[PEN-L:3816] Re: Cohen and Historical Materialism
On Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:40:32 -0800 Justin Schwartz said: On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, Jim Devine wrote: Justin, on your reference to G.A. Cohen's reconstruction of historical materialism, I would add the adjective "failed." He produced a technological-determinist theory of history that differs w quite radicaly from Marx's materialist conception of history The situation with Cohen is more complex than you suggest. In the first place you dispute only the accuracy of Cohen's scholarship, viz. whether he has Marx right. Whether or not he does, however, what Cohen produced was probably the clearest, most precise and coherent, best articulated statement of a Marxian theory of history we have. If it's not a good representation of Marx's view, in what way is it Marxian? This point is reinforced by the fact that the technological- determinist theory is a bourgeois theory that precedes Marx. See, for example, Comninel RETHINKING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1987, Verso) and Rigby, MARXISM AND HISTORY (1987, St. Martin's). Both cite Meek 1976 MARXISM AND THE IGNOBLE SAVAGE (C.U.P.) Marx was clearly influenced by this t-d theory (which shows up in Smith, among others), but seems to have moved toward the vol. III theory in which it's the mode of production of the surplus (the mode of exploitation) which reveals the inner secrets of a social formation (ch. 47, s. 2). (I'd guess that Marx's relationship with t-d theory is a lot like his relationship with Ricardo. He learned a lot but did so critically and then moved on to better stuff.) The problem for Cohen's theory that arises from Marx's theory is that as Marx argues (but authors such as Braverman make clear), the nature and speed of technological change are endogenous, to a large extent _determined by_ the mode of exploitation. In the postface to the 2nd edition of CAPITAL, Marx quotes a reviewer favorably as summarizing Marx as saying that each economic system has its own laws of population. The same applies to the laws of technology, as Marx describes how the capitalist lust for profits influences the kind of machines introduced and the way in which they are used. Technological determinism only works if technological change (both its quality and quantity) are exogenously given. Tech. determinism is even weaker than genetic determinism, because most of the time, an individual's genes don't change due to environmental influence. And these changes aren't transmitted to the young, unless Lamarck and Lysenko were right. Technology is affected severly by the societal environment and is transmitted to future generations. Unfortunately the less technologically determinist accounts tend to either degenerate into handwaving when it comes to discussing (a) revolutionary transitions from one mode of production to another and (b) specifying a non t-d sort of determination of the superstructure by the base or the relations of the base to the productive forces, either that, or they degenerate into an ill-theorized eclectic multi-causalism which doesn't capture anything that might be specifically called "materialist." . . . Except compared to the vaguest multi-causalism, I don't see determinism as a virtue (and I'd like to know what _you_ mean by "materialism"). What's the advantage of a deterministic theory if reality isn't deterministic? To my mind, the point of a theory of history is NOT to present a heart-warming story of how victory is inevitable (to cheer us as the Newtron bomb hits DC). Rather, it is to figure out what parts of the historical process have "nature-like" or "automatic" laws of motion and _what parts don't_ (and the relationship between these two types of parts). The multi-causalists reject the former, while Cohen et al reject the latter. Both are missing something. Historical change is not pre- determined. There is NO automatic march to socialism. The 2nd and 3rd Internationals were hurt by their mechanistic visions of determinism. Lenin, whatever his other faults, at least got away from determinism, knowing that individual actions and decisions (or group actions and decisions) can have important effects (not always good, but that's another issue). Getting beyond Lenin, there is a role in history for organizing the opposition to the system. Without an organized and conscious opposition, it won't matter if capitalism falls apart. The capitalists will put the pieces back together again (after a period of chaos, of course). "Automatic Marxism" of the sort that Cohen formalizes misses this point completely. On this, I recommend Mike Lebowitz's book, BEYOND CAPITAL, 1992, St. Martin's: ch. 7. Also, one of the problems with Cohen is that he takes the semi- determinism that Marx saw in the laws of motion of capitalism and says that they apply transhistorically. That is, Marx saw a clash between the forces and relations of production as rising automatically under capitalism (with the actual results of this clash depending on class struggle). Cohen
