PDF download for State, market and civil society in the era of globalisation, Article Information Meanings of Globalisation - Indian and French Perspective, New Delhi: , The Future of North-South Relations - Conflict or cooperation ?. NGOs BETWEEN STATES, MARKETS, AND CIVIL SOCIETY. During the ronment; and peaceful ethnic, religious, or national relations and as a resistance Organizations similar to NGOs and the debate surrounding the meaning of the term. this broad concept of partnership. Taking the relation between state, market, and civil society as a starting point, three different types of partnerships may be.
However, the majority of these movements limit their opposition within the dominant structures of property and global market relations. This is particularly true since the failure of industrial socialism left activists without a vision of a workable alternative society. The immediate establishment of socialism is no longer even the demand of revolutionary insurgencies.
Broader mass based left political parties have also faced a crisis. These organizations came together by merging numerous political trends and social movements. With historic roots in popular struggles and courageous and legitimate popular leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Lula de Silva, these parties pointed to a post-Bolshevik left which was mass and democratic, but more militant than the tired and compromised social-democratic parties of Europe.
This failure has renewed the debate over political strategies with particular focus on the relationship between social movements and the drive for state power. Adding to the debate has been various government initiated experiments with the market.
Economic reforms in China have led to rapid growth, but the state has guided the process, with Chinese leaders proclaiming their new strategy as market socialism. In Venezuela the government of Hugo Chavez has used co-operatives in a mix economy to promote social justice.
Debates over the market, state and social movements are also fueled by the economic engagement of grassroots organizations occurring throughout the world. This has grown in reaction to the neo-liberal abandonment of welfare and support services as well as the privatization of state industries that led to the lay-off of millions worldwide.
This retreat from state led economics and the resulting social crisis of poverty pushed people to create their own solutions for survival.
Concretely this has meant the development of rural and urban cooperatives, militant land seizures and factory occupations. In addition, there are the powerful historic experiences in the success of Mondragon in Spain and the cooperative movement in northern Italy led by the Italian Communist Party centered in Bologna.
All this has created a broad discussion over the use of markets as a tool for social justice, its relationship to state planning and the role of autonomist movements. Dialectical Democracy As transnational capitalism becomes dominant, alternative globalization projects begin to play prominent oppositional roles.
Resistance based on the old industrial Fordist social relations tend to recede and forms of struggle arising from the new contours of social relations become more visible and viable. This transitional dialectical has two major manifestations. The first takes place at the level of the world system as contradictions within transnational circuits of accumulation; the second set of contradictions takes place within each country as it rearticulate its local social structure for insertion into the global economy.
Conflicts that typify contradictions in global accumulation concern relations between nations and problems faced by transnational capitalists in their efforts to build a global system. These become apparent over issues such as fair trade, access to markets, political rights in determining the policies of global institutions and maintaining sovereignty in the face of transnational corporate power.
Conflicts do not simply pit national class forces against transnational actors, but also contingents of transnational capitalists competing over specific concerns and interests. One important manifestation of the first contradiction has been the growing alliance of Third World globalists in their attempt to gain greater power within the transnational economy and world political bodies.
Their challenge to traditional Western domination is one form of alternative globalization that could lead to a major shift in the world system. Harris, a But the strategy is unlike the twentieth century wars for national liberation or the Bandung era strategy of state led industrialization and import substitution.
Rather it is a struggle for a fair share of profits and trade within the new circuits of global accumulation. Thus the struggle is not a desire to opt out of globalization and form an independent parallel structure, but an attempt to have greater influence within by changing the character and balance of global relationships.
The second contradiction is found within nation states as they struggle to adjust their social and political structures to accommodate globalization. This is conditioned by their own institutions, history and culture, and mediated through local forms of class conflict.
Demands tend to focus on the means of social reproduction, control over state assets, and the protection of our environmental heritage. This covers a wide range of issues including education, health, employment, privatization and the use of natural resources. These contradictions are manifested with particular force between the state, market and civil society. But key to this concept is that both the state and market are necessary for a functioning economy, that an independent civil society is essential for functioning democracy, and that together they constitute an organic and interdependent whole.
