<html>
<body>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">Dear frinds,<br>
For those who full of logistic and miss some political analisis, I wanted
to propose you the topic for te future discussion we will have on the
conference: this is old famous "Europeization". There are many
materials written on the topic but what we want take as the basic one or
conceptual enough to be able develop a discussion, it is still a
question. I propose you one text, writtten by young ukrainian sociologits
Alexandr Svetlov who works and lives in Berlin and might take part in our
seminar. I asked him subscribe to our list, so he would be able support a
discussion and at least will be available for any comments. The only
small neuance: he asked don't publish this text nowhere but use just for
spotykach-circle.<br><br>
regards, Olga<br><br>
<br>
Aleksandr Svetlov<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5><b>THE CONCEPT OF
‘EUROPEANIZATION’ AS A PART<br>
GLOBALIZATION<br>
</b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">This work entertains no
claims as to completeness or exhaustiveness of the subject matter. It
shall<br>
better be viewed as an attempt to spot major contemporary trends and
embed them into a broadframed<br>
critique. My arguments to a certain degree will inevitably be built upon
some polemic<br>
sufficiently backed up by factual consideration, designed to give
potential for further analysis. It<br>
will be submitted that ‘Europeanization’, i.e. ‘Westernization’,
‘Globalization’ is a more<br>
controversial and complex process than is often assumed, as it
encompasses turbulent crosscurrents<br>
with not only ‘winners’ but also a substantial amount of ‘losers’. I
submit that subjective<br>
ideological patterns may be imposed upon these issues. But is this
process always beneficial and<br>
just? Or does it take place at all? I would like to qualify the idea of
‘Europeanization’<br>
(Globalization), which seems to be in every one’s mouth nowadays, showing
how a rush towards<br>
‘progress’ is likely to affect our lives and make a case to qualify
it.<br>
Europeanization as a term became an especially popular vogue in Eastern
and Central Europe after<br>
the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the oncoming of institutional, legal,
economic and other<br>
restructuring to match ‘the rest of Europe’. ‘Europeanization’ thus means
a structural adjustment<br>
process of the Central and Eastern European countries economically,
politically, legally and<br>
culturally to the rest of Europe. For Goldsmith, the pattern of
‘Europeanisation’ is closely related to<br>
economic interdependence, which drives national authorities into closer
relationships with each<br>
other, whereas in Benington's view ‘Europeanisation’ means the greater
pluralism in power<br>
relationships.<br>
In East European countries ‘the Europeanization pressure’ came from
beneath, that is, the<br>
electorate, whereas in some republics of the former Soviet Union it was
quasi imposed ‘from<br>
above’, due to the by then established species of Homo Soveticus. In the
West ‘Europeanization as<br>
a term, in my view, often lacks content, since there is no visible way of
making ‘already European’<br>
countries such as France or Germany even more European. But in Eastern
Europe<br>
‘Europeanization’ gained momentum and thus has nowadays validity of its
own, due to the fact of<br>
them being slightly different from Western Europe in historical,
cultural, economic and other terms<br>
and hence having inferiority complex.<br>
I submit that it is much more appropriate to speak of Westernization or
Globalization rather then<br>
‘Europeanization’ for the sake of embracing the whole framework of those
affecting and affected,<br>
that is, those assumed to be Europe by the very definition and those
thriving to become Europe,<br>
though geographically they have always been Europe.<br>
The existence of the European Union (EU), which has legal power over
nation-states, has profound<br>
implications for the national politics of the member-states and aspiring
East European entrants. The<br>
EU creates a different basis for the exercise of political power and
authority. The future members<br>
have to be aware of it. European regulations create an uncertainty and
unexpected possibilities for<br>
the participants. But the creation of a political potency for the whole
of geographical Europe has a<br>
historical significance, though Globalization is nothing new for
Europeans. The particularly<br>
compressed and intense pattern of exchange among them has long been one
of the comparative<br>
advantages that they have enjoyed compared to other regions.<br>
Globalization has economic, political and cultural dimensions, all of
which can have a social<br>