[PEN-L:3817] Re: New Party piece
Come'on Doug, play nice. In the same spirit that I took up J. Case, I'm sure you don't mean CP as a term of endearment. Play nice boys! There's some real politics here, so cut out the red baiting bullshit. I think the real CP, Trotskyist, New Left, American Left legacy is ignoring political differences and real discussion and decending everything to the level of name calling. If you don't agree with me, you're a (fill in the gap) and therefore your criticism is unworthy of further concern or debate. On the issue of NYC I tend to think that it is rather unusual. The largest city in the country, with strange, strange, politics. I wish Mike Davis who move there and do for NY what he did for LA in CITY OF QUARTZ. However, that aside, I do think that in building a grassroots, democratic, membership based political party that Madison, Milwaukee, Little Rock, etc will be more typical than NYC. As for the fusion tactic, the difficulty here is keeping as a tactic, and only a tactic, to gain state wide (or city wide or whatever level the group is interested in apply it) ballot status. The barriers that the state has set up in this country to prevent democratic self-organization in elections is worthy of a totalitarian state. It's a real barrier and problem for any third party. My view is there will be opportunists in the New Party, and sectarians, and we'll go too slow sometimes and too quickly other times. But in a grassroots democratic party if we build a culture of real debate, over policy and tactics I believe we will be able to resolve differences -- and in fact, on occasion operate quite differently in different states and communities depending on the strength of the organization and it's level of organization (that is, has it elected people, does it have access to ballot status, has it been able to reform election laws...) Because I believe this discussions are absolutely essential to the growth and development of any third party, I think it's important for leftist, who agree or are critical of specific tactics, actions or policies to aid in creating a political culture where these issues can be debated and discussed on their merits -- not on who is an trot or who is a stalinist. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3819] Re: New Party piece
I would happily plead guilty to Stalinism if I weren't sure that Stalin was more of a Trotskyist than and Leninist...but Elaine is right that the debate in THESE terms is moot until the next revolutionary upheaval. In fact it obscures the truth which my story of the strike was meant to tell --the working class, upon which constituency I believe any genuine political indepenendent movement must arise, will in th main reject left sectarianism whatever its name. Its one of the interesting points of unity between skilled, unskilled, African-American, Mexican - American, Asian - American, women and men workers. Sectarianism is not radicalism. I have seen many shops adopt radical tactics, measures and positions, when convincing arguments are presented tht they promise a better result for the sacrifice of struggle. I cannot agree with Elaine, however, that a "culture of debate" is precisely what the labor movement needs to advance political independence. I think there has been an abundance of debate but a shortage of programatic work, especially in the area of economics. Maybe Elaine views the purpose of the culture of debate as serving this end. If so, then, yes I too am for more of such "culture". But much of the debate I read and hearskirts the key challenges to organizing workers today, such as: **how to frame the economic demands of the unorganized workers in political terms--since under current labor law these workers have no right to organize into tradtional unions. **a new analysis and program of workers'control of workplace that confronts directly and CORRECTS the weaknesses of the Soviet workplace culture which in my view contributed greatly to eht collapse of socialism. The issues raised by the ongoing quality circle--team concept in the context of modern production are important, even though the bosses raise them mostly in an anti-union framework (how else would THEY ever raise them?). In my experience with the New Party its weaknesses stem from vagueness on program. Its clear in most campaigns what their against, but not what they're for. But the same can be said of most of us on the left. I was interested