One of the great ideological accomplishments of capitalism is the belief that all markets are by definition capitalist. But markets existed before capitalism and certainly forms of post-capitalist markets will also exist.
Another fallacy is the insistence from the traditional left that state directed economic planning is superior and more just than market socialism. But there is simply no historic proof for this position. One can certainly say there were important advances in the Soviet Union, China and other centrally planned economies.
But these ultimately failed to survive and leave us no convincing evidence that state socialism is a better guarantor of equality or success than market socialism; particularly in light of anti-democratic practices by the socialist state.
Nevertheless, many on the left have dedicated themselves to attacking the market and call for its eradication or severe restriction. This has been true of traditional Marxists tied to state-centric forms of socialism, as well as anarchists who demand the end of the state for good measure.
For state orientated Marxists, government is the best site for economic planning and development. But central planning is continually challenged by the corrupting influences of the market where the rule of competition and profits can only end in the exploitation of labor and the rise of capitalist class forces. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union there is general recognition that far greater input from workers at the enterprise level is necessary, but the state is still seen as the guardian against the demon of market deviations.
From the anarchist point-of-view market relations are the basis of social inequality and therefore worker co-operatives must coordinate their activities based on the exchange of equal values and equal efforts without competition or market pricing.
The state should have no role since it can only lead to authoritarian bureaucracy and the destruction of participatory democracy. The essential problem for both these radical strains of thought is their one-sided approach that ignores the historic ties that bind together the state and market in a dialectical relationship.
They resolve the contradiction by attempting to destroy either the market or the state, rather than understanding the transformation of both and their continuing linked relationship.
Both the state and market have necessary economic functions and both present problems and dangers to equality and democracy. Their relationship is dialectical, interconnected and in permanent tension, as well as historically defined by the level of culture, education, technology and class relations.
There can never be a permanent balance or equilibrium because the relationship shifts depending on the needs of society and the demands and level of organization of different class strata. In fact, a dynamic disequilibrium characterizes the relationship, while periods of stability and smooth economic growth should be understood as temporary periods in which contradictions have yet to clearly manifest.
The Three Actors Upon Governance – State, Market and Civil society – Government Essay
Therefore those that make an eternal principal for the dominant role of a single social institution are not only idealistic in their concept of historical process, they also fail to understand the essence of politics is to accept the existence of contradictions and chart a course of progress that seeks to resolve them in a non-antagonistic manner.
For example, the state of the infrastructure, energy sources, schools, health services, information technologies and scientific research are always temporal questions of historic development. In each area the balance of responsibility, planning, funding and work needs to be resolved between the best mix of state and market mechanisms.
In addition, as soon as any policy is implemented it changes the conditions that brought it into existence, therefore shifting the balance between the effectiveness of the market or state.
Policies tend to radiate through each of these interconnected levels with unforeseen consequences, sometimes with effective synergies, sometimes creating problems that create new conflicts and demands.
In building a post-capitalist society the key question becomes how can the market and state be used best to accomplish the social goals decided upon in the political process? In recognizing this we also acknowledge a shifting relationship and emphasis between the state and market that becomes reflected in political struggle and policy. The material and social interests of different class strata will tend to push political solutions that seek greater state control over the market or greater freedom for market forces.
This is the central tension that needs to be accepted as a fundamental aspect of social reality and resolved through non-antagonistic democratic political struggle. Whether we use the Marxist terminology of socialism, the environmental language of sustainability, or a different formulation, democracy needs to encompass the dialectical tension between the state and market and the social interest inherent in each.
By recognizing both these aspects there exist the possibility that the market can limit tendencies toward an authoritarian bureaucracy and state corruption, and that the state can impose limits on market inequalities and prevent the destructive exploitation of labor and the environment. The anarchist argument that the continued existence of the state inherently leads to corruption, or the Marxist argument that the continued existence of the market inevitably lead to capitalism, elevates historical determinism over human agency.
