http://www.ipe.or.at/ - 
NEWS & ANALYSIS
NEWS & ANALYSIS
Transborder Laboratory for Cooperation from Below (II)
The Economic and Society Trust, Paulo Freire Centre, IPE, and the EU Research Projects Demologos and Kartarsis invited critical social researchers and grassroots activists to an experimental transborder laboratory looking at cooperation from below. Part II.
Global development is generally viewed within the framework of competition only, as can be seen in the focus of EU policy being economic rather than social. This approach was debated and challenged on day two, which opened with a look at competition and cooperation as two forms of social behaviour and how the two interact. Stijn Oosterlynck (Demologos – Catholic University Leuven) used the case study of DHL night flights at Brussels airport to show how large companies can use their geographical flexibility and might to wield power within this competitive framework and how what is essentially a human rights issue was addressed within a socio-economic model without any comment on the appropriateness of this. There had been concern that DHL was operating too many night flights from Brussels airport, which had been causing noise pollution. In 2000, the government introduced a partial ban on night flights. Owing to massive criticism of this decision, this ban was soon retracted and a new set of measures implemented. DHL responded to this by threatening to relocate, which then saw the debate shift to tax payments. Eventually, in 2003, the government decided to cap the number of flights at 25,000 per year. DHL’s response to this was to announce its need to increase the number of flights to 34,000, which successfully undermined this new cap and saw the discussion start anew. Oosterlynck emphasised that what is crucial about this case is the fact that social considerations were squeezed out and economic concerns given priority.
The discussion then moved to look at the nature of competition in Eastern Europe more specifically. Jan Drahokoupil (Economy and Society Trust, Brno) emphasised that FDI contibutes to be a major concern in this region. In the early 1990’s domestic competition dominated in this region, with little interest in FDI, apart from in Hungary and the Czech Republic. In the late 1990’s, the situation was very different, with the Czech Republic even establishing an investment promotion agency with the purpose of attracting FDI. Drahokoupil identified three patterns of FDI in Eastern Europe. The Visegrad four (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) concentrated on domestic industry, whilst the Baltic States promoted a flexible environment along neo-liberal lines, and Slovenia had its own specific arrangements.
Drahokoupil argues that it is often a misconception that lower taxes in Eastern Europe mean lower standards. In actual fact, the situation is more complicated than this. Some investors would rather pay more to stay in Western Europe where different types of activities (such as highly skilled workers) are available. Thus, there is no real competition between East and West. Also, there is sometimes no competition because the value of the activities being offered is not the same. This can be seen in the Baltic States, which offer lower value activities than are to be found in Western Europe. In the Visegrad four, on the other hand, there has been an emergence of similar sectors as in Germany and France and here there has been real competition for investment and thus a lowering of wages in Germany and France as a response.
The implications of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) remain to be properly identified. Drahokoupil raised two central questions - will the value of the investment stay in the country, and are investors here to stay? Later in the seminar, Pavel Franc introduced the problematic legal aspects of FDI, for example when lawyers can get involved they can often be placed under a lot of pressure. As discussed by Drahokoupil, the EU state organises competition, yet there is no vehicle for cooperation. This leads to the articulation of one of the underlying questions of the whole seminar, that is, what kind of EU do its citizens actually want?
Borders are important issues, which is something only recently being acknowledged in South America, owing to the ever-increasing threat of globalisation. Regions are social constructions and so are borders. Moving away from the EU and the WTO, Daniela Coimbra de Souza gave an overview of two examples of regional integration, the CENTROPE region in Europe and the ABC region in Brazil. Both regions are aimed at attracting capital. As she explained, CENTROPE is dominated by mostly Austrian actors and the regional cooperation is pushed for by the EU and financed by it through the structural fund Interreg III-A (50%). These are two new spaces where borders are disappearing, argued Coimbra de Souza, as flows of capital, people and communities increase, but democratic boundaries remain the same. CENTROPE seems to be working only on an investment level, with FDI going to those regions of countries which form part of the transborder space, producing unequal distribution of capital. On the social level, however, there remain very few connections.
The ABC region was selected for industry. The region was pushed for by over one hundred NGOs and trade unions. However, both regions were launched by local governments in order that they could better compete internationally. Regional media, business associations, labour unions and other civil society organisations were assembled in the ABC region, leading to the launch of the Regional Chamber in 1997 which saw regional cooperation between state and civil society, which was not to be found in the CENTROPE region. Indeed, Coimbra de Souza's perception of a present or future (transborder) region was criticised. This was underlined by the fact that those participants in the seminar who came from non-Austrian parts of the CENTROPE region admitted to previously having no knowledge of the region.