in the responses to my assertion that I knew of no party that did not arise out of (at least in large part) an internal struggle within an old party or parties. The Black Panther Party, to the extent it engaged in POLITICAL as opposed to strictly DEFENSE activety was INTIMATELY connected to the Democratic clubs and committees in the African American communities of Buffalo and Cleveland (the cities where I lived during the Panther's life). I have no knowledge of the Canadian formation mentioned (at least its origins), but will investigate. It occurredto me that the African National Congress was the most recent notable exception to my statement, which should at least be changed to state: "I know of now new political party that has arisen EXCEPT from a struggle within an older party--unless it arose upon a base previously wholly disenfranchised." In any event, no emergent party can ignore the divisions among Democratic voters or candidates if it seeeks to win any election. Any campaign run on ISSUES especially in local areas will find common cause with thousands of voters who will in other races vote Democratic (and should be able to do so). The TEST of independence will not be the presence or absence of opportunists somehwre in the ranks or leadership (this is inevitable in any mass movement) -- but in the credibility of the program to deal with the issues, and if elections are won, the abilty to mobilize the base to defend itself against the certain and ruthless counter-offensive of the corporations. Unfortunately thisis where liberalism falls apart. Only whether the working poepole are sufficiently organized and united to FORCE the issues can bring a positive conclusion. Whether or not the culture of debate is adequate to satisfy intellectuals will not affect the outcome at all once the battle is joined. Which brings up (for me) the next biggest question. It is undebatable to me that the actual battles for power require a high degree (ALMOST military degree) of discipline inorder for workers to effectively use the power that they have. Within workers organizations prior to a decision being taken, it has often (not always) beentrue in my experience that debate is fierce and plentiful. Were it not, then the decisions taken to engage in a difficult struggle would have little effect or meaning. If, during the struggle and before its successful conclusion, debate is opened up again, the effect, almost without exception, is to end the struggle. The boss wins. It doesn't make any difference what the merits of opposing sidesin the debate may be insofar as the instant strggle goes. This question is no new news to most local unions who have ever been involved in a strike. The PROBLEM is what happens AFTER the strike, struggle,
[PEN-L:3820] Re: rationality
This is in response to Robin's comments on rationality. I agree with Robin that institutions shape the selves whose lives they structure, and in this context that the instrumentally rational agents that people rational choice models tend to be produced by the universal reign of markets. I think an appreciation of this, though, must lead to an attempt to formulate a thicker notion of rationality, if we are to do what Robin wants to do--evaluate institutions. Once we appreciate the shaping of agency and preferences by institutions, the standard welfare criteria, such as Pareto-efficiency, become simply tests of "coherence" between the agent-creating institutions and the agents they create. Arguably, coherence in this sense is neither necessary nor sufficient for an institutional structure's being judged good. Not sufficient: reread Brave New World. Not necessary either, because we might argue for the superiority of less coherent institutions which create unsatisfied Socratess to those which create satisfied pigs. (Apologies to Mill.) The point is that to evaluate institutions is to evaluate a package: institution-plus-types-of-agents, and we're then doing at the theoretical level what people do practically when they think not so much about how to get what they transparently want, but what sort of people they want to be, what sort of wants they should have. And the theorist should follow the practical agent in this: trying to articulate the sorts of criteria that are employed by the latter, and push for "reflective equilibrium". Unless one thinks that reason has no place here, we as practical agents employ and we as "social scientists" need to articulate a thicker kind of rationality. In Susan Hurley's phrase, a theory of rationality for human agents is "an ethic". I put the quote marks around "scientist" advisedly: this sort of endeavor won't pass muster under conceptions of science which make it the neutral examination of some independently existing reality.
