[PEN-L:10311] New E-Mail Address
Greetings, Please note: effective immediately my new e-mail address is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lowercase) Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10313] Call for Papers, CALACS/CAMS
CALL FOR PAPERS to the Joint Conference of the Canadian Association for Latin American and Caribbean Studies (CALACS) (XXVIII Annual Congress) and the Canadian Association for Mexican Studies (CAMS) (Third International Congress) March 19-22, 1998 Simon Fraser University Burnaby, British Columbia Canada The 1998 Joint Conference of CALACS and CAMS invites proposals for papers and panels in all areas of Latin American and Caribbean scholarship. The conference will bring together academics, students, public officials, media, business people, and NGO personnel from Canada and other countries, and is open to the general public. Participation from Latin America and the Caribbean is particularly welcome. The conference will take place on the campus of Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, British Columbia, in the Vancouver metropolitan area. CONFERENCE THEME: "Latin America: Moving Beyond Neoliberalism." Papers are invited in all areas relevant to the understanding of historical and contemporary Latin America and the Caribbean. The conference organizers especially invite papers and panels that reflect on the social, cultural and economic transitions within Latin America and the Caribbean as the region moves beyond the immediate changes wrought by neoliberalism. This includes studies of historical and comparative parallels. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: Proposals for papers and panels should be submitted in two copies, one to the most appropriate Section Head and one to the Program Coordinator at Simon Fraser University, Dr. Conrad Herold (see addresses below). NOTE: If two or more Section Heads seem appropriate to the topic of your proposal, send the proposal to only one of them. If no Section Head seems appropriate, send the two copies of your proposal to the Program Coordinator. PANELS: The program committee strongly encourages proposals for complete panels. Panel sessions should be planned to last one and a half hours and consist of a chairperson, 3 to 4 presenters, and a discussant (one individual may serve in two roles). Please use the attached form (or submit the same information appropriately structured). Send in two copies of your proposal, one to the most appropriate Section Head and one to the Program Coordinator. PAPERS: Please use the attached form, including all the requested information. Send in two copies of your complete proposal, one to the most appropriate Section Head and one to the Program Coordinator. DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: Please make sure your completed proposals are received by both the Section Head and the Program Coordinator by October 1, 1997. Proposals received after that deadline will be considered according to space availability. WORKING LANGUAGES: English, French, Portuguese and Spanish (translation not provided). DEADLINE FOR COMPLETED PAPERS: Completed papers should be available for distribution to discussants by February 2, 1998. CALACS/CAMS MEMBERSHIP AND CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: Please note that everyone who appears on the CALACS/CAMS 1998 conference program must be a member in good standing of either CALACS or CAMS (or both) and must register for the conference. Association membership forms and conference registration materials will be sent to prospective participants at a later date. The conference registration fee can be waived only for participants who are not residents of Canada or the U.S. HOTEL RESERVATIONS: Participants may book their own reservations at the Barclay Hotel, a small European-style hotel with reasonable rates in the heart of downtown Vancouver. The Conference will provide a daily shuttle service between the Barclay Hotel and the Simon Fraser University campus. The Barclay Hotel is located at: 1348 Robson Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 1C5 Canada. Telephone: (604) 688-8850 Fax: (604) 688-2434. PROGRAM COORDINATOR: Dr. Conrad M. Herold Latin American Studies Program Simon Fraser University University Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5A 1S6 Tel.: (604) 291-5426 Fax: (604) 291-4989 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SECTION HEADS: Political Economy/Economics/Economic Integration Dr. Conrad M. Herold Latin American Studies Program Simon Fraser University University Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5A 1S6 Tel.: (604) 291-5426 Fax: (604) 291-4989 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Politics Dr. Fred Judson Department of Political Science 10-16 H. M. Tory Building University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2H4 Tel.: (403) 492-0958 Fax: (403) 492-2586 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Development/Environment Dr. Fred Judson Department of Political Science 10-16 H. M. Tory Building University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2H4 Tel.: (403) 492-0958 Fax: (403) 492-2586 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agriculture/Rural and Agrarian Issues/Peasantry Dr. Harry Diaz
[PEN-L:10314] Plans of Mice and Men
