Rui Mesquita Cordeiro | rui@youthlink.org
The Hague, The Netherlands, 10 / July / 2006
Introduction[1]and the WB[2]), global organisations for mediation of interests (like the UN[3]and the WTO[4]), powerful governments and multinational corporations. There is an urgent need to discuss and implement more clear instances of global governance, through democratic and participatory ways. For global democracy and participation in decision making, global citizenship and civil society agency in global issues are important paradigms to be observed; therefore, the objective of this essay is to analyse the role of civil society in global governance, through analysing the main theories and practices within the field. For such, it will address the following questions: How can civil society take its place in global political making instances? What are the scenarios? Firstly, we will better define globalisation, global governance and global civil society. Soon after that, we will describe and compare the role of civil society in different perspectives of global governance. By the end of it, we answer the essay question and drawn some conclusions.
Each day more and more global problems and issues are knocking at our doors, especially after the current wave of globalisation; however, global governance is been held by those institutions which accumulated enough international power to play and make the rules of the game, like international financial institutions (like the IMF
Globalisation, Global Governance and Global Civil Society[5]and world forums
To start with globalisation, it is how the current wave of international interaction and relationship is usually being called. This is due to the appearance of new communication technologies(Keohane and Nye 2000), to the modern (not new) private enterprising spreading around the world in a search for profitable new markets, to the clearance by many countries’ laws and regulations to allow such spread, and to the cultural mixes and clashes between people and civilisations(Huntington 1993), among other factors. The IMF, for instance, defines globalisation as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, free international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology”(Wikipedia 2006). Usually, the supporters of globalisation are more powerful individuals, governments, companies and institutions, while the non-supporters are usually those not benefiting from the phenomenon, usually less powerful individuals, governments, companies and institutions. Some say that there are two kinds of anti-globalisation, “those that want better globalization and those that want to isolate themselves”(Sahay 2002). The important thing is to realise that indeed the modern globalisation is a phenomenon perceived by many, which effects are either understood in different perceptions, depending on the power one has to benefit of it.
Governance has always been related firstly to internal affairs in each nation state. More than simply about how people govern themselves on its Greek root, governance today is a “fashionable”(Weiss 2000), but very important, concept that is usually being used to assure power control by some who historically have accumulated such power. In relation to governance and power, the World Bank defines: “governance is the way power is exercised in managing a country’s economic and social resources for development”(World Bank 1994). For other, like Willian Zartman, governance is interestingly understood as conflict management(Zartman 1997). One of the most recent uses of governance is to define what is called good governance(Weiss 2000), a term defined by the World Bank and today vastly used as a way to combat corruption in developing countries’ governments. In sum, governance is associated with national affairs, and therefore there is a need to reinterpret it to translate its meaning to the international level. The realisation about globalisation (as explained before) and global public goods(Kaul et al. 1999a)are important ways of understanding the global governance as both a deed and a need; jurisdictional, participation and incentive gaps in the inter-state interaction contribute for an underproduction of needed global public goods(Kaul et al. 1999b), what makes clear the necessity for better global governance. Even in the absence of a global government in our planet, international institutions, global private corporations and the most powerful governments are playing the role of global governance nowadays. Orbiting around them, many scholars and civil society try to exercise some influence in their undemocratic decision making processes. Michael Edwards defines global governance as “a system in which only the strong are represented and only the weak are punished”(Edwards 2000), when saying that “these deficiencies will be an immensely complex task for governments, Inter-Governmental Organizations, business and civil society to undertake together over the next many years” (ibid.). To democratise global governance means for me to make its concept closer to its original Greek meaning, on how people (globally) govern themselves; therefore, there is a need to check what the role of civil society is in global governance.