[PEN-L:3821] Re: Cohen and Historical Materialism
On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Jim Devine wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:40:32 -0800 Justin Schwartz said: On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, Jim Devine wrote: Justin, on your reference to G.A. Cohen's reconstruction of historical materialism, I would add the adjective "failed." He produced a technological-determinist theory of history that differs w quite radicaly from Marx's materialist conception of history The situation with Cohen is more complex than you suggest. In the first place you dispute only the accuracy of Cohen's scholarship, viz. whether he has Marx right. Whether or not he does, however, what Cohen produced was probably the clearest, most precise and coherent, best articulated statement of a Marxian theory of history we have. If it's not a good representation of Marx's view, in what way is it Marxian? Oh, come along Jim. Marxism is a broad church. There are lots of Marxian views which are not Marx's, whether or not they pretend to be "orthodox." Thus Luxemburg on accumulation or Lenin on imperialism or on the Party or Gramsci on hegemony or Trotsky on combined and uneven development or What makes a view Marxian is whether its advocates identify it as such, whether it is part of the tradition of Marxist debate and practice (i.e., the tradition of people who thus identify themselves), responding to other Marxian views, whether it uses Marxian concepts like class, mode of production, exploitation, ideology, etc., whether it poses questions in Marxian terms and for Marxian purposes, i.e., promoting socialism and working class self-emancipation, etc. See E.P. Thompson's discussion of various conceptions of Marxism in his Open Letter to Leszek Kolakowski (in The Poverty of Theory). You know this and I shouldn;t have to say it. In any event the real question, unless we are merely doing history of 19th century social theory for purely scholarly purposes, is whether some view that meets these general criteria as being recognizably Marxist is in facr defensible. Cohen's certainly is the first, so the issue is whether it's the second. This point is reinforced by the fact that the technological- determinist theory is a bourgeois theory that precedes Marx. So is class analysis, as Marx himself points out! Anyway there is T-D and T-D. Smith and others may have maintained version of T-D, but the account developed in the 1859 Preface, The Poverty of Philosophy,a nd elsewhere is distinctively Marx's and he was pround enough of hit to say that it was the guiding thread of his studies to which he had won by a lot of hards, painstaking work. See, for example, Comninel RETHINKING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1987, Verso) and Rigby, MARXISM AND HISTORY (1987, St. Martin's). Both cite Meek 1976 MARXISM AND THE IGNOBLE SAVAGE (C.U.P.) Marx was clearly influenced by this t-d theory (which shows up in Smith, among others), but seems to have moved toward the vol. III theory in which it's the mode of production of the surplus (the mode of exploitation) which reveals the inner secrets of a social formation (ch. 47, s. 2). (I'd guess that Marx's relationship with t-d theory is a lot like his relationship with Ricardo. He learned a lot but did so critically and then moved on to better stuff.) But unlike the situation with Ricardo, where he settles accounts out in the open, he never renounces the TD account--it shows up, for example, in the Critique of the Gotha Program. And as I note, he cites it in the footnotes to the fetishism section of Capital, vol. I, completed and polished after the draft manuscripts for vol. 3. And, unlike them, published. The problem for Cohen's theory that arises from Marx's theory is that as Marx argues (but authors such as Braverman make clear), the nature and speed of technological change are endogenous, to a large extent _determined by_ the mode of exploitation. That's certainly one problem--it's the point of my objection based onm the relative timing of the rise of capitalism and the industrial revolution. But all this can show is that Marx was inconsistent unless there is evidence that her changed his mind and renounced the Preface account. In the postface to the 2nd edition of CAPITAL, Marx quotes a reviewer favorably as summarizing Marx as saying that each economic system has its own laws of population. The same applies to the laws of technology, as Marx describes how the capitalist lust for profits influences the kind of machines introduced and the way in which they are used. Technological determinism only works if technological change (both its quality and quantity) are exogenously given. As above. Maybe he didn't see that this was hard to square with the Preface account. Tech. determinism is even weaker than genetic determinism, because most of the time, an individual's genes don't change due to environmental influence. And these changes aren't transmitted to the young, unless Lamarck and Lysenko were right. Technology is affected
[PEN-L:3822] Exports
