Mr. Dunn, 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 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 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 economic and the environment 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 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

From: Odo

To: Lucio Munoz Toledo <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Subject: Non-traditional research...

Good day, Lucio!

I did read your paper.

Your conclusions I find they are OK.

I think we had an experience with the RAR+QCR research.

In Parana state, southern Brazil, they selected, trough cluster analysis and principal components of socio-economical and agroecological datas from all regions, 5 characteristic watersheads (under 500). In these the development researchers tried to validate technologies to solve solutions rised by participatory RAR (farmers, extension service, researchers). In case of no validation the base researchers tried to improve the methods and technologies for further validation. When the watershed management, in a participatory way, was OK, then the extension service forwardet these techniques to the other watersheds, in a big state agricultural development programm (on watershed level). Crop rotation, forestry, soil and water conservation practices were the main techniques. Besides socio-economical improvements. The Programm Leader take the ideas from French researchers, who gave big consideration to the social component.

The political component was a big deterrent.

You gave a good theoretical idea, but a reader cannot see this so easy in praxis.

I find that some doubts remain:

1) what is the reference level to a development program?

2) What is development? (what are developing contries?) Increase de

monetary reserve of a contry, or GNP, or the social or life welfare?

I heard that the industrial and financial boom is comming to the end in

the developed contries. Services are at the top. But they are also short lifed. What will remain for the developing contries: to by the waste and litter leaved by the actual economic typhon? Without and ethical change of people (changing money as main goal, to the welfare of people, beeing money only a way to allow this) nothing will be changed of todays situation. So what is development?

3) Research. Agriculture begun on fertile good soils, and spraied to

marginal low fertility problematic soils. Certainly te research methods

for the farmer (mono or difactorial experiments) could not be applied on these new situation, where you have polifactorial inbalances. And from the environmental point of view I do not need research to know that water and soil conservation practices are needed at first, including the forestry component. Also we have to reduce the waste production and accumulation, with pollution of water, air and soils. No research is needed to see that these practices are urgently needed.

?Where do you want to do this research?: on under desertification environments due the missmanagement of water, air and soil? In this case no method will work well!

I did participate in a Evironmental Education Meeting, and could see

clearly two problems: 1) only less then 30% of the areas are considered by people (natural forested environments, and urbanized environments).2) And the more than 70% agricultural environment under a fast degradation process? The promoter of this educational program are people of the cities, with the main political power in hand. But they do not know that they are dealing only with the 10% iceberg top. The disaster is not recognized.

Research methods for these 10% to 30%?????!!!!!

We have to discuse more.

With the best regards, and hope that you will find your best way at UBC,

Odo

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

To: "Odo

Cc: "Toledo/Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

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 reach 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

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

From: Odo Primavesi <odo@cppse.embrapa.br>

To: Lucio Munoz Toledo <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 12:30 PM

Subject: Non-traditional research...

> Good day, Lucio!

>

> I did read your paper.

>

> Your conclusions I find they are OK.

> I think we had an experience with the RAR+QCR research.

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

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

Cc: "David >

Subject: Re: CIMMYT y Patentes (fwd)

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 conocimient o 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 solociona 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 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 decision del Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz

----------

Patentaron la propiedad intelectual de investigaciones

Matilde Perez U.; A unas semanas de que en Alemania se celebre el primer Foro Global de Investigacion Agricola, el Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) -uno de los institutos mas

influyentes de la Revolucion Verde y poseedor de los bancos de germoplasma de maiz y trigo mas importantes del mundo- determino patentar la propiedad intelectual de sus investigaciones. De esa manera termino su critica a esa accion a la que califico como una amenaza al intercambio cientifico.

…

…

From: moderator1@worldbank.org

Subject: [globalization] Welcome!

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

WELCOME TO THE ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE ON GLOBALIZATION, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT

Thank you for subscribing to this online conference, which will run for 4 weeks. Roughly 3000 people from across the globe have already signed up, and we look forward to a lively, thoughtful and informative discussion. Please be sure to read the "Development Forum Rules" you received in the message confirming your subscription, and the "Participation Guidelines" you will receive today in a

separate message.