Civil society is a concept very much close to the concept of citizenship; therefore initially limited to the internal borders of nation states. Many definitions there are, and few agreement on them; two plural and important definitions are:
“Civil society is an intermediate associational realm between state and family populated by organisations which are separate from the state, enjoy autonomy in relation to the state and are formed voluntarily by members of society to protect or extend their interests or values.” (White 1994)
“Civil society is the arena in which people come together to advance the interests they hold in common, not for profit or political power, but because they care enough about something to take collective action. It includes all networks and associations between family and state, except firms.” (Edwards 2000)
Both characterise civil society as national actors between the family and state; it is here where many critiques were generated arguing there is no global civil society due to the fact that there is no international state for it to relate to. Nevertheless, even without a global government, there is indeed a system of global governance, as previously described, which decisions and policies affect directly the people everywhere in planet. This system itself is the main actor which a growing international civil society in dealing with. Such global civil society is composed by networks, many national civil society, global social movements, NGOs(Edwards 2000; Santos 2003). While a clear definition of global civil society is given by Scholte as a “civic activity that: (a) addresses transworld issues; (b) involves transborder communication; (c) has a global organisation; (d) works on a premise of supraterritorial solidarity”(Scholte 1999); I prefer still to try my own definition for both national and global civil society. Drawing from Gordon White (1994), but in my own perspective: civil society is an intermediate associational realm between private and public interest, populated by organisations, movements and people, separate from the state, the market, formed voluntarily by members of society to protect or extend their interests or values. Public and private interest exist in both national and global arenas, and a system of global governance is supposed to deal with all those global public interests, as for instance the ones defined as global public goods(Kaul et al. 1999a), and any others. Amid the sea of private and public global interests, many perspectives on globalisation and global governance were created; in the next section, let us explore the possible roles for global civil society to play in some of the most important and current schools of thought.
Perspectives of Global Governanceand the Role of Civil SocietyThe Pro-Globalisation Propositions[6]as steps to reach idealised globalisation, reforming the anarchy of the international system and strengthening cooperation among democratic states in the world
The current forces in the debate on global governance and development are agglutinated in three main categories: the pro-globalisation schools, the anti-globalisation schools and the cosmopolitan school. For the first one we will discuss three schools that defend the current globalisation as beneficial for development: neoliberalism, liberal institutionalism and institutional reformism. For the second one we will discuss some other schools that argue that the current globalisation process is far from being beneficial for development: radicalism, Marxism and humanism. The third one is a school in between the two first ones, the cosmopolitanism.
Neoliberalism
Global governance gain a very lose aspect within one of the most influential schools, the neoliberal school. In brief, neoliberals claim the market to be the most effective mechanism to control public resources(Peters 1999); thus, government should interfere as less as possible on the economic system. Its rationale is base on a growth-centred and individualistic system, where free market forces are enough to control the economy, always with a secular and scientific outlook.
The neoliberal position about globalisation is very clear in favour of the current globalisation process. They believe in the end of the nation-state that, according to them, is now being replaced by a market-state(Ohmae 2000). For them, countries that open their economy to the current globalisation process benefit more than those that do not do it, especially poor countries(Sahay 2002). Global governance takes a shape of fluidity and technocracy, with depoliticised decision making led by free market forces.
Neoliberals reserve an especial role for civil society, due to the fact that for them civil society is just part of the market, the non-profit sector of it. Such understanding brings an “anti-statism” value behind of it(Biekart 1999), again coherent to the rationale of market superiority present in the school. Neoliberalism has helped to change the global development agenda in a really strong way, since the late 1970 and until nowadays, reconfigured in a new “Comprehensive Development Framework”(Wolfensohn 2005). The role reserved to civil society in basically: to provide accountability [for technocrat governments], to provide services for the poor [substituting the state] and to provide legitimacy for the pro-market reforms(Hatcher 2006). Scientifically, the neoliberal economical view of civil society is backed up by the idea of civil society as the “third sector” of the economy, its non-profit sector(Salomon 1994). In this power relation, this view has been representing a process of cooptation of many NGOs and civil society organisations for the interest of neoliberal reforms. In the end, for being the most influential school in the last three decades, it is also the most contested one, by more critical sectors of civil society, social movements, the left and social sciences.