W. Lear said, I note that Max seems to be ignoring what I write, perhaps because it is so devastating---or perhaps because I'm just ignorant and annoying. I'll comment on a few things and let Jim reply to the rest. If I was devastated I think I would know it. As a matter of fact, you have been annoying, partly because your remarks have verged on ad hominem, but mostly because I have found them hard to follow. * that individuals and organizations will act much more selflessly under socialist democracy; Again, I have posted quite a bit on this subject, which Max ignores. All I remember is a quote from JS Mill and a remark without accompanying support that in a developmental process selflessness could grow. By contrast, one could imagine that with time, interests group will develop and flourish, making for less broad-mindedness rather than more. In place of the propaganda of capital owners we could have that of other groups. . . . The buried implication seems to be that unbridled democracy is a good, in and of itself or for its own sake. To me such a premise is moralistic and ideological, rather than analytical. There is no such "buried implication", rather an explicit claim that the right to self-determination (democracy) is a good in and of itself, and it is the burden of those who would deny democracy, in any context, to show how it is positively a hazard . . . I would say it is the burden of marginalized types, including myself, to show that a major change in governance, namely subjecting allocation decisions to some kind of democratic process, is to be preferred to the status quo. Furthermore, the idea that democracy is good in and of itself still begs the question of what an economist would advise citizens to do under democratic planning, something about which little has been said here. If economics, radical or otherwise, has anything to say about the right plan, then I submit that the nature of this plan has something to do with the democratic structures, or lack thereof, that are built to facilitate the determination of such a plan. Tom said: qualms Max has about democratic (by definition) planning. I'm also sure Max is no laissez-faire lunatic. The reason nobody has offered a solution to the allocation problem is because there is no solution. . . . As long as the nature of my lunacy is correctly described, I'm fine. . . . There is no solution on paper in the sense of a complete description of the economy, but there is in the sense of arrangements that yield an outcome. These arrangements and outcomes can be described at some level of generality. For instance, even Soviet planning worked on some level for some time. I fail to see, or appreciate at least, how the statements of others speak to the issue of what arrangements -- institutions, assignments of property rights, etc. -- leavened by democracy facilitate planning. What I've gotten are appeals to the potential for cultural advance, and the use of markets to distribute output coming out of a black box. Tom again: It may sound like a quaint idea, but wasn't the whole notion of God (and gods) concocted to deal with this problem of the mystery of origins -- namely creating something out of nothing, or something new out of something completely different? If so, the deity being summoned here to solve the Economic Problem is democracy. Infideliously yours, MBS == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions here do not necessarily represent the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. ===
[PEN-L:10317] Bill Burgess Misinformation
A quick check of th World Fact Book shows that, of all the major industrial (G7 and OECD) countries, Canada has the lowest percent of military expenditure as % of GDP with one exception, Japan. (Canada, 1.6%: Japan 1.0 %). Perhaps this is not insignificant as I suggested in my post, but it is surely minimal and I would argue virtually a minimal level necessary for air-sea rescue, coastal and fishery servailance, and contribution to peace keeping. I gather from Bill's comments that he thinks that Canada's peace keeping efforts are "imperialistic". Well, perhaps he might make his point in one specific case or another, but I would like to see him defend this position in Cyprus, Bosnia and/ or Haiti. I am not a militarist (though I spent 5 years in the military), but I think a lot of the criticism of the military is a crock, based on misinformation on what they can, and do, do. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:10316] Re: Re EU
I agree with Sid that NAFTA is far more than a trade group. It has, from its inception, been structured to squelch local agreements under the name of trade and supercede democratically elected government bodies. My only position at the beginning of all this was that the EU was not as dictatorial as NAFTA. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. Even prior to NAFTA, US businesses moving into Mexico began destroying local arrangements. For example, the first auto plants to open in the north of Mexico were all non-union while southern Mexican auto plants had all been unionized. The new plants were used to break up the unions in southern Mexico--benefitting capitalists on both sides of the border. It is these kinds of arrangements which NAFTA has formalized. m Trevor (and others): what does it mean to say that "NAFTA is just a trade group"? NAFTA, the CAnada-US FTA, the WTO and other such arrangements impose a set of restrictions on countries' ability to regulate the behaviour of capital. I'm very uncomfortable with the (oft-repeated) proposition that NAFTA's simply about trade. It's one of the corner stones of neoliberalism on the world stage today. Sid In reply to Maggie, I'm not saying that international trade groups like the EU and NAFTA can be turned to progressive purposes. I think that the EU and NAFTA are quite different types of initiative. NAFTA is just a trade group, and I do not see any progressive possibilities in it. As far as the EU is concerned, I do not consider it to be just a trade group - it is precisely the political dimension that make it different from NAFTA; also I do not see it so much as an international organisation, but rather as part of the process of creating a (West) European state structure. As far as progressive initiatives are concerned, I agree with Maggie. I think they will only be realised if they are pushed for by strong union and/or popular movements. But I think on key issues like shorter hours, such movements will need to be developed at a European level if they are to be effective. Trevor Evans Berlin --- Headers From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 21 16:36:46 1997 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu [132.241.9.84]) by mrin55.