One point about exports that has not been discussed much is the idea that the proceeds from exports do not necessarily end up at the point of origin or even the country of origin. If a transnational corporation uses a developing country as an export platform, that benefits the firm but not the people of the country as the export growth model would assume. The same is true of exports from the U.S. We did an analysis of export industries in Illinois to see if growth in exports to Mexico actually enhanced employment. It did not. There are a lot of reasons for that (which the study did not address) but among them is the fact that the major firms that dominate each industry had global options about where to put export revenues. We are now doing a few case studies of firms to try to amplify the firm analysis. Dave Ranney University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Urban Economic Development
[PEN-L:3823] Re: Statement by Women Academics on Welfare
I am mystified why a message on welfare signed by women economists is particularly useful. It doesn't go against gender stereotyping; welfare is typically thought of as a "women's" issue, squishy and bleedingheartish, unlike big macro thinking or rigorously tiny microthinking. It would be news if *men* signed such a statement, not women. It would also be news if NOW and other upscale feminists made a big deal out of defending welfare recipients. But I don't see the point of having any sex segregation on this issue; we're getting deeper into a period of vicious welfare cuts, and we need everyone we can to speak up for civilized treatment of the poor? Is it that women are disproportionally the recipients of welfare - is that what makes it a special issue for women economists? But most welfare recipients are children; should we have a joint petition signed by the children of economists, or better yet, 5-year-old dismal scientists? Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3825] Re: New Party piece
At 4:44 AM 1/18/95, Elaine Bernard wrote: Come'on Doug, play nice. In the same spirit that I took up J. Case, I'm sure you don't mean CP as a term of endearment. Play nice boys! There's some real politics here, so cut out the red baiting bullshit. I'm not redbaiting at all, I'm describing a real tendency, a habit of thought. The original franchisee (their term, not mine) in NYC was James Steele, former chief CP theoretician on Africa. They merged with the Majority Coalition, sponsored by 1199, a union long intimate with the CP. The CP tendency, politically, is characterized by a taste for central committee styles of government and "critical support" (i.e. deals with) the Democrats. Both these styles are visible in the NYC New (Coalition) Party. CP people also use the word Trotskyist as a term of abuse (as do ex-CPers like Jim Weinstein). I thought its application to me was quite emblematic of this impulse. I think the real CP, Trotskyist, New Left, American Left legacy is ignoring political differences and real discussion and decending everything to the level of name calling. If you don't agree with me, you're a (fill in the gap) and therefore your criticism is unworthy of further concern or debate. When I called them CP, I wasn't trying to tar them really. It was purely descriptive. I'm not an anti-communist. I'll even defend the Soviet Union, if you'd like. On the issue of NYC I tend to think that it is rather unusual. The largest city in the country, with strange, strange, politics. I wish Mike Davis who move there and do for NY what he did for LA in CITY OF QUARTZ. However, that aside, I do think that in building a grassroots, democratic, membership based political party that Madison, Milwaukee, Little Rock, etc will be more typical than NYC. No doubt you can build interesting and powerful things outside a power center like New York City. My point, though, was that while local organizing is fine, there's a national and global ruling class to contend with, and that (supra)national r.c. is more like the forces you confront in NYC than the ones you confront in Little Rock. As our hopeless president demonstrates daily. Bob Fitch writes very well on NYC. Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3826] Re: New Party piece
Bravo, Elaine. My thoughts exactly. Ian Robinson On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Elaine Bernard wrote: Come'on Doug, play nice. In the same spirit that I took up J. Case, I'm sure you don't mean CP as a term of endearment. Play nice boys! There's some real politics here, so cut out the red baiting bullshit. I think the real CP, Trotskyist, New Left, American Left legacy is ignoring political differences and real discussion and decending everything to the level of name calling. If you don't agree with me, you're a (fill in the gap) and therefore your criticism is unworthy of further concern or debate. On the issue of NYC I tend to think that it is rather unusual. The largest city in the country, with strange, strange, politics. I wish Mike Davis who move there and do for NY what he did for LA in CITY OF QUARTZ. However, that aside, I do think that in building a grassroots, democratic, membership based political party that Madison, Milwaukee, Little Rock, etc will be more typical than NYC. As for the fusion tactic, the difficulty here is keeping as a tactic, and only a tactic, to gain state wide (or city wide or whatever level the group is interested in apply it) ballot status. The barriers that the state has set up in this country to prevent democratic self-organization in elections is worthy of a totalitarian state. It's a real barrier and problem for any third party. My view is there will be opportunists in the New Party, and sectarians, and we'll go too slow sometimes and too quickly other times. But in a grassroots democratic party if we build a culture of real debate, over policy and tactics I believe we will be able to resolve differences -- and in fact, on occasion operate quite differently in different states and communities depending on the strength of the organization and it's level of organization (that is, has it elected people, does it have access to ballot status, has it been able to reform election laws...) Because I believe this discussions are absolutely essential to the growth and development of any third party, I think it's important for leftist, who agree or are critical of specific tactics, actions or policies to aid in creating a political culture where these issues can be debated and discussed on their merits -- not on who is an trot or who is a stalinist. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3828] Re: rationality
