ERT (excerpt)
What follows below is the first page of an excellent article on the most influential lobby group (in fact, more than "lobby", they are THE informal power in the EU...) in the European Union, the "European Round Table of Industrialists", (ERT). The whole article is 44k long. Please send me a message if you want the whole thing by e-mail! Trond -- | Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | | Department of Engineering Cybernetics | | The Norwegian Institute of Technology | | N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY| | | | phone (work) +47 73 59 43 58 | | fax (work) +47 73 59 43 99 | | private phone +47 73 53 08 23 | --- ** From the Ecologist, July/August 1994, Vol 24, No. 4: MISSHAPING EUROPE - THE EUROPEAN ROUND TABLE OF INDUSTRIALISTS by Ann Doherty and Olivier Hoedeman* * (Ann Doherty and Olivier Hoedeman work with Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environment and Development (A SEED), a worldwide network of environment and development organizations.) - The European Round Table of Industrialists, a discrete body of 40 heads of European-based multinationals, is the eminence grise behind the economic integration of the 12 member countries of the European Union. With access to the top national and European decisionmakers, it is influencing, if not directing, policy for the multinationals' benefit in areas as diverse as transport, education, employment, environment and the Third World. In the l980s, there was a dramatic change in the economic and political landscape of Europe with the introduction of the Single Market between the 12 member countries of the European Community and, more recently, the proposed European Union (EU), as outlined in the Maastricht Treaty.[1] Some of the major advocates of this European integration have been a handful of European-based multinational companies who reap the greatest benefits. Behind the scenes, these corporations are orchestrating the present and future shape of Europe. One of their main channels of influence is a corporate lobby group called the European Round Table of Industrialists, or ERT. Membership is exclusive: approximately 40 men (no women), all Chairs or Chief Executives of large multinationals, mainly, though not exclusively, based in the European Union. Member companies include ll of the 20 largest European companies - British Petroleum, Daimler-Benz, Fiat, Siemens, Unilever, Nestle, Philips, Hoechst, Total, Thyssen and ICI - all of which are listed among the world's top 50 companies. In 1991, the combined sales of the 40 ERT member companies exceeded 500 billion dollars, accounting for approximately 60 per cent of total EU industrial production.[2] The Origins of the ERT In 1983, a handful of multinational business leaders created the ERT to express their concern that industry was playing an insufficient role in European policy-making; what was urgently needed was a coalition of like-minded corporate leaders to provide input and vision to Brussels, the home of the European Commission. Umberto Agnelli of Fiat, Wisse Dekker of Philips and Pehr Gyllenhammar of Volvo were the initiators; for the first few months of its existence, the ERT's accounts were run through the spare parts division of Volvo's Paris headquarters.[3] They were encouraged by Europe's Commissioner for Industry and the Internal Market, Viscount Etienne Davignon, and the Commissioner for Finance, Francois Xavier Ortoli. In 1986, Davignon left the Commission and joined the ERT representing the Societe Generale de Belgique (a holding company which includes the largest bank in Belgium), while Ortoli joined it as President of the French oil company, Total. But bonds between the ERT and the Commission were maintained under Jacques Delors's regime. In March 1985, early in his tenure as President of the European Commission, Delors set up an "on the record" meeting with the ERT "to discuss ERT goals,"[4] meetings which have continued at regular intervals. Corporate Vision The ERT has consistently striven for "effective decision-making bodies at a European level, even when implementation is better left in national and regional hands,"[5] and has organized itself into policy groups mirroring the main issues considered by these bodies. These groups, which cover education, competition policy, infrastructure, Central and Eastern Europe, North-South issues, trade and GATT, environment and social policy, produce reports which are eagerly received by both national governments and Brussels; there have been more than 20 of them over the past decade. When the ERT issues a new report, the Commission jumps to attention. In 1991, ERT members sent an advance copy of its agenda for the 1990s,
competitiveness index and New Zealand
A friend informed me that New Zealand had ranked ninth on the most recent world competitiveness scale. Does anyone know what this is and how it is calculated? Mark Laffey
Re: is urpe frumpy?