In four weeks, we obviously cannot cover every issue or settle every

disagreement relative to the impact of globalization on development and poverty. Rather, our aim will be to clarify the dimensions of the debate, the state of our knowledge of the key issues, the main areas of disagreement, and the areas of greatest need for further analysis. In this fashion, we hope to lay the groundwork for a proposed longer series of electronic conferences over the next several months devoted to a more in-depth investigation of the issues. Many have observed that, in the recent public debates on these matters, there has

been a tendency for those with differing views to "talk past each other". The goal of this electronic conference is to chart the dimensions of the debate, so as to permit a longer, more focused and more productive public discussion of these issues in the months ahead.

You are welcome to post messages in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese. While individual messages will not be translated, we will take into account messages in all four languages in our preparation of the weekly discussion summaries, and these summaries will be made available in all four languages.

This discussion will be moderated. This means that the moderating team will review incoming messages for relevance to that week's topic. On days when traffic to the list is especially heavy, we will select a representative group of messages for posting. Priority will be given to participants from developing countries and first-time contributors. Our goal is to ensure that a wide range of thoughtful and critical views are articulated, and that a variety of participants from across the globe have an opportunity to express their thoughts. At the same time, we want to keep the discussion manageable in size so that we don't overwhelm participants with a flood of messages. Our

experience in previous discussions is that participants start to unsubscribe if traffic goes beyond 10-15 message per day.

The themes for the 4 weeks of the discussion are as follows:

Week 1. Globalization, Development and Poverty: what do we know?

This first week will focus on "taking the measure" of the issues; trying to understand better what we know, what we don't know, what the fundamental disagreements are; what some of the underlying assumptions of the debate are.

Week 2: Poverty, Basic Needs, and Development

The second week will focus in particular on the world's poorest and their stake in the debate, particularly by focusing on basic needs (such as food security) and how they relate to globalization and its impact.

Week 3; Modes of Development

Underlying much of the debate about globalization is a set of disagreements about models of growth, consumption and sustainability. The third week will focus on mapping those issues, particularly relating to whether globalization imposes or implies a dominant mode of development.

Week 4: Whose Development? Globalization, Empowerment and the Poor

The fourth week will focus on how globalization shapes and constrains the choices facing nations and communities (and particularly the poor) about their development.

To begin the discussion for Week 1, we will send you separately two short articles representing different views of this week's topic. The first is a recent World Bank Briefing Paper, "What is Globalization?", the first in a recent four-part series on "Assessing Globalization". The series is available at -- http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/pb/globalization/paper1.htm -- and is also linked from the Development Forum site for this discussion. We will share the other three papers in the series with participants in this list in the coming weeks. We will also send you an article by Barry Coates, Director of the World Development Movement, which asks this question "Globalisation, Development and Poverty: what do we know?"

We look forward to a lively discussion, and we thank you for your participation.

Kerry McNamara, World Bank Institute

Kitty Warnock, Panos Institute London

Co-moderators

From: moderator1@worldbank.org

Subject: [globalization] How to Participate

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

HOW TO PARTICIPATE

E-Conference on Globalization, Poverty, and Development

May 1-26, 2000

PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES

- Participants should introduce themselves briefly in their first posting(1-2 lines only)

- Submissions must be relevant to the week's topic with a clear title in the subject line.

- Submissions should generally not exceed 500 words in length

(1-2 pages), ideally mentioning case-studies/observations.

- Each week, the number of contributions from individuals may be

restricted to enable as many different opinions as possible to be posted.

- Do not send attachments or documents. A brief reference to existing

documents, and how participants may obtain them, can be made in your

submission.

- Do not keep the body of the original text in your replies by hitting reply with history. Long messages are costly for those with limited email access.

- When it is appropriate to send a message to an individual, rather then to the entire list, please do so.

* Submissions will be accepted in English, Spanish, French, and

Portugese; however individual messages in the latter 3 languages will not be translated and posted. (For a basic translation of messages, participants could try using the service offered at -- http://www.babelfish.com --Translations of weekly and final summaries, which reflect all submissions, will be available in all four languages.

* Due to the global nature of the debate (different time zones) and the

number of subscribers, contributors should expect short delays in the

posting of their messages.

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

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

Cc: "Toledo/Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>,

"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

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?

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 Dani=E8le 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.

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.

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.

From: "Roger Bowen"

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

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."

The strongest proponents of globalization happen to be the nations having the greatest wealth which have benefitted disproportionately from the process described by Heilbroner. Yet they also happen to be democracies, in many cases, ones that are continuously trying to effect greater social justice. Government is used to reappropriate wealth in order to effect greater social equality even as it enforces the sometimes contrary value of preserving individual freedoms.

