From a Global Market Place to Political Spaces -
the North – South Dialogue continues
Ed. Leena Rikkila and Katarina Sehm Patomaki
Paperback 240 pp.

Network Institute
for Global Democratization
Helsinki, Finland
www.nigd.u-net.com

These essays make up a “working paper”, and merit use as the basis for debate and development of goals and strategies for global governance.

The book results from a process begun in 2001 “to devise an original and realistic strategy to further the cause of democracy and social justice in a globalizing world.” The objective is to find initiatives that civil society organizations and sympathetic partner states can implement. The NIGD gained the support of the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry itself sponsored a high-level Helsinki Conference on global governance, in December, 2002.

The most important aspect of the book, is that it records a North-South and South-North dialogue. Essential questions confronting both, regarding the future of global institutions and their accountability, are examined.

Criteria applied to proposals include examination of what is meant by democracy – franchise, scope, authenticity and self-binding –, the value justification of democracy, potential political support for initiatives under review and feasibility..

Power without accountability?: The Global Accountability Report 2003
By Hetty Kovach, Caroline Neligan and Simon Burall

Paperback 43 pages

The One World Trust
Houses of Parliament
London SW1A 0AA
www.oneworldtrust.org

The Global Accountability Report (GAP) stimulates debate. It simply asks “why does accountability matter?” and examines five inter-governmental organizations, six transnational corporations and seven NGOs. This is merely the tip of the international organizational iceberg.

There are some unsurprising results, the Bank for International Settlements comes off least well in terms of transparency and member control. The OECD comes off best, with the UN High Commission for Refugees scoring well on access to online information and the World Bank second worst on the combined score.

Among corporations (Aventis, GSK, Microsoft, Nestle, Rio Tinto and Shell), its Rio Tinto that comes off best in member control and access to information, with Microsoft the last in the pack.

Probably more provocative are the NGO ratings. Seven specimens are under the microscope: (Amnesty International, Care International, International Chamber of Commerce, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Oxfam International and World Wildlife Fund for Nature). The Red Cross pulls off the best score in member control and information with the ICC the worst. Amnesty scores tops on member control and IFRC on information. WWF is second worst in both areas.

Accountability is something NGOs often demand of others. Others are demanding it of NGOs. This report considers it a right. The criteria chosen, the way in which they are weighted and applied are worth scrutiny and debate by organizational boards, management and membership. Let the debate continue.

When World’s Collide: Implications of International Trade and
Investment Agreements for Non-Profit Social Services
By Andrew Jackson and Matthew Sanger (2003)

Paperback , 190 pp.
ISBN 0-88627-319-6

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
410-75 Albert Street,
Ottawa, ON Canada K1P 5E7
www.policyalternatives.ca

Canadian Council on Social Development
309 Cooper Street,
Ottawa, ON Canada K2P 0G5
www.ccsd.ca

International trade and investment agreements could negatively impact on Canadian non-profit service providers.

The collision in the book’s title refers to the “world of trade policy and the world of social policy” – spheres based on different values and seek conflicting outcomes. The authors discuss Canada’s non-profit sector and its relation to NAFTA and WTO-administered agreements, showing how government’s policy flexibility regarding the sector can be compromised by challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) investment Chapter 11 and under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and Government Procurement Agreement (GPA).

The provision of social services often involves a complex system of direct public, government-sponsored non-profit, and commercial provision. Because of the mixed nature of service delivery and the narrow reading of exemption provisions by U.S. trade officials, agreement clauses protecting public service delivery may not extend to non-profits. The homecare industry is used as a case-study to illustrate these potential hazards. To reduce vulnerability, explicit reservations for non-profit social services should be negotiated under NAFTA and the GATS, continuing to exempt social services from GATS commitments. Representatives from the non-profit sector in should be involved in present and future negotiations. For non-profits operating in public service provision, this excellent book explains the relevant issues, offering constructive policy alternatives.

‘We the People’s’ or ‘We the Corporations’:
Critical reflections on UN-business ‘partnerships’
By Judith Richter (2003)

Paperback, 62 p.

International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) www.ibfan.org
& Geneva Infant Feeding Association (GIFA) www.gifa.org

This well-argued report looks critically at the trend within UN agencies toward embracing public-private partnerships (P3s). At a time when making overtures to the private sector is being sold as de rigueur policy for public sector organizations, Judith Richter raises several important questions as to the validity and effectiveness of these collaborations. After examining the evidence, she concludes that the P3 phenomenon has yet to produce the results hoped for by the public sector, and has instead enticed the UN into a potentially dangerous trade-off of public interest for private gain.

Richter poses the tough questions that spinners of P3-rhetoric don’t want to hear, wondering at what conflicts of interest the vague terminology of “partnership” conceals, and asking how an uncritical acceptance of corporate interest helps further the global neo-liberal project. She illustrates her arguments with examples from prominent P3s including the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and the Global Compact. In the end, her cogent position speaks to the need for clear lines between the public and private sectors and for a clear set of policy guidelines to protect the public interest when interactions do occur.