I'm part of a whole generation of folks who embraced Marxism in the 60's and 70's and who have more than a "vague, background" interest in Marxist theory. I have read widely in the Marxist classics as well as more contemporary economists such as Mandel, O'Connor, Nove, etc. I am extremely interested in Marxist economic analysis of some of the burning issues of the day such as capitalism's seeming ability to avoid a crisis such as the kind that occurred in the 1930's, the failure of the USSR to keep pace with the imperialist economies, the problems of underdeveloped but revolutionary societies like Nicaragua and Cuba, etc. But I get very little useful analysis from PEN-L, except from Doug Henwood, Lynn Turgeon, James O'Connor-- that is, people who have an orientation to speak to a wider public. Most of the discussion, especially the extended LTV discussion, seems like academic conference chit-chat. (By the way, there's no sin attached to being an academic--I just have my doubts that Marx would be a tenured professor today.) I have the same reaction to URPE summer conferences. I attended one a few years ago and left after a day or two. My head was spinning from abstruse discussions over the Grundrisse. What's funny to me is that the Rock Hill site was near to the bungalow colonies occupied by orthodox Jews during the summer. You could see the same kind of hermetically sealed discussions over the Talmud as those taking place over Marx at the URPE conference. You should realize that the malaise you and I are addressing has been discussed by others. I refer you to the writings of Russell Jacoby and Perry Anderson among others. Basically, the problem stems from the decline of a working-class based socialist movement. Instead of analysis of class-struggle issues, we have left-wing intellectuals making a home in the universities writing articles on cultural theory, arcane economic issues, postmodernist trivia, etc. The only corrective to this dismal state of affairs would be a reawakened workers movement. Stranger things in history have occurred. On Fri, 9 Sep 1994, Peter.Dorman wrote: I have a hypothesis concerning the declining interest in URPE from non-economists. It goes like this: Once upon a time (up to a few years ago, maybe more), most people on the left subscribed to some version of socialism, in the economic sense of public/worker/community control over the economy. Most people who were not specialists in economics (or Marxist theory) understood this in a vague, background sort of way, as an adjunct to their primary interest (housing, gay lesbian rights, environment, etc.). They felt that, even if they didn't understand the details, others did, and socialism was part of the general package. Occasionally they would read left-economic material. Some who felt the need to stay in touch with the various wings of the movement via periodicals would even subscribe to RRPE. Then came the great wipeout. Socialism as a discrete, viable alternative to capitalism was discredited in the eyes of most people. Even many people with a long attachment to the left and continuing involvement in specific left-oriented movements came to doubt whether there was really a fundamental economic alternative, as against lefty economic technicians who might be able to figure out ways the existing system could accommodate the other social/cultural/political goals of the movement. Thus the realm of radical economics, especially work that analyzes the capitalist system in general and considers alternatives, came to be seen as less relevant to the wider movement. If this hypothesis is correct, non-economist activists probably still read our writings that concern their particular fields, but not our more theoretical work, as is found in the RRPE. BTW, I personally believe (very strongly, in fact) that socialism IS a viable alternative to capitalism, and that the conventional wisdom of the moment is wrong. But I am pretty sure I am in a minority, even, alas, on the left. Peter Dorman
Re: is urpe frumpy?
Well I'm sure I'm like many on this list URPE played an important role for me as a graduate student. I felt that there was something out there that I could turn to and receive some support when I raised questions about traditional neo-classical economics as taught in our Universities. The work of Sam Bowles, Bob Pollin, David Gordon, etc. showed some serious scholarship on important issues that truly had an effect on our profession. There has always been a debate about whether RRPE should be a technical journal or not. And the feeling was that there had to be at least one outlet for serious scholarly radical work and RRPE could feel that role. That's not to say that should be the only publication supported by URPE and so you had Dollars and Sense and other publications sponsored by URPE for a more general audience. I really think the issue right now for URPE is to redefine its mission and the issues that should be looked at -- both by scholarship and political activity. One of the nice things about URPE in the 1970s was that there were topics that we could all work on defined by people like David Gordon, Reich and Edwards in labor and Anwar Shaikh and Tom Weisskopf in crisis theory. New topics need to be defined and worked on collectively. The country and the world are facing some amazing issues and we should collectively be responding. There needs be a serious dialogue among progressives and this might be a beginning. -Ric Holt e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: URPE = UPE?