I would think that the aim of globalization should resemble this dynamic within capitalist democracies. If so, that requires the empowerment of a United Nations (or the creation of a golbal government) to moderate the least attractive outcomes of globalization according to the values spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

In brief, political will is required to effect social justice from what is otherwise an amoral process called M-C-M', i.e., globalization.

Roger W. Bowen

From: "instituto de educacion y salud"

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

5th may 2000

Querido Lucio,

suspecho with a name like Mu=F1oz, you have to speak a bit of

Spanish???? am I right ??

Thanks for you comments. I am very interesed in this subject, if you

have other material or sources of Information let me know

With more people interesed we will be able to speed up the process to

sustainability .

Cheers

Marion

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."

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 -----

From: Lucio Munoz

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

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.

From: "Roger Bowen" <

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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

>>> "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca> 05/05/00 07:41PM >>>

Dear Mr. Bown, 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."

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 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

>

> >>> "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca> 05/05/00 07:41PM >>>

> Dear Mr. Bown, 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.

>

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

From: clowe@

Subject: Re: [globalization] A genuine debate?

X-UIDL: 1b753fac8610e2530bccf895bfcace75

Dear Lucio,

Thanks for this, it is a helpful way to look at things. Perhaps one way to restate what I was after in relation to what you have said would be that the pro-globalization rhetoric most common in the public debates is expressed as if there is only one path to globalization, which is both inevitable and inherently optimal. Voltaire skewered this sort of thing more than two centuries ago with Dr. Pangloss in Candide: "Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."

Moreover officials concerned go to great lengths to say that their interest is in optimal globalization and benefit for all. I have had several responses either pointing out that implied alternatives in my message are not achieveable at present, or asking me how they could be achieved. This is interesting because I did not actually intend to be proposing anything as such, so much as criticize certain rhetorical claims and try to expose their underlying intellectual sleight of hand, particularly as regards "efficiency," which to mean anything has to be defined with respect to some end or set of ends, and always involves trade-offs with other efficiencies.

So the question of what efficiencies we want to pursue and with what vigor is a moral and political problem and not a technical one, much less a market-mechanical one.

If the officials are not hypocrites they have to face the moral and

political deficiencies of the present mechanisms. If they won't do this, then neither their professed interest in benefit for all nor their professed interest in dialogue can carry much weight.

Obviously I take the point of practicality seriously. In your terms, it seems to me that much of the information coming through on the list

indicates not only that present globalization is "not optimal" but

egregiously and unacceptably sub-optimal, nothing like Pareto-optimality but harmful to many. I think my main practical point would be that what really needs to be debated is how to create mechanisms that allow for much more inclusive and transparent deliberations about the essentially moral and political questions of choices and trade-offs in global integration paths. These political questions are being handled in the most narrow, undemocratic and partial way, behind closed doors, and under the cover of a fiction that they are really matters for technical adjudication. If you look closely at the content of the protests in Seattle and Washington, they were directed not only at "globalization" in general but at the decision-making process and mechanisms in principle, and at specific decision outcomes that show in practice that the process and mechanisms are benefitting a few at the expense of many and are failing in terms of the professed aims of officials and the alleged benefits of the system.

If I understand your message correctly, I suspect we don't disagree much, though you may think me naive. My only defense is that imagining the not immediately possible may have use in confronting spurious arguments that there is no choice and stimulating inquiry into what *is* possible. But perhaps I misunderstand. Anyway, thanks for the response, and I hope you are having as nice weather in Vancouver as we are in Portland -- I love your city.

best,

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 indeveloped countries.

>Greetings;

> Lucio Munoz

> Vancouver, Canada

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

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

To: "Chris Lowe" <clowe@igc.org>

Cc: "Toledo/Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Subject: My postings and the what is globalization article

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 my 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

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

From: "Bayan Tabbara"

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Dear Lucio:

Thanks a lot for your interesting massage. When do you think this system will collapse? What is the alternative? Are we heading to a purely materialistic world with no other values than $$s or will the old value system where people were better off in absolute terms re-emerge? Looking at the new generation, this looks difficult. I feel bad for my kids who will be living in a world dominated by sharks. Do you agree? Here is a copy of the draft report I will be presenting

next month to a meeting on Globalization and outh. Enjoy it. Regards.

Lucio Munoz wrote:

> 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.

From: wfengler@worldbank.org

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

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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, there 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

From: LUIS SANCHEZ >

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

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.