But there is nothing inherent in the structure of the state or market that makes this historical fate, particularly so in post-capitalist society. They thereby abandon dialectics for dogmatism in their defense of ideology, making the suppression of the market or state a predetermined necessity outside of historic context. This leads to the distortion of dialectical democracy and the suppression of institutions and social interests that need to be part of an alternative capitalist society.
Historically this path has lead to conceiving socialism as the victory of one class, or one party, and the disjuncture of democracy from political practice. The market also aims at efficiency, and acts to counter the bureaucratic overcentralization that plagued earlier forms of socialism. What he does accomplish is to conceive of an open relationship between the market and state mediated by a democratic political process.
If the dialectic between the state and market is characterized by dynamic disequilibrium so too is the dialectic between the state and civil society. The only way to contain this tension within the framework of non-antagonistic political struggle is with a flexible and plural democracy. Contradictions must be accepted as a normal functioning of political society in order to maintain social cohesion and prevent the suppression of differences through authoritarian use of state power.
An important lesson can be learned by looking to the American Revolution that enclosed state authority within the framework of institutional checks and balances that separated the three main branches of government into the presidency, the courts and congress.
This was a historic political advance and has been a key element in maintaining constitutional democracy for over years. While space was provided for public input through the Bill of Rights, society was structured as a representative democracy with real power always dominated by the elite. Nonetheless, the concept of checks and balances can be extended to include civil society through the formal inclusion of grassroots organizations in the decision making process that oversees social wealth and assets.
Such an arrangement will extend the space for democracy and create autonomist centers of power. Political struggle over policy direction would certainly take place within these institutions as well as between these institutions and the state, extending the field of political competition. Creating plural political territory can also help avoid the stagnation of ideologies that become trapped in the justification of privilege or cornered by a pope or chairman.
The key is to give institutional expression to civil society in the praxis of power. This concept of checks and balances can also be applied to the relationship between the state and market.
The Three Actors Upon Governance – State, Market and Civil society – Government Essay
By expanding democratic space we open the possibilities for a Gramscian war of position and a transitional period in which oppositional forces can progressively develop institutional power. This would happen in both the political and economic realm, locally as well as globally. The struggle for a new society not only begins in the space of the old, but also continues to consolidate and expand in building the new. Revolutions are too often seen as a total break from the past.
Both the French Revolution and Pol Pot in Cambodia officially reset the calendar to Year One thinking to immediately recreate their worlds. But new class relations need time to take hold and create forms of cultural hegemony that permeate all social relations.
Even after such tremendous upheavals the codification in laws, habits and culture of capitalist relations took years to fully develop. The same should be expected in post-capitalist societies. Social transitions take time, even when punctuated by wars or revolutions. These new political struggles create the mass experience, practice and consciousness that will help determine the future course of global society.
If we hope to develop a relevant theory of social change we need to study the important battles of today that have raised the banner of alternative globalizations. One such battle has been taking place in Bolivia.
Neoliberalism came to Bolivia in with the government privatizing most state owned industries to foreign interests, cutting social services, and all but destroying the once powerful unions. As self-employment, temporary labor and subcontracting grew, wages were cut to half their previous value. The types of resistance that developed in this mass mobilization, and the following political battles over gas resources, are rich examples of alternative forms of democracy and social organization.
Social well-being would be achieved for everyone, or for no one at all. Industrial capitalism had massed workers into concentrated work sites creating a common experience and consciousness expressed through their unions and classed based political parties. Having lost these affiliations and common identities new collective forms arose in civil society based on neighborhood groups, small businessmen and market vendors, rank and file labor groups, peasant and craft unions, and professional and student associations.
The Coordinadora acted as the central node, building a horizontal network of these groups. Each sector was organized into assemblies that met and sent spokespersons to represent their viewpoint in the Coordinadora. After a number of mass mobilizations and intense street battles the government retreated and broke their contract with Bechtel. The Coordinadora had succeeded in creating an autonomist democratic space in civil society based on assembly-style communal politics.