The essential issue, I believe, is whether or not particular social institutions promote socially productive or socially unproductive behavior. [I'm sure we could argue for a while about how to define what is socially productive and unproductive, but let's assume we could agree on that for the moment.] Well, how does an institution promote one kind of behavior rather than another? For the most part, or if you wish to be more cautious in statements, certainly to some extent, institutions promote one kind of behavior rather than another by making one kind of behavior individually rational, IR as you say, and other kinds of behavior individually irrational. People do NOT always have to behave in IR ways in order for this phenomenon to occur. And people are always "free" to choose to behave in ways that are NOT IR for various reasons -- one of which might be moral or pol- itical committments. As one who as frequently chosen individually irrational courses of action -- as I'm sure you are too -- I know that the pressure from social institutions does not always succeed in getting me to behave in a particular way. But, that does not obviate the fact the social institution promoted, or pressured me and others, to behave in a particular kind of way, and forced me to behave in a way that in some meaningful sense was counter to my own self-interests as I see them. It is in this sense that I think progressive critics of capitalism can argue that markets and private enterprise promote socially unpro- ductive behavior. And I don't see how that conclusion is contradicted by the fact that many people -- perhaps all people -- to some extent resist the pressure to behave in the ways markets promote, and even that the very viability of market systems hinges on people NOT always behaving in the ways that markets push them.
[PEN-L:3829] Re: rationality
I have no disagreements with Kevin Quinn's recent posting at all. The reason I want to see what kind of behavior different institutions promote is that I want to "choose" what kind of person I would rather become. But the way to know what kind of agent is going to "go with" a particular institution is to look and see what would be individually rational behavior for someone who had to exist in the context of that institution.
[PEN-L:3831] Re: child care the market
On another list, an irrepressible born-again market enthusiast we'll call only H.G., after dismissing public jobs programs as "a joke" and "a waste of money," declared that government should do no more than finance child care, not provide it - provision being best left to private providers. In an answer to a follow-up question, H.G. said yes, all of 'em, when asked if these include nonprofits, co-ops, and/or MacKids. Any comments from pen-l'ers on other countries' experiences with public child care? Is the state a terrible provider? My god Doug, is that a "come in spin" plea or what?at.? My reply to the mysterious H.G. on that list was as follows. In OZ, child care is provided by both the state and the private sector. Long day care is dominated by the State. The Federal Budget actually subsidises private day care firms to spread the work around a bit. The waiting lists are longer at the public centres b/c they are considered to be a superior service. THere is this on-going debate here about why the state should do it, sponsored of-course by the capitalists who don't care about the kids but the profits they would get if they could get rid of the public involvement. the only way the private firms can compete with the public sector (given the superior service of the latter) is via subsidies. another case of having a market for the sake of it, rather than any benefits it bestows on the consumers. in OZ we like public services. they are in most cases responsive to consumer needs (more so i should add than most of the large private firms, especially the banks - who are trying at present to get rid of all customers with account balances below $1500 - in other words the average bloke in the street), have shown a great deal of innovation, provide better nutrition in the long day centres, are more likely to have educated staff, and are cheap and accessible. private day care subsidies equal the allocation in the federal budget for public child care. beat that. so i think that H.G. person is entirely wrong on this assertion in the case of child care in OZ at any rate. kind regards bill *** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \about The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*-- here Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] World Wide Web Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html *** Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3832] PWT5.6 now available