On the other hand, technology is more accessible, thus enabling a larger part of poor populations to have access to this global trends, get informed and acquire both knowledge and know-how. However, there is a series of limitations related to the fact that all contents available

reflect experiences dealing with different realities, for there is an

urgent need to generate local contents in order to capitalize local

experiences and increase local knowledge. In this sense, third world

governments should be more committed to policies towards a more active

promotion of technological development and appropriation in order to

provide the poors with the necessary tools to get inserted in the

globalization aspects related to technology. I do not mean by that that

providing the poor with the necessary tools to surf the net will

help reduce the globalization impacts over vulnerable populations and

hence reduce poverty. Government willingness to respond to the poors'

basic needs will also help not just to reduce globalization's negative

impacts but it will also enhance the abilities of poor communities to

find their opportunities to build, through common sense, better life

conditions for them and their sons and daughters.

If globalization has always been present, it is the right moment to

rethink it and modify it in order to reduce the negative impacts over

vulnerable populations and try new ways to get inserted in the global

markets.

Luis Sanchez

From: "Herman E. Daly" <

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

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.

The IMF-WB are/were chartered at Bretton Woods in 1944 as federations to serve the common interests of their members, which are nation states--not global citizens, not corporations, not NGOs. The present rulers of the Bretton Woods institutions have subverted their historically reasonable and noble charter. They, along with their new partner, the WTO, are now in the service, not of their member nations, but of some ideological abstraction called the global economy. In the clear and honest words of Renato Ruggiero, former director of the WTO, =B3We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy. The new goal is =B3globalization(global economic integration through export-led development, free trade, and especially free capital mobility). In exchange for globalization=B9s fatuous promise of unlimited growth of the single global economy, the cosmopolitan

rulers of the IMF-WTO-WB are quite willing to give up, on our behalf,

hard-won national standards of fair income distribution, decent wages, and national environmental protections. They arrogated this power to themselves under the phoney mandate of global economic integration=B2.

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 global economy 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.

As Nobel economist Ronald Coase told us Firms are islands of central planning in a sea of market relationships. As the islands merge to become larger relative to the remaining sea, in order to =B3compete in the global economy, the within-firm principle of central planning becomes more dominant, replacing the between-firm allocative principle of the market. Nations rely more on external trade rather than internal trustbusting to limit monopoly. At the same time the income distribution within firms has become vastly more unequal, and less subject to market discipline. The ratio of CEO compensation to that of the average worker in the US has passed 400, on its way to infinity. This is a gross subversion of true market principles, as is the dogma that development must be export-led, and require cheap labor, international debt, and unfettered capital mobility. The dogma

also tolerates externalization of environmental costs because that

presumably will be automatically cured by more growth that will eventually make us rich enough to afford the cost of cleaning up-- the =B3environmental Kuznets curve. It is especially ironic that so-called global capitalism should be based so heavily on the drawdown of global natural capital(forests, fisheries, mines, wells, and atmospheric absorptive capacities), falsely accounting their depletion as growing income. The World Bank has made some small efforts to correct national accounts, but does not really take it seriously. GNP has become, in John Ruskin's prescient phrase, "a gilded index of far-reaching ruin". Globalization makes it more far-reaching and more ruinous.

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

>

> Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca> on 05/06/2000 01:33:49 AM

>

> To: Globalization@Lists.Worldbank.Org

> cc: Wolfgang Fengler

>

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

>

> 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.

>

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 global economy 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.

......

From: Haynes Goddard

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

--------------------

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

From: "Desta Mebratu" >

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

Greetings,

It is a bit discouraging and frustrating to hear a Young Professional who have just joined the World Bank defending the failures of SAP in Africa (refer to 'Weak winners and strong losers'). I wonder if the World Bank is geniune on its recent talks about making changes (CDF) if it continues to enrol defenders of the old position.

To be more specific, Wolfgang's remarks about the 'market versus state-led' economies (2nd paragraph)and 'political rather than socio-economic'issues (paragraph 4) indicate how the 'either-or' framework analysis is dominant in our way of thinking. Such a 'reality' exists only in the minds of the reductionist simplifiers. The global reality is much more complex to be defined in terms of balck or white. Even the boundaries between the market and state-led economies falls in the gray zone when one considers the role of the most 'democratic and neo-liberal' state of the developed world as the provider of crucial market signals both as the principal consumer of services and products and legislator/regulator. And yet, we still have experts who preach to African countries about the importance of adopting 'free-market' economy with little or zero intervention from the state.