Liberal Institutionalism
Liberal institutionalists are idealists with strong belief on the benefit of institutional arrangements in society. They differ from neoliberals because for them, international institutions can achieve benefits that markets can not(Keohane and Nye 2000). They focus on institutionalising global cooperation, through three pillars: enhancing the role and influence of international organisations, instituting collective security, and enforcing international law(Genest 2004). They believe in the benefits of globalisation, but to achieve it, they rely on enhancing regionalism and the UN(Keohane and Nye 2000; Genest 2004).
Liberal institutionalists meet civil society because world politics cannot be a matter of governments only; new agents organised in networks have a role to play in global politics. However, their understanding of new agents organised in networks goes further beyond civil society, because it includes both transnational corporate networks and NGOs(Keohane and Nye 2000). The main idea behind is term of cooperation between the first, the second and the third sectors(Salomon 1994), in a “trisectoral partnership” (Keohane and Nye 2000:23). An important part of civil society has been accepting such public private partnerships, just as many governments as well, although there is still another import sector of a more critical civil society more reluctant to these ideas, because market is still the main player of the game, now in partnership with states and civil society organisations.
Institutional Reformism
Another variation still of the liberals, institutional reformers carry a strong neoliberal and liberal institutionalist NDA in their premises. In essence, they are “concerned with elucidating the key defects of the present system and elaborating the necessary conditions for more effective and legitimate global governance”(McGrew 2002):278). They are still in favour of the current globalisation process, led by the market and grounded on individualism, consumerism and private property; the difference is that they recognise the many failures of the system and wish to solve them, being the main one the anarchy of our international system(Oye 1986; Martin 1999); furthermore, they seek for more transparency and accountability, in relation to liberal institutionalists and neoliberals.
Institutional reformers also seek for inter-sectoral cooperation, and for that civil society has some role to play with/for them, especially for development cooperation. NGOs and epistemic communities(Haas 1992)can be a good source of grassroots information for the betterment of the system; they play a complementary role to international organisations, not substituting them(Martin 1999). The decision making, however, is still confined to those who accumulated enough power to play the current global governance game; civil society here is just a high quality primary data informer, rather than real active actors.
Analysing Civil Society within the Pro-Globalisation Position
Altogether, these three pro-globalisation approaches are in favour of globalisation how it is today, being the institutional reformers more critical of the current system, the liberal institutionalists more idealist of the perfect system and the neoliberals more anarchists but also more fundamentalist in relations to their beliefs. In the end, the three of them can agree in most of the points in their agenda, due to many complementarities, but especially due to the common principals they share, based on the market always as the main actor for global governance. Civil society is found with different roles in each of them, but those roles are far from being contradictories with the liberal logic. Civil society’s reaction to these theories is contradictory, due to the diversity of society itself. I perceive four main behaviours generated today in response to the liberal thinking:
- Conformity: in the sense that a given part of civil society is part of the liberal thinking and fits comfortably in its liberal roles;
- Cooptation: when due to external pressures (most of the time due to financial pressures), in this power relation duel, fragile civil society organisations play the liberal game to survive, once liberals have been the more influential schools what so ever;
- Resistance: especially those with more critical thinking and values based on social justice and respect to human beings, not fearing cooptation and challenging the system and its supporters, pushing for more democratic solution for global problems, connecting the local with the global and offering room for critical debate(Biekart 2006);
- Isolation: due to fatigue of fighting and achieving few visible outcomes, or just building up their new own bubbled and marginal realities, maintaining the internal coherence with their stated values and axioms, but not really challenging the system, especially in terms of global governance.
The Anti-Globalisation Propositions[7], and die”
Global Transforms
Global transformers argue that “no single coherent theory of globalization exists” (Held at al. 1999:436); nevertheless, the state is suffering a profound transformation of its role and function due to the deepness of the contemporary globalisation process, but its power remains. As a consequence, there is no end of politics but still numerous political spaces(Held et al. 1999). Some pessimism is also perceived here, about the way globalisation and global governance is being driven. Among the reasons for that, Held (ibid.:451) includes “the fact that the fundamental political units of the world are still based on the nation state while some of the world’s most powerful social political forces escape the boundaries of these units”.
Civil society meets global transformers for being recognised as new “regional and global transnational actors contesting the terms of globalization”, like new social movements, for instance (ibid.:452). They represent a new voice in global politics in the need for very different ideas of national and international politics in the years to come.