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA01055; Wed, 21 May 1997 16:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA02961; Wed, 21 May 1997 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: 199705212024.NAA23461@fraser Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk From: D Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10269] Re: Re EU X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII MIME-Version: 1.0
[PEN-L:10315] Re: planning and democracy
From: BAIMAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10309] Re: planning and democracy On Tue, 20 May 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote: What is the basis for the allotments? "Democracy." If nobody owns capital, why not permit consumer sovereignty and use taxes and subsidies to adjust prices to social costs? Democratically of course. I would defer to Bill for comments the rest of your post but this idea of using taxes and subsidies as a substitute for other types of planning I think needs also to be specifically addressed. My point here was not to exalt consumer sovereignty, but to point out the similarity between it and what the defenders of planning were saying, the better to indicate the superficiality of the notion of planning being put forward by them. I have four points here: a) In my view the essence of socialism is (aside from socializing the means of production) social choice - i.e. planning. There really is no such thing as "market socialism" as Christopher Pierson points out in SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISM - most forms of socialism include markets but with a large degree of planning, regulation, taxes and subsidies and political social choice which are necessary to achieve socialist goals which the market on its own will not. I see this attempt to reduce all planning to "taxes and subsidies" as another way to try to avoid direct and explicit social choice in cases where this may be necessary ( I have nothing agains t taxes and subsidies if that all thats needed). I'm not one to rule out any measures outside of taxes and transfers. There are, for instance, public investment, regional policy, industrial policy, and regulation. Even so, taxes and transfers reflect public choices no less than other interventions in markets. b) When might this be necessary? One good example is WITHIN large multinational corporations i.e. like Microsoft . Are these not national and international PUBLIC institutions which are determining the course of Techno development for the world? Should their choices and strategies not be democratically acountable? My point here is that there is no way Sure. to reduce accountability of institutions in the economy to the market I don't think I said there was. plus taxes and subsidies. Democratic Planning is inevitable . . . If you generalize the definition of planning beyond ownership and direct control of capital allocation, I don't disagree either. I do think there isn't much left of planning, properly speaking, much less socialism, without public ownership of capital and public control of its allocation. What's left is where most of us are, in some kind of social-democratic framework. In other words, I agree with those on the further left who say most of us on, say, PEN-L, aren't really socialists. I differ in that I think that's as it should be. c) This doesn't mean that this PROJECT can be accomplished overnight and that market pricing will be abolished over night. Market Prices currently reflect supply and demand of socially embeded markets - what would be difference with more planning ? - presumabley better prices which actually reflect real social constituted priorities and needs as determined by more democratically (and less CEO ) determined social choices plus many important decisions which try to take into account social goals and some shadow prices that more accurately reflect externalities and future social development goals than present market prices. This example reinforces my previous remark. To my way of thinking, you are describing Pigouvian taxes, where tax rates adjust prices up or down as appropriate to social cost. If that's socialism, then every state with excise taxes on gasoline, liquor, and tobacco are socialistic, or, more likely, none of them are. d) I've been arguing these points with David Belkin of "Market Socialist and Don't know the man, but I'm no market socialist. Limited Government" fame or notoriety within DSA (in various SOCIALIST FORUM issues) and I may be projecting some of his views on you - but they do seem similar a sort of "Neo-Leftism" which (I think) emphasizes public and social choice problems and presumes that these are so great that we must accept mostly markets with limited government instead of seeing this as a challenge and a project that can't be avoided - the social choices will be made by markets and they won't then ususally be socialist social choices. I don't think you take this to anywhere near the extreme that This is not specific enough to take exception to. Belkin does who has problems with industiral policy for example - or you wouldn't be working for EPI - I don't think. And, speaking of more EPI hasn't done anything in industrial policy for years, and the reason is that it has been so difficult to find anyone doing any work on it. The most notable activity of