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.

Finally,I would like to point out that it is those very few countries

(including Mauritius) that have given better attention to the fundamental factors that are faring relatively better in SSA out of the more the thirty eight countries that have undertaken SAP.

Regards,

Desta Mebratu

P.S. To Wolfgang: Despite our differences, I am interested to read your

disseration, if it is possible.

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

From: rmwj@soonernet

My name is Robert Waldrop, 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.

A study of the Development Group for Alternative Policies of 43

countries with IMF structural adjustment programs, 1978-95, found

that unemployment had increased. A second study of 19 countries

found that in 17 of them, the real minimum wage was lower today

than in 1980.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development finds

that common strategies of the poor in meeting the challenges of

globalization have been "to appropriate common property

resources, intensify agriculture on marginal lands, increase

heads of livestock and shorten fallow periods; migrate seasonally

or permanently to cities, towns, agricultural plantations and to

more vulnerable and marginal lands; and have large families in

order to diversify sources of income and labor."

http://iisd.ca/casl/ASALProjectDetails/IISDProjectASAL.htm

2. These strategies generally do not offer long term benefits

for the poor (or for sustainable development). They are evidence

of increasing desperation. Other troubling indicators include:

(1) the increasing number of wars in and among the poor

countries; (2) religious fanaticism and fundamentalism (e.g. the

recent cult murders in Uganda); (3) spontaneous outbreaks of violence against unjust economic structures (such as the seizure of white-owned

farms in Zimbabwe, terrorism against oil company properties in

Nigeria, threats to expropriate corporate properties); (4)

widespread drug abuse, narco-terrorism and delegitimization of

governments (such as Columbia); (5) the millions of displaced

persons and refugees now residing in barrios, shanty-towns, and

other informal settlements on the margins of urban areas; (6) the

growth of outright slavery (in the Sudan, and in the global sex

trade), and increasing problems with de facto slavery via bonded

labor.

When I think of the effects of globalization on the poor in this

new millennium, I am reminded of the connection often made in

European history between the vicious Treaty of Versaille (which

had the effect of impoverishing Germany) and the rise of Nazism.

Making the poor of this world even more miserable and desperate

is not a safe road to peace and prosperity.

3. The "West" is offering only marginal relief for debts, and

what relief has been offered is slow and loaded with so many

conditions that its contributions to bettering the situation is

debatable. The maximum debt relief amounts represent only about

$33 per person with an income of less than $2/day. A spokesman

at the Vatican announced on April 30th that the progress so far

is disappointing: "The initial plan called for a reduction of

$100 billion dollars, but in fact only $11 billion has been

forgiven. 24 countries were supposed to benefit but up to now,

only 5 have benefited from a reduction. If all goes well, there

will be 19 by the end of 2000. Moreover, the debt reduction,

which was supposed be 80%, in fact is only 35-40%. . . The U.S.

Congress has blocked the funds, and the European Union is not

prepared to pay until it first sees the US commitment. "

Statement of Msgr. Diarmuid Martin, Pontifical Council for

Justice and Peace, reported in Zenit News of April 30, 2000.

http://www.zenit.org .

4. Structural adjustment policies have required poor countries

to enact legislation favoring foreign investment, which has often

included lowering the statutory minimum wage, privatizing

industries, repealing workplace regulation laws, and favoring

production for export over production for local needs. Thus, farm

land which could be creating wealth for local distribution and to

build local capacities by growing food for local consumption

raises cash crops for the international market. The wealth thus

created finds its way back to the international economic system

via loan payments and transnational corporations.

http://www.cepr.net/IMF/IMFandsweat.html It's not an exaggeration

to say that there are people in poor countries who go hungry so

that their food can be exported. Just last year, the

international trade system was used to stop European countries

from favoring Caribbean bananas (most of which are grown by small

independent producers) over bananas produced by transnational

corporation plantations in Central America.

5. World Bank projects have forced the displacement of millions

of poor people worldwide. All too often, they end up in worse

circumstances. "Declines in post relocation incomes are

sometimes significant, in certain cases reaching as much as 40

percent for people who were poor even before their displacement."

(World Bank Environmental Department, 1994) The World Bank is

currently funding the resettlement of poor Chinese subsistence

farmers in parts of Tibet. Questions are being raised by the

Banks own Inspection Panel about how this loan is being handled.