impact. Economic Globalization can be simply defined as a process of
rapid economic integration<br>
between countries. It has been driven, inter alias, by the increasing
liberalization of international<br>
trade, foreign direct investment and free capital flows.<br>
The core premise on which I would like to proceed is the quotation from
Van Tulder:<br>
Globalization means the projection of power by the core entity to shape a
global<br>
trading system and force others into an international division of labor
controlled by<br>
this core entity. It doesn’t pertain to every region. It is induced and
shaped by<br>
political and economic rivalry between great powers, thus it depends on
the rise<br>
and decline of these great powers.<br>
In my opinion, Globalization is a multidimensional process, which
includes technological, legal,<br>
organizational, ideological and economic dimensions. Its origins can be
traced back to the second<br>
half of the nineteenth century when Britain emerged as the financial and
trade leader of a growing<br>
global economy. However, the institutional expression and mechanisms of
the world economy were<br>
set in place only after the end of the Second World War.<br>
According to Modelski, the process of Globalization is a range of waves
coming from frictions<br>
between different civilizations. In my view, Globalization phenomena
imply a special<br>
reorganization of production, inter-dependence between macroeconomies,
mobility, diffusion and<br>
transfer of factors of production. Many agree with Sachs, that
development is often the cause of<br>
rather than the solution to our problems, some of which include the
dissolving family ties, hostile<br>
environment, lack of reliability and predictability.<br>
Robertson argues, that Globalization as a concept refers both to the
compression of the world and<br>
intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole. World Wars,
proliferation of<br>
international, transnational and supranational institutions and attempt
to coordinate ‘global<br>
economy’ played crucial parts in the twofold process of objective and
subjective Globalization.<br>
The facts for Globalization seem to be hard: a sweeping rationalization
and introduction of lean<br>
production are but a few indicators. On the other hand, it may also mean
that the claim of the<br>
Globalization to be universal deserves some reservations. It is submitted
that Globalization means a<br>
one-way expansion of the capitalist system of values and a growing gap
between rich and poor,<br>
whereby the lesser-taxed MNCs get richer at the expense of the labor
force. It also encompasses a<br>
devastating destruction of the environment and a sweeping westernizing of
the whole globe,<br>
whereby traditional cultures disappear and common standardized patterns
of consumption emerge.<br>
Having defined the process of Globalization we shall leave for an impact
consideration.<br>
For developed countries the main concern is a competition of cheaper
imported goods. Countries of<br>
Eastern and Central Europe fear that they may be unable to compete in a
liberalized environment<br>
and that they may become marginalized in the international economy. At
the moment there are<br>
some changes taking place in the economic structure: a shift from mass
production and Fordism to<br>
lean, flexible ‘Toyotaism’, ‘deindustrialization’ and ‘servicization’,
whereby an efficient scale is<br>
slashed to the minimum. The human capital becomes an important factor.
The patterns of skill<br>
requirement changes in labour demands are faster than the labor supply
can adjust. Result is a rising<br>
inequalities in income distribution and long-term unemployment. How much
of inequalities and<br>
unemployment is transitional?<br>
Globalization represents a challenge to the capacity of the state to
formulate and implement<br>
policies. In my view, the process of Globalization is consistent with the
concept of the economic<br>
man and neo-liberal philosophy. I submit that all governments have
nowadays to pay regard to<br>
Globalization, the New Economy and the US economy. But the US economy is
a special case, not<br>
possible to imitate for small countries, due to the technical reasons.
Many attempts of smaller states<br>
to keep up with the current Globalization trend may be destined to
failure. .<br>
European enlargement may pose substantial problems for such concepts as,
say, democracy. One<br>
element that may well determine the future of democracy is whether the
pan-European and national<br>
institutions will prove themselves capable of adapting to new changes.
Democracy has always had a<br>
peculiar relationship with scale. For a long time, it was considered to
be appropriate only for very<br>
small, spatially compact and economically self-sufficient units.
