Suchergebnisse

The protests at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle marked a turning point in trade politics. The size and depth of the international coalition that came together to protest the WTO was striking. And then there were the television images and the stunning denouement: Teamsters marching with 'turtles,' tear gas and police charges in the darkness, the collapse of the negotiations. The author of one of the books reviewed here, Jagdish Bhagwati, was in Seattle as an adviser to the WTO's director. While trying to get to the meeting, he found himself 'confronting a tough Chinese Red Guards-style female demonstrator who was blocking my way illegally.' A colleague then 'drew me away from a confrontation that would surely have left me bloodied, saying, `You are the foremost free trader today; we cannot afford to lose you!" Bhagwati's story speaks to several things, including his considerable ego. Most important, though, it captures the embattled state in which mainstream trade economists loyal to free trade doctrines now believe they exist: 'there are not too many out there, fighting the fight for free trade,' Bhagwati worries, 'We need to change that.' Do Irwin and Bhagwati understand that this is what most of the critics believe? I'm afraid not. Both authors characterize the critics as 'anti-globalization.' Although this accurately describes some, it is not true for the majority. Both authors seem to think that the main reason critics are against globalization is that they are anticapitalist and antimarket. Irwin, for example, tells us that for many of these groups, 'Free markets and capitalism are seen as embodying and furthering environmental destruction, male dominance, class oppression, racial intolerance and colonial exploitation.' To characterize most environmental organizations, or most contemporary trade unions, as 'anticapitalist' is absurd, if that means that they are committed to the abolition of capitalism. If the term means that they are critical of the way that capitalism currently operates, the characterization is accurate, but then the authors' summary dismissal of that position becomes puzzling. The critics insist that there are better and worse forms of market economy, that the neoliberal model of regulation toward which we are currently moving (one that expands property rights while ignoring human rights) is worse than feasible alternatives, and therefore, that the current model of global economic regulation can and ought to be changed. Unfortunately, Irwin and Bhagwati, by tilting at anticapitalist windmills, fail to join the real argument. IN THEIR EFFORT to extract free trade from the wider matrix of economic globalization, the authors downplay the degree to which trade deals such as NAFTA and the WTO shape the character of the larger economic system. For example, some of the most novel and important provisions in NAFTA and the WTO--pertaining to investor property rights and the deregulation of financial services--undoubtedly increase international capital mobility. Dani Rodrik has argued that increased international capital mobility could significantly increase the 'price elasticity of the demand for labor.' That is, firms will shift production to other countries in response to smaller and smaller differences in labor costs, other things being equal. This could dampen wage growth not only in the North, but in the South as well. Bhagwati and Irwin both devote considerable effort to exploring how free trade affects wages, yet neither so much as mentions Rodrik's well-known argument. Why not? Free capital mobility is one thing, Bhagwati says, free trade is another. He favors considerably less of the former than we have today, and much more of the latter. But while conceptually distinct, the fact is that both principles are promoted in NAFTA and the WTO. If we want to assess the impacts of these international agreements, we must consider how they affect capital mobility, and how it in turn affects workers, the environment, and so on. Slippage in the way the concept of 'free trade' is employed permits Bhagwati and Irwin to evade this challenge.

Operation Iraqi Freedom began early on 20 March 2003. On 9 April US forces took control of central Baghdad and the Iraq Government fell. Major combat operations ended formally on 1 May 2003, although by 14 April -- when US forces gained control of Tikrit, the last Iraqi city to exhibit organized resistance -- coalition forces had occupied all of Iraq. As of May 2004 the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was still in Iraq, facing resistance from various Iraqi forces, while the role of the USA and the wider international community in rebuilding the country remained deeply contentious. The 2003 Iraq war was, and is likely to remain, one of the most controversial conflicts of modern times. The decision by the world's only superpower to go to war in Iraq without explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council provoked deep divisions within the international community and within states. Controversy surrounded the public justification for the war, in particular the degree and immediacy of the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapon programs and whether the use of force was the most effective approach to dealing with that threat. The war was also controversial because it raised deeper issues of principle and precedent, including whether and under what circumstances the use of force may be a legitimate and effective response to the proliferation of NBC weapons; whether and under