[governance] Now business wants to lead policy making

[Norbert Bollow]

On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:02:02 +0000
Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Global flows opens virtual doors for tiny firms and civil society as
> well as the bigs.

I agree that a lot of benefits to humanity are resulting from many of
these global flows.

On the other hand there are also some aspects of this system of global
flows which have bad effects. Bad effects that could potentially become
very very bad if the underlying mechanisms are not somehow addressed
effectively.

> In that context, yeah maybe multi-stakeholdering trade talks might be
> a good idea

How would such "multi-stakeholdering trade talks" work? Is there any
chance of such talks resulting in treaties that contain effective
provisions which prevent powerful companies from abusing their power? 

> compared to the present practices which are not
> well-loved by Trump-ettes nor critics feeling the Bern, to put it in
> US political context.  Even Hillary is pretending she had no idea
> what TTP and TTIP were about. We are all shocked! ; )
> 
> So if not government to government business as usual, then what? 

In my view what we need to create is a global coordination mechanism
which is as inclusive and participatory as possible while at the same
time retaining/restoring the property that the ultimate decision-making
power must be under the control of formal democratic processes.

I have a proposal along those lines online at
http://wisdomtaskforce.org/

> Yeah isolationism worked so well in past. Not.

I certainly agree that isolationism is not a viable solution.

Greetings,
Norbert

> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Norbert Bollow
> <nb at bollow.ch> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:05 PM To: Mueller, Milton
> L Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Now business wants to lead policy making
> 
> (crossposting trimmed)
> 
> Milton:
> 
> Given that the notion of "movement forward" depends on a goal that one
> would aim at achieving or at least an ideal that one would aim at
> getting closer to (even if there is little or no hope of fully
> achieving it), I would request you to please explain the goal or ideal
> that you have in mind.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:00:50 +0000
> "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Parminder:
> > I am curious about your response to this initiative. I know that in
> > your world, anything that a business does is bad, but please tell me
> > this:
> >
> > Many people have complained about the WTO and other
> > government-government trade negotiations because they are closed to
> > other stakeholders and not transparent. It appears that Ma is
> > proposing a departure from that. The WeTP would have business,
> > "governments and NGOs and other organisations participating.” Of
> > course, one would have to know more about the terms and conditions
> > of "participation" but I see a potential for movement forward rather
> > than backwards.  Please tell us why this is worse than the status
> > quo?
> >
> > Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> > Professor, School of Public Policy
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> > > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 3:35 AM
> > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList
> > > <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [governance] Now business
> > > wants to lead policy making
> > >
> > > A recent announcement by Alibaba's founder Jack Ma exposes what
> > > the real intent, and the problem, with business led
> > > multistakeholderism is, something a lot of people/ groups have
> > > perhaps innocently got into supporting.... He proposes a new
> > > business led initiative to frame global e-commerce rules, which
> > > would rival the WTO, which can keep making them for offline
> > > trade. And he is entirely serious, with Alibaba already working
> > > with a number of groups and intending to present the proposal to
> > > G 20 later this year.. To me it is a political shocker, but that
> > > is where much of multistakholderism ideology is headed.
> > >
> > > I wrote an op-ed on this issue in yesterday's The Hindu, which is
> > > at
> > > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-
> > > be-controlled/article8581476.ece
> > >
> > > We must re-assess what does unhinging of the role of legitimate
> > > political actors in key public policy areas means. It just
> > > transfers power to a few global corporates to runs our societies
> > > as a corporatocracy. Many of our discussions here on
> > > mulitistakeholderism as a sovereign political form need to be seen
> > > in this context.
> > >
> > > parminder
> > >
> >
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t