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 17:56:49 EST Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Feenberg) Subject: PWT5.6 now available X-Comment: Penn-World Tables Discussion List Version 5.6 of the Penn World Tables is now available for anonymous ftp The DOS version (pkzip format) has already been posted in: ftp://nber.harvard.edu/pub/pwt56/dos Uncompressed ASCII and Windows versions will follow shortly. Below is a short description of the new file. PWT 5.6 README.DOC File November 20, 1994 The Penn World Table (Mark 5), called PWT 5 here, was described in "The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1988" by Robert Summers and Alan Heston, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1991. The Table itself, an annex to the article, was distributed to users on a diskette and through a read-only file maintained by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER Publications: 1050 Massachusets Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138; (617) 868-3900)). PWT 5.6, a revised and updated version of the Table, has been placed on this diskette. It was prepared by Alan Heston and Robert Summers of the University of Pennsylvania, Daniel A. Nuxoll of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and Bettina Aten of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with the research assistance of Valerie Mercer, James Walsh, and Bao Truong. It too is being distributed by the NBER. Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3830] Re: child care the market
As we know, the state does a pretty decent job providing health care -- socialized medicine -- to the military. The Military Child Care Program is also quite good. After some widely publicized scandals, the military got their act together in training, certifying, and paying child care workers, so staff at military child care centers are now paid substantially more than civilian child care workers. Their starting point is that salaries should be competitive with the overall local labor pool rather than with the child care labor pool.Directors of military large child care centers earn between $29 and $37 thousand (up to $54 for large centers), while entry level aides earn between $14 and $20 thousand. In addition, staff all receive the full array of benefits -- health and life insurance, pensions, workmen's comp, etc. There is a job ladder with training opportunities, and each center has a training and curriculum specialist. At the same time, costs to parents are pretty low -- sliding scale, averaging $60/week. The key point is that the military makes up the difference between what parents can afford to pay and what you need to pay to have qualified staff providing child care. Anyone interested in getting more info should write Child Development Services, U.S. Army, Community and Family Support Center, 2461 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA. 22331-0521. *** Teresa Amott Associate Professor Dept. of Economics Bucknell University Lewisburg, PA 17837 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 717/524-1652 (w) 717/524-3760 (fax)
[PEN-L:3833] Starbucks and Guatemala
I'm posting this for Erich Hahn, U.S./GLEP Wake Up, Starbucks! As part of its national campaign to persuade Starbucks Coffee Company to adopt a code of conduct, the U.S./Guatemala Labor Education Project (U.S./GLEP) is trying to locate college and university campuses where Starbucks coffee is sold in dining halls and cafeterias. If you know of any such campuses, please notify U.S./GLEP at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leaders of Washington state religious, environmental and labor organizations requested a meeting with Starbucks in June, 1994 to discuss the possibility of a proposed code of conduct for Guatemalan plantations. Starbucks replied that they would not adopt a code of conduct. U.S./GLEP has therefore initiated a campaign to persuade Starbucks to adopt a code of conduct requiring that plantation owners from which it buys pay a living wage, abide by minimum health and safety standards, and respect the basic rights of workers. The national grassroots kickoff took place on Saturday, Dec. 3, with leafletting at 23 Starbucks stores across the country. In response, Starbucks called U.S./GLEP requesting a meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, senior executives from Starbucks said they would talk more about the idea of a code of conduct and provide a formal reply in January. It is unclear whether Starbucks will decide to seriously pursue the idea of a code of conduct or continue opposing the idea. While we are pleased that our work has met with such a prompt response from Starbucks, we don't yet have any concrete commitments from them. Until we do, the grassroots campaign will continue. Nationally, we are coordinating another action day just before Starbucks' annual meeting in February. We are organizing actions for Saturday, February 11, and hope to have a strong presence at Starbucks stores around the country. Starbucks is one of the largest U.S. importers of Guatemalan coffee. Starbucks recently bought The Coffee Connection and is now the fastest growing U.S. gourmet coffee company, operating over 400 coffee cafes around the country. Besides their basic cafes, Starbucks continues to open up stores at airports and at Barnes and Noble bookstores as well as moving onto college campuses. Guatemalan agricultural workers' organizations report that between 60% and 80% of coffee plantations do not pay the legal