Day 3 saw a shift in focus to looking more closely at human rights and action from below. Jan Kratochvil (Human Rights League, Brno) gave a concise overview of the legal aspects of human rights. They fall into three categories: civil, political, and social, with all being universal indivisible and interdependent. Kratochvil explained that social rights are positive and require action from the state. They also require collective complaint (with the exception of special UN mandates which can receive individual complaints). Kratochvil emphasised that human rights are a useful tool for protecting social interests, and his synopsis tied in neatly with other parts of the seminar, particularly Oosterlynck’s contribution.
Len Arthur (Wales Institute for Research into Cooperatives) offered an illuminating insight into the work of cooperatives and stressed the need for social movements to look at social change in both a synchronic and diachronic manner. He argued that many social movements tend to think diachronically, and plan for the future, rather than focusing on now. Arthur proposed that direct action should not be something seen to be within the realm of the right, but rather as something which needs to be tapped into by the left. Indeed, this is already happening, Arthur stressed.
Emancipation could come about through the creation of autonomous social space, Arthur added. He also defined the term of deviant mainstreaming, which is the recognition of the fact that emancipated and autonomous organisations could come into being synchronically, within the mainstream, and survive within this capitalist framework. He gave the example of a coalmine in South Wales which was owned by the workers and a case of an extremely successful cooperative. Despite being a cooperative, the coalmine functioned entirely within capitalist frameworks. Incremental radicalism suggests that emancipation can become more widespread if those organisations which are deviantly mainstream start to network and work with each other and thus move to transgressive contention.
The discussion then moved to look at citizenship and the idea that the state needs to respect and protect human rights and take positive action. The EU constitutional treaty, which was discussed in more detail during the previous days, was generally seen to be a set-back to this. Social movements were considered essential to keep existing governments on their toes.
Milan Sebo (Friends of the Earth, Slovakia) introduced some of the problems facing grassroots movements. After highlighting the benefits which many alliances from below have, such as cooperation with academics, good fundraising and gaining the trust of the communities they work with, Sebo moved on to consider some of the difficulties these organisations face in doing their work. He noted that there is the danger that bigger NGOs can overshadow smaller ones. In addition to this, Sebo pointed out one of the biggest failures of the grassroots community to date, and that is cooperation, particularly international cooperation. Even though most grassroots tend to concentrate on local level issues, the lack of international cooperation hampers their growth and knowledge transfer. However, he seemed hopeful that this would change, with technological advances and the increasing ‘popularity’ of some issues, such as environmental issues.
What became clear over the last day of the conference was the fact that social movements need to readdress the ways in which they think and not to shy away from challenging the status quo. What made this seminar particularly interesting was not only the broad range of topics covered over the three days, but also the varied backgrounds of the participants. This variety generated some productive discussions, with some of the central arguments of the contributions being challenged. The fact that many of the contributions from the experts looked at current issues, such as the reform treaty, made the seminar particularly remarkable.
The discussion then moved to look at the nature of competition in Eastern Europe more specifically. Jan Drahokoupil (Economy and Society Trust, Brno) emphasised that FDI contibutes to be a major concern in this region. In the early 1990’s domestic competition dominated in this region, with little interest in FDI, apart from in Hungary and the Czech Republic. In the late 1990’s, the situation was very different, with the Czech Republic even establishing an investment promotion agency with the purpose of attracting FDI. Drahokoupil identified three patterns of FDI in Eastern Europe. The Visegrad four (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) concentrated on domestic industry, whilst the Baltic States promoted a flexible environment along neo-liberal lines, and Slovenia had its own specific arrangements.
Drahokoupil argues that it is often a misconception that lower taxes in Eastern Europe mean lower standards. In actual fact, the situation is more complicated than this. Some investors would rather pay more to stay in Western Europe where different types of activities (such as highly skilled workers) are available. Thus, there is no real competition between East and West. Also, there is sometimes no competition because the value of the activities being offered is not the same. This can be seen in the Baltic States, which offer lower value activities than are to be found in Western Europe. In the Visegrad four, on the other hand, there has been an emergence of similar sectors as in Germany and France and here there has been real competition for investment and thus a lowering of wages in Germany and France as a response.
The implications of FDI
The implications of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) remain to be properly identified. Drahokoupil raised two central questions - will the value of the investment stay in the country, and are investors here to stay? Later in the seminar, Pavel Franc introduced the problematic legal aspects of FDI, for example when lawyers can get involved they can often be placed under a lot of pressure. As discussed by Drahokoupil, the EU state organises competition, yet there is no vehicle for cooperation. This leads to the articulation of one of the underlying questions of the whole seminar, that is, what kind of EU do its citizens actually want?