Tibetan exile groups have criticized the program as "cultural

genocide." (May 5, 2000, Reuters News Service, "Watchdog slams

loan")

6. Structural adjustment and World Bank projects have harmed the

already fragile environment of poor countries by encouraging

deforestation (which has contributed to flooding in poor

countries), exporting pollution, and lowering local environmental

standards. "Although the [1991 Bank Forest] policy had dual

objectives of conservation of tropical moist forests and tree

planting to meet the basic needs of the poor, Bank influence on

containing rates of deforestation of tropical moist forests has

been negligible in the 20 countries with the most threatened

tropical moist forests." (World Bank Operations Evaluation

Department, November 1999, quoted in Focus on Corporation column

of April 7, 2000).

7. The impact of globalization on health care for the poor has

been severe. In parts of Africa, 25% of the adult population is

infected with the HIV virus, but because of drug patents held by

first world corporations, few of these people are receiving

adequate treatment. Lack of resources for health care (in part

due to interest payments as well as structural adjustment) is

also aggravating the epidemic of turberculosis in poor countries.

According to the WHO, between 2 and 3 million people die each

year of tuberculosis, most of the victims are from poor

countries. Incomplete and inadequate treatment regimens are

contributing to the spread of drug resistant strains of TB.

(Environmental News Network, April 30, 2000, "Tuberculosis on the

Rampage").

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 Waldrop

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 thes 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.

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

From: "Rodney Shakespeare" < >

I am Rodney Shakespeare, binary economist, making my second

contribution to the discussion.

As Herman Daly points out, it is transnational capital that

overwhelmingly benefits from globalization -- not labor, not small

business, not peasant farmers, not the environment and most

certainly not those who, for one reason or another, are unable to

labor. Which should raise the question as to whether the benefits

of capital ownership should, and could, be spread more widely,

perhaps to everyone individually?

I say "should" rather than "does" raise the question because,

at present, very few people seem to comprehend wide individual

capital ownership as a solution to the many problems of the poor

such as providing for basic needs and food security. The

apparent lack of comprehension is possibly due to the

overriding influence of the existing economic paradigm which,

among other things, hides and obfuscates the power and

benefits of capital and capital ownership.

Another reason for the lack of comprehension could be that

people do not think wide capital ownership is achievable. On

this they are wrong: and the techniques for achieving wide

ownership have been developed.

Wide capital ownership can provide for basic need and give

food security to everyone. It will, moreover, undoubtedly

benefit the position of women in the world as well as benefit

the environment. Therefore, I ask participants to this discussion

whether they have considered wide capital ownership as a

possible solution to many serious problems and, if not, why not?

Rodney Shakespeare.

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

Subject: [globalization] Including the poor themselves

From: Daphne Thuvesson

My name is Daphne Thuvesson. I work with a community forestry programme

called Forests, Trees and People as editor of the newsletter.

I liked the comment Mark Hudson made as it clarifies the heart of the

problem. Redistribution is a political issue, economic growth is a technical one. Those in power are not willing to give away their power and that's why they define the problem as a technical one.

If we acknowledge the political nature of the problem of poverty then we must also recognise the need to include the poor themselves in defining the solutions. This includes such email conferences as this one. They have a right to talk for themselves. Without their participation and the mutual learning that can result from this we (the unpoor) will continue to talk about them and forget to include ourselves in the analysis. This is the great dilema of both scholars and development workers - we're great teachers and poor learners.

So the most important mechanism for redistribution is to include the poor in all the discussions we have on this. Does anyone have experiences to share on how to do this?

Sincerely

Daphne

From: Robin Connor <rconnor@cres.anu.edu.au>

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

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

> From: Lucio Munoz <munoz@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>

> Reply-To: Lucio Munoz <munoz@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:01:24 -0700

> To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

> Subject: Which type of man was Tosltoy defining?

>

> Dear Friends, which type of men is Tolstoy refering in this quotation sent by Dr. Goddard? 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: Haynes Goddard >

> 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

>

From: Robin Connor

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

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

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

> From: Lucio Munoz <munoz@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>

> Reply-To: Lucio Munoz <munoz@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:01:24 -0700

> To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

> Subject: Which type of man was Tosltoy defining?

>

> Dear Friends, which type of men is Tolstoy refering in this quotation sent by Dr. Goddard? 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: Haynes Goddard

> 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