[PEN-L:10312] Bad news from Europe (re: EU)
Today's Vancouver Sun had an article headlined "Blair predicts trouble in Britain if EU rules restrict competition." Excerpt: "British officials say Blair senses that enthusiasm has wanted in the EU for piling on regulations, such as shortening work hours, which hamper competitiveness. Blair's aide said he told [European Commission President Jacques] Santer there would be 'serious political trouble in the United Kingdom' if the social chapter brought more 'social regulation'." I guess this is the key to a successful social charter: no regulations capable of giving it teeth. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:10310] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
In a message dated 97-05-20 12:13:31 EDT, you write: What do you, Maggie, or anyone else for that matter, think of this observation from Teresa Ebert's preface to Ludic Feminism: I am not familiar at all with religious feminism (canonic feminist theory). Talking about the rest of the quote which follows this discussion, there is no clear agreement amongst feminist economists as to how important historical context is, or how important theory is to the recitation of incidental facts. Breaking down the two points I will give you my opinion, not to be confused as representative of generalized feminist thought: **Historical context is something ignored by and large by most economists (feminist and otherwise). This leads to theories based on air, not actual events. So, for example, we tend to see the entry of women into the paid wage labor force as something which is a twentieth century phenomena. In reality, women were the majority of waged labor in manufacturing until after the civil war. If one adds up all the years from the beginnings of industrialization during the war of 1812 to the present, during less than a third of those years does women's labor force participation (paid labor) fall below 45%. Feminist economics has fallen into two categories where history is concerned: either history has been ignored and feminists have tried to simply gender current economic work in everything from neoclassical to marxian to institutionalist economics, or they have rewritten history. It is the rewritten histories which I personally think are the correct road to follow, and which, imho, have provided a good context for much of the feminist economic work available. Feminists have made tremendous progress in rewriting history, and the results of the propaganda from history. For example, by rewriting American history from a gendered perspective, academics like Mary Ryan, Louise Tilly, and Antonella Stirati have managed to centralize women's role in the advance of capitalist and the growth of the working class. Something by and large ignored by most non-feminist men working on the same subject. The ahistorical work tends to either be a rehash of becker type models, or tends to simply recite facts with gender added: i.e., discrimination literature, work place assessments, equal opportunity work, etc. In actuality, these works are a reassessment of history, but they lose their power by not drawing the connections. **Which leads to my next comment, in most of feminist economics, the underlying theory, frequently unstated, is that all facts are stylized by gender (and many feminists now say race and class), and hence, a feminist presentation of facts will by bound by feminist theory, whether that theory is presented or not. The problem with this is that very little feminist theory is agreed upon across the broad spectrum of writers who label themselves as feminist. So by calling a recitation of individual incidents feminist, the authors accomplish several goals: they avoid defining which feminism they are using and hence avoid confrontation with other feminists who will almost undoubtedly define feminism differently, and they target the audience for their stylized facts. In turn the reader can imagine unity where perhaps there is none. Finally, feminists who work primarily within one school of thought are free to borrow work of other feminists who are diametrically in opposition and validly use the work to their own purposes. So, for instance, conservative feminists can borrow from the work of marxist feminists without espousing marxism. I would like to point out that this does not in any way differentiate feminists from other branches of theory. Cross polination without references to the true source of an idea is carried on in theoretical discussions all the time. Finally, there are feminist theoreticians: Stirati, Rubery, Nelson, etc. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] become a more and more restricted, ahistorical, and localist genre of descriptive and immanent writing. According to the codes of this mode of writing, feminist theory, first of all, has to be written in a 'feminine' language. In other words, it has to avoid abstract concepts (if it does deploy them, they must be quickly deconstructed into an indeterminate series of open-ended stories) and instead rely on anecdotes, memoirs, confessions, little narratives, and other forms of intimate self-writing. The debilitating assumption behind this injunction is that concepts are in and of themselves panhistorically masculinist. The unsaid of such an understanding is, of course, that women are essentially aconceptual. I write against this assumption." Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html --- Headers
