|
Sabri, My response to this question is conditioned by of course being a Canadian and a long term analyst of regional disparities in the country, and my past 15 years chronicalling the transition in Slovenia. Indeed, my involvement in the former Yugoslavia arose out of interest in the similarity of uneven development in Canada (albeit at a much lower level of disparity) and that in Yugoslavia. Combined with cultural/ethnic differences both have/had separatist provinces/republics and federal governments who have tried to paper over the cracks. In both cases, the ultimate federal response has been to abrogate responsibility for regional economies, much more in Yugoslavia than in Canada, with such devastating results. The policy that both governments attempted to use was to redirect/enduce/bribe capital to move to less developed regions. This was only possible in Yugo by the federal government since under self-management (S-M) there was no incentive for individual enterprises to do so. The collapse of the federal government's economic role (and policy) guaranteed that any reformed Yugo would merely become at best a free trade region which would, in usual market fashion, merely exacerbate regional disparities though it would strengthen the position of the most developed regions, particularly Slovenia which acted as a strong incentive for Slovenia (and Croatia) to secede. The same would have been true of Canada, IMO, in that Ontario would have gained at the expense of Quebec had the separatists been successful. However, what I am suggesting is that peak oil/global warming may have changed that whole dynamic (assuming Kunstler, et al, are correct) in that it threatens inter-regional trade and capital movements because the increasing cost of transportation is throwing up rising "tarrif" barriers and rising costs of production mean that (energy assisted) mass production which is the basis of neo-liberal globalism, is becoming less feasible. (See also John Ralston Saul, "The End of Globalism") -- or in more value laden terms, the end of monopoly capitalism as we know it and the rise of local, 'competitive' capitalism, regulation of which must come at the local/regional level, even perhaps in terms of monetary policy and trade policy. This is the core of my argument for suggesting we are looking at the rise of "local" (nation) states -- optimal economic regions, defining optimal in terms of social structures or regimes of accumulation. (By the way, there is a separatist group in Vermont which is making the same argument for breaking up the US -- i.e. that these large, multi-regional mega states are no longer governable nor efficient economically.) If there is any truth in this argument, then we have to ask the question, what supercedes the existing nation states and what supercedes the inter-national rules now made up of a complex web of international institutions, controlled for the most part by the existing US and its subordinate states (in particular, Britain, Australia, Canada), neo-liberal international treaties and economic policy institutions (IMF, WB, WTO, NAFTA, etc.), and the big-power controlled and increasingly neo-liberal United Nations? I do not have any ready answers. Paul Sabri Oncu wrote: Dear Paul, The clause "our planet is shrinking" was not mine but Peter's and I am not sure what exactly he meant by that. What I agreed with him was this, probably not paying attention to the first part: |
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 10/19/05