what circumstances the removal by force of governments or leaders -- 'regime change' -- may be a legitimate and wise policy; the role of the UN Security Council in arriving at decisions of this kind given the inherent limitations of that body; and the role of the USA in world affairs given its overwhelming power. Supporters of the war can claim that one of the world's cruelest regimes has been brought to an end, that the possibility that that regime might develop a strategically threatening WMD arsenal or supply such weapons to terrorists has been removed, and that new prospects for political change in the Middle East have been generated. Critics can argue that the extent of the WMD threat posed by Iraq -- the primary casus belli -- was greatly exaggerated; that the costs of the war in terms of lives lost, economic outlays and the destabilization of Iraq have been high; and that the fabric of international order has been damaged. The ambiguous outcome of the war -- the successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, the failure to discover evidence of WMD and the serious ongoing post-war problems -- suggests that neither argument has been fully vindicated. The Iraq war and the Bush Administration's formalization of the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare in its 2002 National Security Strategy provoked much debate about whether the USA would engage in similar operations elsewhere in the world-with Iran, North Korea and Syria seen as the most likely targets for US-imposed regime change. The rapid and overwhelming victory of the USA in March-April 2003 appeared to vindicate the view that US military superiority had revolutionized the nature of warfare and to suggest that the Iraq war might be a precedent for similar US actions elsewhere. The subsequent post-war problems faced by the USA, however, showed that the challenges of post-war stabilization may be greater than those of war itself; that the long-term costs, direct and indirect, of regime change may be very great indeed; and that the USA is likely to need wider international support to achieve its objectives. The USA could yet succeed in building a democratic Iraq, defeating those determined to prevent such an outcome and making Iraq a catalyst for democratic change elsewhere in the region. The ongoing violence in Iraq and the continuing disputes between the country's political, religious and ethnic groups could, however, also result in continuing instability within Iraq; the country becoming a failed state or even descending into civil war; and the spill-over of instability into neighboring states. The impact of the Iraq war on WMD proliferation and terrorism is also difficult to assess. Potential proliferators may draw the conclusion that the costs and risks of acquiring WMD have increased significantly, but they may also conclude that the only way to prevent themselves from becoming the victims of regime change is to develop a credible deterrent. Similarly, the Iraq war may have exacerbated the problem of international terrorism by creating a new frontline in Iraq and by fuelling Arab and Islamic resentment. Conversely, by triggering new debate on the political future of the greater Middle East it may also have created a chance to address the deeper causes of radical Islamic terrorism. Adapted from the source document.

The table of contents of the Proceedings is followed by an Introductory Note by John P. Robinson & Kurt Back which states that the 26th AAPOR Conference was held May 19-22, 1971 in Pasadena, Calif. 16 formal sessions & 8 luncheon round-table discussions were held under the general theme 'Public Opinion in a Society under Pressure.' The AAPOR Award for distinguished achievement was presented to Walter Lippmann. A brief history of the Award is given. Richard H. Baxter, A NEW GOAL FOR AAPOR: PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, discusses the relevancy of AAPOR as an org in the context of modern survey res & the increasing depersonalization & massive growth of the res community. The org has made 4 kinds of responses to recent developments of professional growth: (a) high-caliber annual conference programs; (b) the consistently dedicated activity of successive AAPOR Standing Committees on Standards; (c) the encouragement & development of young people having an interest in PO res through the Annual AAPOR Student Competition; (d) the establishment of an ad hoc committee chaired by Barbara Lee-on Soc Concerns. The role of individual AAPOR members as res ombudsmen in their communities is touched upon. The establishment of a professional consultation panel is proposed. ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS presents the following: (1) SOCIAL INDICATORS - Chairman: Raymond A. Bauer (Harvard U, Cambridge, Mass); Donald S. Shoup, 'Social Indicators: Some Possible Futures;' & Peter J. Henriot (Seattle U, Washington), 'Social Indicators: Some Practical Politics.' (2) IMPACT OF SOCIAL RESEARCH ON POLICY DECISIONS - Chairman: Hervert I. Abelson; John P. Robinson (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 'The Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior;' Nathan Caplan (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 'The National Commission on Civil Disorders;' Joseph T. Klapper (Columbia Broadcasting System, New York, NY), 'Observations on the Research Situation Faced by Commissions and Similar Bodies;' Sandar J. Ball-Rokeach (U of Western Ontarto,Toronto), 'The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.' (3) CONSUMERISM: DIRECTIONS AND