Subsequent "inventions" in voting<br>
procedures, representation, federalism, mass enfranchisement,
proportionality, subsidiarity, checks<br>
and balances, devolution of powers, separation of public and private
spheres, property and civil<br>
rights helped to break this barrier and make a new practice of democracy
compatible with much<br>
larger and more interdependent units. To some, it offers an unprecedented
opportunity to expand<br>
systems of governance and accountability beyond the confines of the
national state; to others, the<br>
threat must be met with protection and exclusion offered by national
democracy.<br>
Baum noted that societies are converging in some respects (economic,
technological) but diverging<br>
in other (social, etc). This makes a case that no country can hide from
the process of Globalization.<br>
Thus, in an increasingly ‘globalized’ world many relations become
‘sharpened’. These include:<br>
i) Relativization of societies;<br>
ii) Relativization of self-identities;<br>
iii) Relativization of citizenship;<br>
iv) Relativization of societal reference;<br>
v) Individual – society problematic;<br>
I am convinced that many societies have embarked on the trip to
we-know-not-where.<br>
People regret now about building nuclear power stations in the 1960s,
they will regret in the same<br>
manner later a current rigid adherence to Globalization. A ‘good’ example
of Globalization may be<br>
the EC regulations, which were a virtual knockout blow to the largely
self-sufficient economies of<br>
most of the European countries.<br>
In my opinion, the Internet technologies, which are said to ‘empower’,
are the most powerful tool in<br>
the hands of financial speculators and global corporations able to
control and adjust at a strike of a<br>
key. Meanwhile biotechnology already enables the enclosure and
commercialization of the internal<br>
wilderness of the gene structure, which will have a profound impact on
agriculture, ecology and<br>
even human rights (Kimbrell).<br>
Often, the press ignores the connection of different crises, and
Globalization causing it. Many<br>
public protests of 1995 in France were condemned but the press did not
report that it was caused by<br>
the ‘single currency agreement’ according to which the government had to
cut expenses drastically.<br>
I submit that the problems of structural engineering, downsizing and
efficiency have to be presented<br>
within their wider social, economic and ecological context. It is
frequently overlooked that the<br>
corporate restructuring is hooked to the imperatives of Globalization.
“Competitiveness” in this<br>
respect means the lowering of wages, “efficiency” is replacing of
employees with machines and<br>
“flattening” is a disposal of middle managers. Lowering of wages while
stock prices soar and<br>
elimination of local social services are the products of the same global
policies. I hold that<br>
restructuring of the world in the name of accelerated global development
designed by corporations<br>
and encouraged by subservient governments will undoubtedly pose a major
problem to<br>
contemporary societies.<br>
Dr. Stiglitz during his lecture given at PAN in Autumn 2000 underlined
some typical economic<br>
mistakes made by states:<br>
i). Stress on fluidity of capital; as a result (by way of example) – up
to $ 2 billion a month was<br>
transferred from Russia and invested in a booming Wall Street
market.<br>
ii) Ignoring the fact that capital growth and poverty usually have a
universally positive correlation.<br>
I think that consolidation of economies leads to creation of global
oligarchic structures, which are<br>
more interested in ‘tunneling’ and personal wealth accumulation than in
the ‘public good’. It is<br>
striking that only 1% of US population possesses around 40% of the
country’s wealth. It is<br>
reasonable to think that a finite earth cannot support an economic system
based on limitless growth.<br>
A system feeding on itself cannot keep eating forever.<br>
According to Morris, ‘the new freedom’ provides corporate players with
capacity to deprive<br>
democratic nation states of their culture, communities, economies and
environment. Guehenno<br>
rightly links emerging global networks with the death of the state
structure and nation states.<br>
Garett submits, that a growing financial integration reduces governments’
ability to pursue<br>
expansionary macroeconomic policies, which leads to convergence of
interest rates and is reflected<br>
in stagnation of some states. The facts available give us to understand
that the Globalization process<br>
is a one-way road with governments effectively disappearing. According to
Boyer, each nation will<br>
resemble a small firm in an ocean of pure and perfect competition. But
this account is flawed, as it<br>
is virtually impossible due to the asymmetries of information, power and
different infrastructures.<br>
I think, Ostry mistakenly holds that a lack of international convergence
gives rise to international<br>
tensions. I see it the other way round: convergence makes the countries
more competitive with their<br>
interests mutually contradictory, interdependent and conflictual.
Convergence is the triumph of<br>
unrestrained market forces, given the passive governments. World Bank’s
loans, for instance, are<br>
granted only to those countries that agree to dismantle their economic
and social structures, and<br>
adopt a new ideology, which according to Bello includes the
following:<br>
i) elimination of price controls and imposition of wage controls;<br>
ii) reduction of social and health programs and privatization of
governmental agencies;<br>
iii) removal of protective tariffs and control over foreign access thus
endangering local industry;<br>
iv) conversion of self-sufficient, small-scale diverse agriculture to
corporate export-oriented<br>
monocultures;<br>
The trans-nationalization creates tensions and contradictions between the
liberal concept of the<br>
modern state, with its emphasis on domestic responsiveness and
accountability, and the economic<br>
imperatives of the global economy. The result is a crisis of authority
arising from the state's<br>
increasing inability to respond to its domestic needs and demands
(Rosenau).<br>
I submit that there are a lot of market failures, which have to be
effectively addressed by the state.<br>
For example, common property resources which otherwise will be
overexploited privately, as well<br>
as public goods (police protection, national defense) and externalities.