But large collective actions and common decision making is often an aspect of mass, but temporary, social rebellions. The task now was to turn this newly won space into an institutional form with a permanent position in civil society.
Perhaps the way of overcoming this organizational weakness is to consecrate, institutionalize, and symbolically ritualize the local and regional assemblies as institutionalized assemblies of the Coordinadora. Creating more than committees these groups, working with technical staff, solve a multitude of problems arising over services, sanitation, maintenance, environmental concerns and costs.
In addition, as formal ownership of the water reverted back to SEMAPA, the municipal water company, the Coordinadora named the general manager and created room on the executive board for union representatives and professional organizations. The social movement in Cochabamba understood this as a strategic battle, viewing the market as a question of democracy and a space to contest transnational power.
The object is not to simply demand more resources from the state, but to occupy autonomist institutional positions that democratize decision-making power over social wealth. In this manner participatory management over state run services was connected to civil society and popular participation in the economy.
Another important aspect of the Water Wars was breaking free of the culture of cynicism, apathy and defeat. Neoliberalism had achieved ideological hegemony, isolating people by destroying their belief that people could change and manage society. But the successful mass mobilization and victory in Cochabamba created a counter-consciousness that spread throughout Bolivia, helping to mobilize further battles over the recovery of gas resources and the extension of democracy.
This is a vitally important aspect of the war of position, wherein autonomist space creates a new confidence and self-awareness that propels people to organize and become agents of change. But change in social consciousness is a long drawn-out process. Popular organizations always face the danger of becoming an appendage of state clientelism as mass participation withers.
Under such circumstances leaders are often incorporated into the state as local mediators with the power to distribute resources. Another problem is organizations based on specific social sectors often fail to develop lasting solidarity and a united political strategy.
This can result in growing isolation and competition over social resources based solely on their immediate needs. These are dynamics that need to be recognized as points of continuing conflict, particularly by those who tend to portray social movements as the only pure representation of grassroots democracy. In fact, under certain circumstances a popular democratic government may be the best vehicle to maintain a strategic plan for social justice and overcome the petty squabbles that can dominate local and regional groups.
In order to expand counter-hegemonic space from the local to the national level the Coordinadora proposed a Constituent Assembly. The effort here is to reapropriate democracy from a restricted and statist form with an expanded and participatory model. In part it is similar to worker councils or soviets that appeared in the early stages of previous socialist revolutions, before these grassroots structures became absorbed by the state.
But without the existence of a single leading party there is greater emphasis on the independent role of the social movements. But the autonomist strategy does not encompass all the social movements in Bolivia.
Movement To Socialism MAS under the leadership of Evo Morales has a powerful presence and became focused on winning the presidency of the country. MAS developed out of the cocalero struggle against the militarized anti-drug campaign brought to Bolivia by the US. The coca growers symbolized a peasant movement fighting for economic survival, and came to occupy a militant and historical cultural position within Bolivian society. As an important sector in the social movement MAS launched electoral campaigns in that won the second most seats in congress and in the presidential race placed Morales just one percentage point behind winner Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada.
While continuing to take part in the mass social mobilizations Morales concentrated the efforts of MAS on an electoral strategy for power.
With Alvaro Garcia Linera as his running mate, Morales won a historic and decisive victory in December that many saw as the culmination of the mass movements that had forced two governments from office. El Alto, the poor and highly organized community sitting above La Paz, was an important stronghold of Morales support. It is not just what he says.
It is that this is his base and he knows us. A Morales government would be less difficult to move, but it will still be difficult. The lack of a common and coherent political project for the seizure of power is not isolated to Bolivia. In many countries there are clear tensions between those focused on creating autonomous space in civil society and those intent on winning political power by building mass electoral parties.
In Mexico, the Zapatistas have sought to build democratic autonomy without competing for state power. The left-center party was formed in a merger of the Mexican Communist Party, two socialist parties, and the left-wing of the traditional ruling party, the PRI. While millions of Mexican workers and poor mobilized to contest possible electoral fraud, Marcos and the Zapatistas were left standing in silence on the sidelines.
