定的书到了，在看第一章， 随便摘两段。。
International Bestseller
Nobel Prize-winning author of Globalization and it's discontents
“ Making Globalization Work"
-- Joseph E. Stiglitz
Chapter 1 : Another World is Possible
p4:
....
I believe that globalization has the potential to bring enormous benefits to those in both the developing and the developed world. But the evidence is overwhelming that it has failed to live up to this protential. This book will show that the problem is not with globalization itself but in the way globalization has been managed. Economics has been driving globalization, especially through the lowering of communication and transportation costs. But politics has shaped it. The rules of the game have been largely set by the advanced industrial countries ---and particularly by special interests within those countries ---and, not surprisingly, they have shaped globalization to further their own interests. They have not sought to create a fair set of rules, let alone a set of rules that would promote the well-being of those in the poorest countries of the world.
...
p5:
...In Davos there was relief, and a bit of complacency. The global economy, which had been weak since the bursting of the dot-com bubble in America, was finally recovering, and the "war on terror" seemed to be under countrol. The 2003 gathering has been marked by enormous tension between the United States and the rest of the world over the war in Iraq, and still earlier meetings had seen disagreement over the direction which globalization was taking. The 2004 meeting was marked with relief that these tensions had at least been modulated. Still there was worry about American unilateralism, about the world's most powerful country imposing its will on others while preaching democracy, self-dertermination, and human rights. People in the developing world had long been worried about how global decisions --- desicions about economics and politics that affected their lives -- were made. Now, it seemed the rest of the world was worried also.
....
Making Globalization Work ( Chapter 3 ) 9/07/2007 20:37
The new New-Keynesian sect seems to on the rise.
It is intellectually entertaining, but I don't think it is going to do much good to the general public.
It is intellectually entertaining, but I don't think it is going to do much good to the general public.
你先读，回头请你讲。
Ok now, I've finished Chapter 1! 
Many good points there but since I started quoting governance so I'll finish here by quoting more on this thread of his thoughts...
P17 He talks about reforming globalization
"A flawed system of global governance
There is now also a consensus, at least outside the United States, that something is wrong with the way decisions are made at the global level; there is a consensus, in particular, on the dangers of unilateralism and on the "democratic deficit" in the international economic institutions. Both by structure and process, voices that ought to be heard are not. Colonialism is dead, yet the developing countries do not have the representation that they should.
World War I made clear our growing global interdependence, and when it was over several international institutions were created. The most important, the League of Nations, failed in its mission to preserve the peace. As World War II was coming to end, there was a resolve to do better. The United Nations was created to prevent the wars that had proven such a scourge during the first half of the twentieth century. With memories of the Great Depression of the 1930s still fresh, two new economic institutions were established: the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. At the time, much of the developing world was still colonized; there institutions were clubs of the rich countries, and their governance reflected this. They quickly established "old boy" rules to enhance their control: the United States agreed that Europe could appoint the head of the IMF, with an American in the number two position; and Europe agreed that the U. S. president could appoint the head of the World Bank. If this institution had been more successful in ameliorating the problems they were supposed to address-- if, for instance, the IMF had succeeded in ensuring the stability of the world's economy -- these anachronisms in governance might have been forgiven. But the IMF failed in its major mission of ensuring global financial stability--as evidenced so starkly in the global crises at the end of the 1990s, which effected every major emerging market economy that had followed the IMF's advice. As the IMF crafted policies to respond o the crises, it seems more often to focus on saving the Western creditors than on helping the countries in crisis and their people. There was money to bail out Western banks but not for minimal food subsidies for those on the brink of starvation. Countries that had turned to the IMF for guidance failed in sustained growth, while countries like China, which followed it's own counsel, had enormous success. Deeper analyses exposed the role that particular IMF policies such as capital market liberalization had played in the failures. While the IMF complained about problems of governance and lack of transparency in developing countries, it seemed that the IMF itself was beset by these same problems. It lacked some of the basic rules of democratic institutions; namely, transparency, so that citizens could see what issues were on the table and have time to react, and also so they could see how officials had voted. so that they could be held accountable. In addition, there was a need for regulations restricting officials form moving quickly to private firms as the departed their public service to the IMF; such restrictions are standard fare in modern democracies, to reduce the appearance -- or reality-- of conflicts of interests, the incentive of servants rewarding potential future employers through favorable procurement or regulation.
There is a growing consensus both that there is a problem of governance in the international public institutions like the IMF that shape globalization and that these problems contribute to their failures. At the very least, the democratic deficit in their governance has contributed to their lack of legitimacy, which has undermined their efficacy-- especially when they speak on issues of democratic governance. "
I also enjoy reading a few other points he made in chapte 1 regarding globalization and poverty, llimitations of liberalizations and protecting environment etc. ( wish there is 电子书，but sigh...
)
Many good points there but since I started quoting governance so I'll finish here by quoting more on this thread of his thoughts...