The reasons for government<br>
intervention may also include paternalism and imposition of social values
to ensure a fair and<br>
equitable distribution of income and wealth.<br>
According to Schumpeter’s model, all new technological developments once
developed become<br>
available to all. But research on diffusion shows just the opposite,
because the companies keep their<br>
inventions secret; a facilitating structure is required for technology
adoption as well.<br>
The WTO constantly stresses that the new economic arrangements will
produce more than a $ 250<br>
billion expansion of world economic activity with the benefits trickling
down to all of us. In other<br>
words the rising tide will lift all boats. Globalization has a new scale
of the old form. It has a selfpropelling<br>
effect. Barnet describes it as the casino economy ruled by currency
speculators. The new<br>
ideological principles are not that new, they still include the primacy
of economic growth and free<br>
trade in a free market, consumerism and advocacy of uniform worldwide
development reflecting<br>
Western corporate visions. It also includes adoption of the same global
economic model,<br>
homogenization resulting in monoculture, which implies disposal of local
traditions. Very soon<br>
there will be barely a reason to leave home. The present development in
consumption can not<br>
sustain itself. Sachs argues that the only thing worse than the failure
of the present global<br>
development experiment would be its success. Even at its optimum
performance level the long-term<br>
benefits go only to the tiny minority commanding the parade. So it is
only their boats that can be<br>
lifted, all the rest will be on the beach facing the rising tide.<br>
As a matter of principle, the integration process is not unique. In 1950
5% of trade was<br>
international, in 1973 12%, in 1995 16%. Just before WW II the trend was
very similar and before<br>
the WW I the world trade grew by almost 50% per decade. So the
Globalization (Europization) is<br>
not necessarily beneficial to all. Descriptions of Globalization usually
come from its advocates.<br>
Corporate leaders and global trade bureaucracy ensures us that it is
panacea for all ills. But<br>
application of these strategies leads to the current grim situation:
poverty, homelessness, alienation,<br>
violence, anxiety about the future and a near breakdown of the natural
world.<br>
There is also abundance of reasons to rethink the concept of democracy in
respect of its<br>
applicability, because the One Global Nation concept is being seen as
utopia now, mainly due to the<br>
fact that culture is largely perceived as an American conception of
nationality. It ignores the<br>
possibility that other countries may have more deep-seated traditions.
Therefore, opening of the<br>
economy and society may be achieved at a high price. The social and union
consensus can be easily<br>
eroded, as in France in 1995. States thus face a dilemma either to join
the powerful majority and<br>
thus fortify the trend or get cut out of economic development.
Characteristics of Globalization may<br>
include aggressiveness of the driving forces, eruption of nationalism,
fundamentalism as a product<br>
of identity and homogeneity lost by nation states. MNCs, for instance,
can play one state against<br>
another (Renault closing its factories in Belgium and heading for Spain).
States find their social<br>
systems under threat if they don’t bow to stateless corporations. There’s
also a general trend for<br>
devolution of state sovereignty to the local politics (Standsortpolitik)
trying to attract investment,<br>
which means that democracy loses its content and gives way to populism.