minimum wage of Q14.50 per day, about $2.50 a day. For a family of five in rural Guatemala to meet their minimum requirements, the Guatemalan National Institute of Statistics estimates that they would need about Q42 per day. The principle that U.S. companies can and should take responsibility for working conditions at worksites that produce the goods these companies sell to U.S. consumers has been recognized by some U.S. retailers who have issued "sourcing codes." No such code has been adopted by U.S. importers of agricultural commodities from developing countries. The letter from the Washington leaders proposes that Starbucks take the lead in adopting such a code for coffee workers, using Guatemala as a pilot project which would eventually be expanded to other countries and companies. Please contact Starbucks and urge Chief Executive Officer Howard Schultz to adopt a path-breaking code of conduct to establish standards setting minimal working conditions and pay at plantations from which it buys, with Guatemala serving as a pilot project. Starbucks Coffee Company, PO Box 34110, Seattle, WA 98124-1110; 206-447-1575, 1-800-447-1575. For more information contact the U.S./Guatemala Labor Education Project, c/o ACTWU, 333 S. Ashland, Chicago, IL, 60607, 312-262-6502, fax 312-262-6602, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3834] Re: Statement by Women Academics on Welfare
As one of the women academic signers of the letter on welfare, I don't think it's purpose was to segregate women (least of all women economists). It was a statement by academic women (better yet, Doug, you might ask the class question of why academic women) who have either studied welfare or are in some related field. When Fran Piven approached me to sign on (yes, Virginia I will sign on to almost anything progressive as far too many people are still living under the fear of McCarthyism and those of us in privileged positions have an obligation to sign as many petitions, letters, protests, etc, as we can possibly hack) any, when Fran approached me and asked me to sign and find some more signatures I figured rather than debate the fine point of why women (why not?) that I would seek out labor educators and academic women who have strong links to the labor movement to try within the narrow confines of why Linda Gordon and Fran were looking for, help to broaden the representation by adding labor names. The big question is where is labor on this. In fact, where is labor on Newt. It seems to me that we should be leading the charge. In contrast to the stunning silence this side of the border, I've been talking with unions in Canada about their fight back preparations, education and campaign around the yet to be released federal budget in February 1995. Of course, maybe brother Case is better informed than I am and knows of the great discussions and education that is taking place inside of the labor movement. My view isn't that US labor is too much of a "talk shop" it's rather that on key issues in society and politics that it is a non-participant. That politics at the level of national issues like welfare reform, or the attack on social programs, aren't countered. Rather we're hung up with the all encompassing issue of potentially amendments to 8 (a) 2 in the Wagner Act. You can appreciate why the 84% of workers who are not organized fail to appreciate the leadership of organized labor at this point in history. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3835] Re: child care the market
On Wed, 18 Jan 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: On another list, an irrepressible born-again market enthusiast we'll call only H.G., after dismissing public jobs programs as "a joke" and "a waste of money," declared that government should do no more than finance child care, not provide it - provision being best left to private providers. In an answer to a follow-up question, H.G. said yes, all of 'em, when asked if these include nonprofits, co-ops, and/or MacKids. Any comments from pen-l'ers on other countries' experiences with public child care? Is the state a terrible provider? I can't comment except anecdotally, but I ahve had experience with state and private child cxare here in Columbus, and I think it is fair to say that any parent, regardless of her or his political ideology, would KILL to get the kids into Ohio State University Childcare. The staff gets public employee benefits and better wages than private childcare, so it's professional and quite stable. The facilities--specially built for the purpose on land donated by the state, are superb. Costs are about the same as private care. The waiting list is a yaer and a half to two and a half years long. Incidentally, the way this facility was won, as the result of an action by women students and students' wives is wonderful. Up to the mid-70's OSU maintained (as University of Michigan still did when I was there) that it could not provide childcare. So women took the issue, and their kids, into their own hands and held a "cry-in"--with the babies they occupied the admin building and refused to move until they got the concession to establish a center. Cops couldn't exactly tear-gas babies and beat up Moms, many of them, pregnant, so after several days, the administration agreed to negotiate the terms to establish the center. Alas, I am moving back to Ann Arbor--in many ways an improvement, but U-M still has no childcare, and private care in AA is twice what it is in Columbus. --Justin Schwartz