Borders
Borders are important issues, which is something only recently being acknowledged in South America, owing to the ever-increasing threat of globalisation. Regions are social constructions and so are borders. Moving away from the EU and the WTO, Daniela Coimbra de Souza gave an overview of two examples of regional integration, the CENTROPE region in Europe and the ABC region in Brazil. Both regions are aimed at attracting capital. As she explained, CENTROPE is dominated by mostly Austrian actors and the regional cooperation is pushed for by the EU and financed by it through the structural fund Interreg III-A (50%). These are two new spaces where borders are disappearing, argued Coimbra de Souza, as flows of capital, people and communities increase, but democratic boundaries remain the same. CENTROPE seems to be working only on an investment level, with FDI going to those regions of countries which form part of the transborder space, producing unequal distribution of capital. On the social level, however, there remain very few connections.
The ABC region was selected for industry. The region was pushed for by over one hundred NGOs and trade unions. However, both regions were launched by local governments in order that they could better compete internationally. Regional media, business associations, labour unions and other civil society organisations were assembled in the ABC region, leading to the launch of the Regional Chamber in 1997 which saw regional cooperation between state and civil society, which was not to be found in the CENTROPE region. Indeed, Coimbra de Souza's perception of a present or future (transborder) region was criticised. This was underlined by the fact that those participants in the seminar who came from non-Austrian parts of the CENTROPE region admitted to previously having no knowledge of the region.
Human Rights
Day 3 saw a shift in focus to looking more closely at human rights and action from below. Jan Kratochvil (Human Rights League, Brno) gave a concise overview of the legal aspects of human rights. They fall into three categories: civil, political, and social, with all being universal indivisible and interdependent. Kratochvil explained that social rights are positive and require action from the state. They also require collective complaint (with the exception of special UN mandates which can receive individual complaints). Kratochvil emphasised that human rights are a useful tool for protecting social interests, and his synopsis tied in neatly with other parts of the seminar, particularly Oosterlynck’s contribution.
Len Arthur (Wales Institute for Research into Cooperatives) offered an illuminating insight into the work of cooperatives and stressed the need for social movements to look at social change in both a synchronic and diachronic manner. He argued that many social movements tend to think diachronically, and plan for the future, rather than focusing on now. Arthur proposed that direct action should not be something seen to be within the realm of the right, but rather as something which needs to be tapped into by the left. Indeed, this is already happening, Arthur stressed.
Emancipation could come about through the creation of autonomous social space, Arthur added. He also defined the term of deviant mainstreaming, which is the recognition of the fact that emancipated and autonomous organisations could come into being synchronically, within the mainstream, and survive within this capitalist framework. He gave the example of a coalmine in South Wales which was owned by the workers and a case of an extremely successful cooperative. Despite being a cooperative, the coalmine functioned entirely within capitalist frameworks. Incremental radicalism suggests that emancipation can become more widespread if those organisations which are deviantly mainstream start to network and work with each other and thus move to transgressive contention.
The discussion then moved to look at citizenship and the idea that the state needs to respect and protect human rights and take positive action. The EU constitutional treaty, which was discussed in more detail during the previous days, was generally seen to be a set-back to this. Social movements were considered essential to keep existing governments on their toes.
Milan Sebo (Friends of the Earth, Slovakia) introduced some of the problems facing grassroots movements. After highlighting the benefits which many alliances from below have, such as cooperation with academics, good fundraising and gaining the trust of the communities they work with, Sebo moved on to consider some of the difficulties these organisations face in doing their work. He noted that there is the danger that bigger NGOs can overshadow smaller ones. In addition to this, Sebo pointed out one of the biggest failures of the grassroots community to date, and that is cooperation, particularly international cooperation. Even though most grassroots tend to concentrate on local level issues, the lack of international cooperation hampers their growth and knowledge transfer. However, he seemed hopeful that this would change, with technological advances and the increasing ‘popularity’ of some issues, such as environmental issues.
What became clear over the last day of the conference was the fact that social movements need to readdress the ways in which they think and not to shy away from challenging the status quo. What made this seminar particularly interesting was not only the broad range of topics covered over the three days, but also the varied backgrounds of the participants. This variety generated some productive discussions, with some of the central arguments of the contributions being challenged. The fact that many of the contributions from the experts looked at current issues, such as the reform treaty, made the seminar particularly remarkable.