Local authorities respond<br>
to the competition by increasing its ability to access public and private
resources. There just<br>
emerges a patterned trend towards competition.<br>
For those underdeveloped there seems to be only one recipe, that is, to
follow the western pattern of<br>
development, which is declared to be the universal law of nature. Its
major criticism is that a<br>
considerable proportion of people are left out with no means. That is the
reason why the popular<br>
word now is an alternative need-oriented development, which encompasses a
more even income<br>
distribution, a better medical care and education, introduction of the
Tobin tax, fair international<br>
trade in raw materials, debt release, and sustainable and balanced
growth.<br>
Globalization resembles a ‘global casino’ of unlimited competition and
predatory capitalism,<br>
described as a magic trick of “invisible hand”. Globalization may be
expressed in other terms as a<br>
process whereby the material misbalance increases. It demonstrates that
‘free trade’ is not that free<br>
at all.<br>
We should really speak about the “Rationalization” of economies and not
Globalization. According<br>
to Khor, the labor-intensive techniques are abandoned for a more capital
intensive and antienvironmental<br>
ways of production. The effects consist in a higher unemployment rate,
environmental<br>
degradation with local economies becoming more dependent upon foreign
capital. It is a<br>
well-known fact that many of unsafe and outdated technologies have been
transferred to the Eastern<br>
Europe. As submitted by Beck, the unification of individual cultures
(McDonaldization) as a side<br>
effect of the Globalization process brings some vehement resistance,
which may eventually take a<br>
very threatening shape. Indeed, people in all parts of the world see
their social environment (inter<br>
alias, attitude to work and values, changing).<br>
As the promise of full employment is still in a distant future, the MNCs
escape political control of<br>
societies. A slogan of the past “what is good for the economy is good for
people” does not hold true<br>
any more. Companies plead for reduction of tax burden for the sake of
better competitiveness on the<br>
world markets. It means that the state receives less money for the social
projects. May has recently<br>
asked asked with a touch of irony: ‘how many employees are still to be
sacked for the full<br>
employment to come true?’ If economic actors refuse to take care of the
societal environment, a<br>
logical question may be put about the very need for existence of the
corporate sector at all. I submit<br>
that a movement towards Globalization is merely an economic experiment
for promotion of some<br>
actors’ interests.<br>
Western investment in Eastern Europe is traditionally considered to have
a positive value. It creates<br>
new work places, increases supply and demand sides of local economies,
improves the balance of<br>
payment and produces an economic growth. But in reality the situation
sometimes seem to be quite<br>
different. The big foreign firms buy local suppliers on the cheap,
introduce lean production and<br>
downsizing, drive other rivals off the market and thus gain a nearly
monopolistic position. The premanufactured<br>
goods would be imported from a third country, production costs left to be
paid by the<br>
state, environmental laws (if any) ignored and huge amount of profits
transferred to ‘tax havens’<br>
(case of Daewoo in the Ukraine). The central point of success of East
Asian ‘tigers’, in spite of the<br>
overall pattern, was keeping of certain legal principles in place, which
ensured the fulfillment of<br>
positive effects; e.g. the obligation on foreign firms to create new
jobs, acquiescence of locally premade<br>
intermediary products, transfer of technologies, etc.<br>
The fundamental base of the globalized economy consists of intensive
economic growth built on<br>
export and accumulation of commodities rather than local needs. That
current state cannot be<br>
sustained for a long time. There is an urgent need to protect communities
and environment. It may<br>
be done by trade unions, environmentalists, human rights groups, farmer
associations and other<br>
activist organization. Another way of separating oneself from the global
economy may lie in the<br>
keeping the local currencies instead of introduction of the Euro, just to
escape from the global<br>
economic grid. According to Goldsmith, a shift towards a more local
direction is mandatory, as it is<br>
utopian to keep up with the speed of development, which denies any
natural limits or social and<br>
economic equity.<br>
As Mander put it, if we look at the international marketplace today, we
see much of the unregulated<br>
and anarchic capitalism that our predecessors saw. But westernization has
been sold to societies as<br>
a panacea. It may safely be concluded, that destruction of national
economies cannot improve<br>
people’s lives. So an assumption that a rising tide will lift all boats
does not necessarily hold true.<br>
The slightest sign of an economic crises will definitely do more harm to
the developed countries’<br>
economies that that of poor, where the touch with simple, self-reliant
and manageable technologies<br>
(which are not dominated by outside forces) has not been lost yet and
people can always lean back<br>
on their traditional way of living. But once dependency on a global
economy comes to life, it<br>
rapidly develops and countries do not have an option of exit any more.