ISSUES, Chairman: Robert Lavidge: Robert J. Lavidge, 'Introductory Remarks;' Raymond A. Bauer (Harvard U, Cambridge, Mass), 'Consumerism in Perspective;' John S. Coulson, 'A Response to Consumerists.' (4) ESTABLISHMENT ELITES IN A TIME OF CHANGE, Chairman: Robert E. Lee: Victor D. Beardsley, 'Local Leadership: Its Characteristics and Structure;' Ruth Clark, 'Top Corporate Leadership in a Time of Change.' (5) TRANSITIONS IN YOUTH CULTURE: A SPECULATIVE FRAMEWORK, Chairman: Luiz Simmons: Luiz Simmons, 'The Real Generation Gap: A Speculation on the Meaning and Implications of Youth Activism;' Elinor Luire (San Francisco Med Center, Calif), 'Son of the Silent Majority: Intergenerational Perceptions of Youthful Dissent;' David Gottlieb (Pennsylvania State U, University Park), 'Vista, Pepsi, and Poverty.' (8) PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH IN A SOCIETY OF CHANGE AND CRISIS: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW, Chairman: Hope Klapper (New York U, NY) & Fred H. Goldner (Queens Coll, City U of New York), 'Public Opinion and Survey Research: A Poor Mix;' Eric Marder, 'The Five Stages of Survey Research.' (7) MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION, Chairman: Daniel Yankelovich: a Discussion between Yankelovich, Lowell Beck, & William Ruder. (8) THE SILENT MAJORITY AND SOCIAL ISSUES, Chairman: Mervin D. Field, 'Noisy Pluralism vs the Silent Majority;' William E. Bicker (U of California, Berkeley), 'Welfare-the Transition Issue;' Robert A. Levine, 'The Silent Majority: Neither Simple Nor Simple-Minded.' (9) PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH AND THE MEDIA, Chairman: Herbert E. Krugman: Herbert E. Krugman, 'The Television Generation and the New Research Needs;' Scott Ward (Harvard U, Cambridge, Mass), 'Television Advertising and Children: Two Studies.' (10) PRE-ELECTION SURVEYS: HINDSIGHT AND OUTLOOK, Chairman: Sidney Hollander: Sidney Hollander, 'Implications of the 1970 British Fiasco;' Paul Perry, 'The Turnout Problem in Election Surveys;' Charles Kinsolving, 'Political Polling in a Primary: Sample Attrition and Turnout Prediction;' Lawrence Bown, Charles K. Atkin, Kenneth G. Sheinkopf, & Oguz B. Nayman (U of Wisconsin, Madison & Colorado State U, Fort Collins) 'How Voters React to Electronic Political Advertising: An Investigation of the 1970 Election Campaigns in Wisconsin and Colorado.' (11) HOW CAN THE PUBLIC OPINION PROFESSION AND COMMON CAUSE WORK TOGETHER? Chairman: Barbara Lee: A discussion exploring the role res'ers could play vs soc action org's. (12) THE DRUG SCENE: CURRENT RESEARCH, Chairman : Donald L. Kanter (U of Southern California, Los Angeles): Donald L. Kanter, 'Some Aspects of the Broadcast Anti-Drug Program;' David Checkman, 'A Review of Research on the Causes of Drug Abuse or How Not to Get Turned On;' Lawrence H. Geiger, 'Age, Reported Marijuana Use, and Belief in Some Assumed Negative Effects of the Drug;' Glen D. Mellinger, 'Psychotherapeutic Drug Use Among Adults: A Model for Young Drug Users?' Eric Josephson, Paul Haberman, & Anne Zanes (Columbia U, New York, NY), 'High School Drug Behavior: A Methodological Report.' (13) NEW DIREC- TIONS FOR SURVEY RESEARCH METHODS, Chairman: Ronald Gatty (City U of New York, NY): Ronald Gatty, 'New Directions for Survey Research Methods;' William Belson (London Sch of Econ's, England), 'New Perspectives on Traditional Forms of Survey Research and Analysis;' R. Richard Ritt (Pennsylvania State U, University Park), 'Drawing Actionable Inference from Survey Data.' (14) CHANGING IDEALS, VALUES AND BE- LIEFS, Chairman: Emanuel H. Demby, 'The Shock of Future Shock;' Stephen Pittel, 'The Shock Is Now;' George Harris, 'Psychology Today.' (15) SOCIAL RESEARCH TECHNIQUES IN DEFINING HEALTH PROBLEMS, Chairman: Raymond Fink: Raymond Fink, Sam Shapiro, & Conrad Rosenberg, 'Social Research Techniques in the Study of Poverty and Non-Poverty Groups in Multiphasic Health Testing;' Gerald Sparer & Louise Okada, 'Differential Patterns of Health Service Utilization by Poverty Levels in Eight Urban Neighborhoods;' Jorge Segovia & Jack Elinson (Columbia U, New York, NY) 'What Physicians Think about Physicians in Argentina.' (16) STUDENT AWARD PAPERS, Chairman: Harold H. Kassrjian (U of California, Los Angeles): 1st Prize: Marcus Felson (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor), 'The Social Basis of Political Protest: The Wallace Vote in Districts Outside the South;' 2nd Prize: Ted Bradshaw (U of California, Berkeley), 'The Robustness of Correlation in Survey Research: A Data Simulation.' (17) LUNCHEON ROUND TABLES, Chairman: William L. Nicholls II (U of California, Berkeley): Gene N. Levine (U of California, Los Angeles), 'Research on Ethnic and Racial Groups;' Karen E. Page (U of California, Davis), 'The Changing Role of Women in Society: Research in Progress and Prospect;' Thomas S. Robertson (U of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia), 'Adolescent Consumer Socialization;' Joseph Zelan & Joseph Gusfield (U of California, Berkeley & U of California, San Diego), 'Equality and Authority in Higher Education: The Study of Student Power and Participation; Leo Crespi, 'Public Opinion and the Population Crisis;' Helen M. Crossley, 'Honesty with Respondents and Interviewers;' Matilda B. Paisley & William J. Paisley (Stanford U, Calif), 'Nonexperimental Causal Inference;' Francesco Nicosia (U of California, Berkeley), 'Buying Decision Processes by Consumers and Organizations.' Don Cahalan, ANNUAL ADVI- SORY AAPOR BUSINESS MEETING, concluded the convention. M. Maxfield.