Statism/Protectionism
In the recent globalisation process, the state has been under attack, especially by neoliberalism; statists and protectionists are voicing in favour of the state and against such attack. On the one hand, statism stands for “a form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters”(Wikipedia 2006); while on the other hand, protectionism stands for “the economic policy of restraining trade between nations”(Wikipedia 2006).
Some supporters of these schools even defend the idea that globalisation is a myth, because factors such like: the present internationalised economy is not unprecedented; genuinely transnational companies appear to be relatively rare; capital mobility is not shifting investment and employment to the south; and finally, there is no globality, but just a triad of between Europe, Japan and North America, exercising power over other economies(Hirst and Thompson 1999). For Hirst and Thompson (ibid.) the world face an “inter-national” economic system where national economies influence the global economy, and not the other way around, that would configure a real globalised economy. Nonetheless, I believe that both inter-national and globalised models work in practice, the first one more perceived by developed countries and the last one by developing and poor nations.
For statists and protectionists civil society’s role seems to be related to the role of protecting its nation independence and autonomy, maintaining the state as the main locus of power to properly lead the national development process, and not the market. Anyhow, statism and protectionism’s dichotomies lie on the dispute between government and economy, leaving civil society in between this state-market power relation.
Radicalism/Marxism/Humanism
There are many different manners to refer to the left. Radicalism is a term usually associated with the far left (revolutionaries, anarchists and so on), but can either be used to refer to the far right (fascists, conservatives and so forth). When referring to the left, as here, radicalism is bring up either the old debate on revolution over reform(DeLeon 1896), or the many variations of the leftwing anarchism(Morland and Carter 2004). Marxism is another school whereby critiques towards the capitalist system is delivered, initially by the German socialists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels(Marx 1867). They set the basis for revolutionary socialism and communism in Europe and elsewhere. The last term here is humanism, which is a broad term to refer to human centrism thinking, with strong belief in the good essence of human beings at the first place(Walter 1997).
The last one, humanism, is the broader, but the most prominent nowadays, among the anti-globalisation theories. Indeed, it is in opposition to the current model of economic globalisation, but in fact it defends a new model, of human globalisation, or simply humanism. On it, development and governance (from local to global) is centred on people, and not on the state or the market(Korten 1984; Friedman 1992; Korten 1992; Falk 1995). Richard Falk (1995), talks about a need for human governance, instead of simply global governance. He develops the idea upon ten dimensions of a normative project toward human governance: taming war; abolishing war; making individuals accountable; collective security; rule of law; non-violent revolutionary politics; human rights; stewardship of nature; positive citizenship; and cosmopolitan democracy (ibid.).
Civil society in humanism in a greater instance, but also in radicalism and Marxism, has a special role to play, being the centre of the process, as real actors and as the end of the development process. In these more people centred schools, “economy serve people, and local level realities and power are very much important, once it is there where people is born, live(Cordeiro 2006).
Analysing Civil Society within the Anti-Globalisation Position
Overall, the anti-globalisation approaches represent in truth very different positions on globalisation and civil society. They tend to agree less with each other, in comparison with the previous presented pro-globalisation trends, leaving them in comparative disadvantage in relation to the first set of pro-globalisation schools. For global transformers, civil society is a new voice in global politics, an actor to be considered for the needed transformation of the existing global governance system. For statists and protectionists, civil society lies in between a dispute between state and market for more national autonomy and independence. In the last set of schools (radicalism/Marxism/humanism), civil society (or basically people in form of individuals, families, collectives, movements, organisations, classes and groups) is the central locus of power and decision making; moreover, its is the final end of political and developmental agenda setting. It is important to stress that the term anti-globalisation may be very misleading, once many of their adherents are not actually against globalisation, but against the present model of economic globalisation and its effects to poor people and nations; in fact, most of them defend another model of globalisation, more humanised and less profit driven.