Therefore, a viable<br>
alternative to it may be a return to local, self-sufficient, diversified
small-scale economies.<br>
If the direction we are going is wrong, we have to stop first and then
change direction. But is the<br>
current process stoppable? We must understand that no national
traditions, culture or historical<br>
legacies can restrain market forces by themselves. Berger puts that
insulated economies are<br>
unlikely to survive. But Kosai sees national diversity as a key to
adaptation as countries can learn<br>
from each other. The future of Globalization is likely to be shaped by
growing political opposition<br>
to changes as a response to external pressures. There is an enormous
potential for encouraging<br>
governmental interference, but there is also an enormous potential for
wasteful failures. But at the<br>
moment expectations are bleak for a major break-through from the
Globalization process.<br>
The evidence presented displays a world in transition, as there are
countervailing forces operating<br>
simultaneously at a global and local level. Thus, another trend is
‘Deglobalization’, i.e. attempts to<br>
undo the compression of the world. It sometimes has a negative ring of
“one-worldism”. But in my<br>
opinion, it is much needed, as Globalization has to be modified and made
more balanced.<br>
Bibliography:<br>
Allen, Tim / Thomas, Alan: Poverty and Development in the 1990s. Oxford
University Press, 1992.<br>
Altvater, Elmar / Mahnkopf, B.: Grenzen der Globalisierung. Muenster:
Westpf. Dampfboot, 1996.<br>
Arrow, Kenneth: Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale Univ. Press,
New Haven, 1973.<br>
Barnet, Richard: Global Dreams. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1994.<br>
Beck, Ulrich: Freiheit oder Kapitalismus. Suhkampf, Frankfurt am Main,
1999.<br>
Beck, Ulrich: Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
1997.<br>
Berger. S.: National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca, 1996.<br>
Bello, Walden: Dark Victory: The US and Global Poverty. FF,1999.<br>
Dahrendorf, Ralf : Zu einer Theorie des sozialen Konflikts, in Zap 1971,
p. 108-123.<br>
Dahrendorf, Ralf : Der moderne sozialer Konflikt. Muenchen:dtv,
1992.<br>
Etzioni, Amitai: Jenseits des Egoismus Prinzips. Ein neues Bild von
Wirtschaft, Politik und<br>
Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel, 1994.<br>
Etzioni, Amitai: Die Entdeckung des Gemeinwesens. Frankfurt am Main:
FIS,1995.<br>
Falk, Rainer: Die Asienkrise nach einem Jahr: eine grosse Depression, in
Informationsbrief<br>
Weltwirtschaft und Entwicklung, Nr. 7-8/98.<br>
Friedmann, John: Empowerment.The Politics of Alternative
Development.Cambridge/Oxford,1992.<br>
Fukuyama, Francis: Das Ende der Geschichte. Muenchen: Kindler, 1992.<br>
Galtung, Johan: Eine strukturelle Theorie des Imperialismus, in Senghaas
1972, p. 29-104.<br>
Goodland, Robert: Growth has reached its Limits, in: Mander / Goldsmith
1996, S. 207-217.<br>
Garett, S.: Inc. and Grow Rich!. London, Sage Intl, 1999.<br>
Goldsmith, Edward: The Case Against The Global Economy. S.C.B., San
Francisco, 1996.<br>
Guehenno, J.-M.: The End of the Nation State. Univ. of Minnesota Press,
1995.<br>
Herman, Edward / McChesney, Robert 1997: The Global Media. London:
Cassel.<br>
Hewitt, Tom 1992: Developing Countries 1945-1990, in: Allen / Thomas
1992, p. 221-237.<br>
Hirsch, Joahim 1995: Der nationale Wettbewerbsstaat. Berlin: Edition
ID-Archiv.<br>
Kimbell, Andrew: In <i>Ecologist</i>, Vol. 29, Issue 3.<br>
Khor, Martin 1996: Global Economy and the Third World, in: Mander
1996.<br>
Khor, Martin: in <i>New Internationalist, Apr.1998, Vol. 3000.<br>
</i>Kosai Y.: Japanische Wirtschaft. Oldenbourg, Muenchen, 1997.<br>
Lipsey, Richard: Economics. Routledge Press, London, 1998.<br>
Mander, Jerry: The Case Against the Global Economy. Sierra Club Books,
San Franc. 1996.<br>
May, H.: in <i>Journal of Commerce, vol. 319</i>.<br>
Modelski, George: Leading Sectors and World Powers. University of South
Carolina Press, 1995.<br>
Morris, Tom: True Success: A New Philosophy Of Excellence. Berkley P.G.,
1995.<br>
Ostry, S.: The Post-Cold War Trading System: Who is on First. Univ. of
Chicago, 1997.<br>
Robertson, A.F.: The Big Catch: A Practical Introduction to Development.
Western Press, 1995.<br>
Rosenau, Hartmut: Allversoennung. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993.<br>
Sachs, Jeffrey: Developing Country Debt and the World Economy. Univ. of
Chicago Press, 1988.<br>
Schumpeter, Joseph: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge,
London, 1994.<br>
Van Tulder: in <i>International Relations and Organizations</i>, by
Tooze, Roger, in <i>International<br>
Affaires</i>, Jan. 1997, Vol. 73.<br>
.<br>
</font></body>
</html>