Founded in with the help of liberation theology church activists the MST is focused on the collective struggle for land and cooperative farms, having won 20 million acres forfamilies.
MST members voted in large numbers for the PT when Lula won the presidency, but the organization never joined the Party. As founding member Joao Pedro Stedile explains: From all we have learned from history, we realize that the health of the social movement depends on a large degree of political and ideological independence.
We have always understood that only they who travel on their own feet and think with their own heads can go far. Informal norms have more importance in developing countries for social administration and poverty alleviation given that generally formal institutions are very limited and do not have the necessary structure to carry out its tasks properly Jutting, One of the most significant problems that formal and informal rules have to cope with is to find the way to evolve at the same rate.
Sometimes the application of formal norms are against the beliefs or established moral norms of a certain society. This new norm was imposed in a society where having large families was a very old tradition and has very positive connotations.
The scope of work of institutions is very wide and cover all the economic and social aspects of the individual as personal security, property rights, resource distribution, level of freedom, education, etc. The application of the rules of the game needs the pre-condition of the society acceptance of such norms and of the democratic process.
However, in reality the people who design these rules and who finally apply them through the governance actions are normally a small part of the society in clear advantage respect the rest of the society members. Therefore they have the chance to shape society according to their own interests. Thus depending on their actions cases of tyranny or societies living in most absolute liberty can be found Crukshank, At the present moment the most common approaches are those based on the interactions among state, market and civil society.
Democracy is not just understood as the citizens chance to participate in the electoral system but it also involves a pluralist political and social system, the integrity of the three governance actors, the legitimacy of the decision-making process and the opportunity for public scrutiny of the actions of those who holds the power Archer, Also they should have equal access to a welfare system covering all their basic needs and providing them with a decent quality of life — not just at subsistence levels.
In this utopian model of governance every actor has a task to undertake. Thus, the market should create the necessary conditions for fair trade and competitiviness, as well as to maintain the balance between private and public companies to make sure that everybody has the same chances to access to goods and services. According to Archer the state should be in charge of financial control, good and long-term planning in economy, infrastructure people,…to provide an equal welfare and education system and to offer a judicial system which upholds the law without bias.
An example can be seen in Spain through the continuos outrages committed by the terrorist group ETA against the rest of the Spanish population and the government. They use the arms and threat to impose their rules in a region of the country ideologically divided Vasc Country.
With their actions this group break down the natural interaction which should take place between civil society and state. Also break the consensus between citizens in their claim for a better society. For instance, in the case of the market a set of reasons related to lack of effectiveness in the social and government context can lead to market failure.
Situations of inequality and conflict of interests can be seen when the state benefits -with reduced taxes, privileged access to capital, guaranteed markets, etc- some companies more than others. The lack of a good education system results in gap knowledge in technology and a consequent poor competitiveness. Finally, an ineffective rule of law could be cause of conflicts, different forms of abuse and the detriment of investments as companies ask for transparent policies to reduce financial risks.
In the international sphere Stiglitz explains a case of unfair trade and political power between US and Bolivia. This was widely discussed in one of the most recent Uruguay Round of trade negotiations as the South American country opened its barriers to allow US to control the traffic of cocaine and was almost eradicated the growth of this in the country -even being the only income of many Bolivian citizens.
However, US responded keeping its barriers closed to agricultural products that Bolivian farmers might export. Thus, US used its economic and political power to get better benefits for itself and did not fairly respond to the efforts of Bolivia. Also gives to the three actors of governance the instructions about how they should achieve a more fair society.
But the problem is that even having the instruments and the knowledge to do so too many different interests have to be put in common, which is an utopia in a world where advantage sectors take benefits of the differences of power within societies. A society cannot develop properly without the proper functioning of its formal and informal institutions that at the same time have to be designed and applied according to the needs and beliefs of the citizens, not trying to satisfy just the privileged minorities that dominate the interactions among state, market and civil society.