Undoubtedly, the anti-globalisation schools are losing the battle for influence in the police making world to the pro-globalisation ones, due to an unfair power relation between them. This obvious realisation, together with the progressist thinking of the anti-globalisers toward people, opens space for a large sector of civil society to find a more comfortable room among anti-globalisation schools; these sectors are especially those which behaviour in relation to the pro-globalisation schools tend to be of resistance or of isolation, as earlier described.
The Cosmopolitan PropositionConclusionsReferenceshttp://www.movimentojuvenil.org.br/home/public_ver_destaque.php?ver=57.
Cosmopolitanism deals with forms of political regulation and lawmaking that creates powers, rights and constrains beyond the nation-states throughout the application of basic values that set down standards that no agent should be able to violate; cosmopolitans consider that all human beings deserve equal political treatment, irrespective of the place of born(Held 2004). In practice, the cosmopolitan position tries to lie between both pro-globalisation and anti-globalisation positions, as a centrist “third way”(Giddens 1998). Held (2004) define the basic unquestionable values in eight principals, as follows:
1. Equal worth and dignity;
2. Active agency;
3. Personal responsibility and accountability;
4. Consent;
5. Collective decision making about public matters through voting procedures;
6. Inclusiveness and subsidiarity;
7. Avoidance of serous harm, and 8. Sustainability.
For him (ibid.), the three first ones set down the fundamental organisational features of the cosmopolitan moral universe. The second cluster, from four to six, forms the basis of the limits of individuality for the creation of collectiveness. Lastly, the principals seven and eight lay down a framework for policy making prioritising, in terms of urgent needs and resource conservation.
Civil society features as a key actor for cosmopolitans, both in terms of human equality and civil society empowerment; however, cosmopolitanism was mostly created by scholars and by highly educated middle/high class individuals and public opinion leaders from the social democratic parties, not by poor or excluded people themselves. This makes a tremendous difference, because when cosmopolitans are tested in the arena in between pro-globalisation and anti-globalisation politics, they tend to be closer to the pro-globalisation allies, where only an elitists sector of civil society is present, and not the big mass of people. As a result, cosmopolitan are close to the non-elitists sectors of civil society only in the field of theory, but not always in the field of politics.
How can civil society take its place in global political making instances? What are the scenarios? In this brief analysis, it becomes clearer that civil society is not homogeneous, but as diverse and contradictory as society itself. Within itself, civil society can be differentiated by its condition and position within society, in terms of class, power and needs. On the one hand, for sectors of civil society more empowered and more educated, the scenario is much more positive, especially if they fit in the previously discussed conformity or cooptation behaviours towards the pro-globalisation stakeholders; this is the sector of civil society mere close to assume its place in the current globalisation and global governance processes how it is set. On the other hand, for less privileged sectors of civil society the scenario change considerably; for them, who fit better under resistance or isolation before pro-globalisation defenders, a more negative perspective is presented in the short term; in spite of this, it is in their hand most the hope for changes in society, because they are representing the most exponential and creative source of alternatives, especially in local realities. The big problem, however, lies on how to shift the scale from local to global empowerment of people, in the global arena of giant powers.
Biekart, Kees (1999). The Politics of Civil Society Building: European Private Aid Agencies and Democratic Transitions in Central America. Amsterdam: International Books & Transnational Institute.
Biekart, Kees (2006, 25 April). Global Protest, Global Civil Society and Transnational Networks. The Hague: ISS class for course 4307.
Cordeiro, Rui Mesquita (2006, 16 January). On Alternative-development. The Hague: ISS Essay for Course 4101. Retrieved 24 April, 2006, from:
DeLeon, Daniel (1896, 26 January). Reform or Revolution? Boston: Wells’ Memorial Hall. Retrieved 1 January, 2006, from:http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm.
Edwards, Michael (2000). Civil Society and Global Governance. In: UNU, On the Threshold: The United Nations and Global Governance in the New Millennium (19-21 January 2000). Tokyo: UNU – United Nations University.http://www.unu.edu/millennium/edwards.pdf(09-Jul-2006)
Falk, Richard (1995). On Human Governance: Toward a New Global Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 241-255.
Friedman, John (1992). Empowerment – The Politics of Alternative-development. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Genest, Marc A. (2004). Conflict and Cooperation: Evolving Theories of International Relations. Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island.