BRIAN, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT PERHAPS RADICAL OR RADICAL ENOUGH.THE ANSWER IS BE RADICAL.FIKRET On Wed, 31 Aug 1994, Brian Eggleston wrote: I am receiving many messages in duplicate. Is anyone else so afflicted? Is there anything I can do to remedy the problem? Thanks. Brian Eggleston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Renaming URPE
Welcome, Jim Craven, back to the PEN-L ranks! Your departure last year (or so?) was widely lamented. I have a question with respect to your last post, where you state: From my limited sample of URPE members with whom I have been in contact and my apologies to those for whom the following does not apply, I believe that the name should be changed to: U.P.B.C.V.B.H.M.R.W.P.A.P.E.W.F.T.T.G.M.A.R.W.D.F.R.W.S.A.R. (Union of Petit Bourgeois Curriculum Vitae Building House Marxist Radical Wannabes Playing at Political Economy While Fetishizing Technique to Gain Mainstream Academic Respectability While Divorced From Real- World Struggles and Risks). Just an impression and opinion. I know of no one in URPE to whom this description applies. Who did you have in mind? Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: education state
Mary Engelmeyer raises a good point. A "liberal state" may not be stable, but rather lead to a conservative reaction. The failure to eliminate capitalism may just lead to a kind of left-right oscillation. My best response for now is that it may be worth thinking about whether there is any way to influence the "center of gravity" of that oscillation. Again, my preoccupation is what Peter Dorman mentions in his piece on the name of URPE: with no powerful movement or basis for action, its not a question whether we want capitalism or not. Its a question if that is a relevant choice *these days*. One more point, though. Crises exist in capitalism, without necessarilly being inevitable crises of capitalism. Any social organization is vulnerable to crisis; in fact, its a wonder when an extended period without crisis occurs. In this light, crises lose some of their power in arguments. Capitalism may experience crises without collapsing. Socialism may experience crises without being "fundamentally flawed." In Cuba, for example, one generation was served quite well by the revolution, from what I've heard. If the next generation finds the gains less enduring than they had been promised, its political education for them and us. No resounding conclusion to these rambling thoughts Michael Brun -- Michael J. Brun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 408 W. Elm, #3, Urbana, IL 61801, USA, (217) 344-5961
re: competitiveness index and New Zealand
The World Competitiveness Report is published by the International Institute for Management abd Development in Lausanne, Switzerland and the World Economic Forum in Geneva. It ranks countries across a range of categories: domestic econ. strength, internationalization, government policy permitting "business freedom", infrastructure, management etc. Carbaugh, _International Economics_, 5th ed, the text I'm using for my trade course ranks New Zealand on the composite index at 18 out of 23 nations for 1991 (8th ranked for government keeping its hands off business). The Wall ST Journal ran a piece on the 1994 report in this week's Sept. 7 issue, p. A3. NZ wasn't mentioned but the U.S. is number one again (!), Japan dropping to #3 while newcomer Singapore climbs to #2. (Beginning to sound like Kasey Kasem on American Top 40). [I'm NOT promoting this stuff, just answering the original question.] Cheers, Brent |~~~| Brent McClintock| | Economics | | Carthage College| THERE IS NO WEALTH | Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140| BUT LIFE| USA | | Phone: (414) 551-5852 | John Ruskin | Fax: (414) 551-6208 | | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ~
Re: Urpe, Smurfe, Burpe!
I second Brent McClintock's request that Doug Henwood reconsider his vow of silence. Edwin Dickens
Henwood Follies
I too wish to give a vote of support for Doug Henwood's contributions. Andrew Sessions
Re: Henwood Follies
When I was a kid I attended a performance of Peter Pan in which the audience was encouraged to clap as loud as possible to save Tinkerbell from imminent death. She'd just swallowed poison to save Peter. I clapped like hell, along with everyone else, and it worked. Ok, Doug, I'm clapping again, but it feels really silly. CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP,CLAP.. Would you please post something and save us all from this silliness. Wendy, popular and demanding
Re: underconsumption
On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 21:54:59 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim, my T-B burned up a few years ago, when our house burned. Do you have a reference re: his line on instability when and economy is Dept I-driven? Jim, as far as I can tell, Tugan-Baranowsky never said that the process of growth led by department I (because dept. II is stagnant) became more unstable. All he said was that growth *could happen* despite a stagnant demand for consumer goods (contrary to the underconsumptionists of his day), so that dept. I was "relatively autonomous." I was the one who added the twist about this process becoming more unstable over time (in my 1983 RRPE article on the Depression) though Philipe Van Parijs has a note in the same issue of the magazine that makes a similar point. I have never read T-B. My knowledge of him comes completely from secondary sources, especially Sweezy's THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
The Economist Blacks in Cuba (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 07:11:46 MST From: Michael Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Economist Blacks in Cuba There is a brief report on Cuba in the recent issue of The Economist that may interest AFROLAT subscribers. The Economist article makes explicit that race is a definining characteristic of the deterioration of Cuba's economy. It claims that the large urban underclass created by the economic decline is composed largely of Blacks and that the racial fault lines in Cuban society are becomming increasingly evident. This summer's Malecon riots, according to the Economist, are being explained in Cuba as "those Blacks getting out of control," for example. It's intriguing that a mainstream publication like The Economist would choose a racial angle for its reporting on Cuba, especially since the subject of race is discussed so guardedly by Cubans themselves. This report appears in The Economist, September 3-9 issue. Michael Mitchell Arizona State University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