Giddens, Anthony (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.http://www.bilgi.8k.com/1999-1/99-1tanitim.pdf(10-Jul-2006)
Haas, Peter (1992). Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. In: International Organization, Vol. 46 (1).
Hatcher, Pascale (2006, 19 April). The Integrated Development Model: The World Bank and the Politics of Aid. The Hague: ISS class for course 4307.
Held, David (2004). Appendix: The Basis of a New Internationalism: Cosmopolitan Principles. In: David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 170-178.
Held, David; Anthony McGrew; David Goldblatt, et al. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson (1999). Globalisation in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 1-18.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations. In: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72 (3). Pp. 22-28.http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html(09-Jul-2006)
Kaul, Inge; Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern (1999a). Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaul, Inge; Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern (1999b). Introduction. In: Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern, Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xix-xxxviii.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye (2000). The Governance of Globalism: Regimes, Networks, Norms. In: Joseph S. Nye and John D. Donahue, Governance in a Globalizing World. Washington: Brookings Institution. Pp. 19-38.
Korten, David C. (1984). People Centred Development: Toward a Framework. In: David C. Korten and Rudi Klauss, People Centred Development. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Korten, David C. (1992). People-Centred Development. In: Kenneth E. Bauzon, Development and Democratization in the Third World – Myths, Hopes, and Realities. New York: Yeshiva University.
Martin, Lisa L. (1999). The Political Economy of International Cooperation. In: Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern, Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 51-64.
Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital: Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.
McGrew, Anthony (2002). Liberal Internationalism: Between Realism and Cosmopolitanism. In: David Held and Anthony McGrew, Governing Globalisation: Power, Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pp. 267-289.
Morland, Dave and John Carter (2004). Anarchism and Democracy. In: Malcon J. Todd and Gary Taylor, Democracy and Participation: Popular Protest and New Social Movements. London: Merlin Press. Pp. 78-95.
Ohmae, Kenichi (2000). The End of the Nation State. In: Frank J. Lechner and John Boli, The Globalization Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 207-211.
Oye, Kenneth A. (1986). Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peters, Michael (1999). Neoliberalism. Retrieved 15 January, 2005, from:http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/neoliberalism.htm.
Sahay, Ratna (2002, 28 August). Globalization and the Role of the IMF. New Delhi: Lady Shri Ram College. Retrieved 09 July, 2006, from:http://www.imf.org/external/country/IND/rr/2002/pdf/082802.pdf.
Salomon, Lester (1994). The rise of the non-profit sector. In: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73 (4). Pp. 109-122.
Santos, Boaventura de Souza (2003). The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic Globalization. Amsterdam: TNI – TransNational Institute. Retrieved 09 July, 2006, from:http://www.tni.org/socforum-docs/fm2003boaventura.htm.
Scholte, Jan Aart (1999). Global Civil Society: Changing the World? Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation Working Paper No. 31/99. Warwick: University of Warwick.
Walter, Nicolas (1997). Humanism: What’s in the Word? London: Rationalist Press Association.
Weiss, Thomas (2000). Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges. In: Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21 (5). Pp. 795-814.http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/D97HH6FYQH74MNXY.pdf(17/Apr/2006)
White, Gordon (1994). Civil society, democratization and development (I): Clearing the analytical ground. In: Democratization, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn). Pp. 375-390.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006, 7 July). Globalization. Retrieved 9 July, 2006, from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalisation.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006, 29 June). Protectionism. Retrieved 9 July, 2006, from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2006, 27 June). Statism. Retrieved 9 July, 2006, from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist.
Wolfensohn, James D. (2005). A Proposal for a Comprehensive Development Framework. In: World Bank, Voice for the World’s Poor: Selected Speeches and Writings of World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn, 1995-2005. Washington: World Bank. Pp. 128-137.
World Bank (1994). Governance, the World Bank’s Experience. Washington: The World Bank Group.
Zartman, William (1997). Governance as Conflict Management: Politics and violence in West Africa. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Arquivado em: Governança / Gobernanza / Governance, | English