P17 He talks about reforming globalization
"A flawed system of global governance
There is now also a consensus, at least outside the United States, that something is wrong with the way decisions are made at the global level; there is a consensus, in particular, on the dangers of unilateralism and on the "democratic deficit" in the international economic institutions. Both by structure and process, voices that ought to be heard are not. Colonialism is dead, yet the developing countries do not have the representation that they should.
World War I made clear our growing global interdependence, and when it was over several international institutions were created. The most important, the League of Nations, failed in its mission to preserve the peace. As World War II was coming to end, there was a resolve to do better. The United Nations was created to prevent the wars that had proven such a scourge during the first half of the twentieth century. With memories of the Great Depression of the 1930s still fresh, two new economic institutions were established: the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. At the time, much of the developing world was still colonized; there institutions were clubs of the rich countries, and their governance reflected this. They quickly established "old boy" rules to enhance their control: the United States agreed that Europe could appoint the head of the IMF, with an American in the number two position; and Europe agreed that the U. S. president could appoint the head of the World Bank. If this institution had been more successful in ameliorating the problems they were supposed to address-- if, for instance, the IMF had succeeded in ensuring the stability of the world's economy -- these anachronisms in governance might have been forgiven. But the IMF failed in its major mission of ensuring global financial stability--as evidenced so starkly in the global crises at the end of the 1990s, which effected every major emerging market economy that had followed the IMF's advice. As the IMF crafted policies to respond o the crises, it seems more often to focus on saving the Western creditors than on helping the countries in crisis and their people. There was money to bail out Western banks but not for minimal food subsidies for those on the brink of starvation. Countries that had turned to the IMF for guidance failed in sustained growth, while countries like China, which followed it's own counsel, had enormous success. Deeper analyses exposed the role that particular IMF policies such as capital market liberalization had played in the failures. While the IMF complained about problems of governance and lack of transparency in developing countries, it seemed that the IMF itself was beset by these same problems. It lacked some of the basic rules of democratic institutions; namely, transparency, so that citizens could see what issues were on the table and have time to react, and also so they could see how officials had voted. so that they could be held accountable. In addition, there was a need for regulations restricting officials form moving quickly to private firms as the departed their public service to the IMF; such restrictions are standard fare in modern democracies, to reduce the appearance -- or reality-- of conflicts of interests, the incentive of servants rewarding potential future employers through favorable procurement or regulation.
There is a growing consensus both that there is a problem of governance in the international public institutions like the IMF that shape globalization and that these problems contribute to their failures. At the very least, the democratic deficit in their governance has contributed to their lack of legitimacy, which has undermined their efficacy-- especially when they speak on issues of democratic governance. "
I also enjoy reading a few other points he made in chapte 1 regarding globalization and poverty, llimitations of liberalizations and protecting environment etc. ( wish there is 电子书，but sigh...
)| Johann : |
| The new New-Keynesian sect seems to on the rise.
It is intellectually entertaining, but I don't think it is going to do much good to the general public. |
definition of "general public" is...?
Shmacks like me. 
| cathy2thousand : | ||
definition of "general public" is...? |
You mean citizen of earth!
| Johann : | ||||
Shmacks like me.
|
No.
Although the theroy sounds solid, it contradicts with what is acutally going on in the real world. It suites to an utopian of idealists, like Geroge W. Bush, but the majority of 芸芸众生 does not belong to this domain.
Although the theroy sounds solid, it contradicts with what is acutally going on in the real world. It suites to an utopian of idealists, like Geroge W. Bush, but the majority of 芸芸众生 does not belong to this domain.
| cathy2thousand : | ||||||
You mean citizen of earth!
|
我知道了，你是说这儿说的和吃的，宗教都没关系。我怎么忘了生活网的 favorite 了呢？！ 
其实这书里有，再讲 globalization and poverty 的时候有讲吃的！我回头给你翻一翻是哪页。。
其实这书里有，再讲 globalization and poverty 的时候有讲吃的！我回头给你翻一翻是哪页。。
| Johann : | ||||||||
| No.
Although the theroy sounds solid, it contradicts with what is acutally going on in the real world. It suites to an utopian of idealists, like Geroge W. Bush, but the majority of 芸芸众生 does not belong to this domain.
|
且包饭未孔高啦。
| leefd : |
| 且包饭未孔高啦。 |
huh?
| rogerlee : |
| 你先读，回头请你讲。 |
一起读？
Still in chapter 1 -- Globalization and poverty.
" ... The World Bank defines poverty as living on less than $2 a day, absolute or extreme poverty is living on less than $1 a day..." --- how many people live in developed countries can really undersand this?! 天天吃白薯!
"Think for a minute what it means to live on 1 or 2 dollars a day. Life for people this poor is brutal. Childhood malnutrituion is endemic, life expectancy is often below 50 years. and medical care is scarce. Hours are spent each day searching for fuel and drinkable water and eking out a miserable livelihood, planting cotton on a semi-arid plot of land and hoping that ....." --- very very sad
"Gloablization has played a part both in the biggest success -- and in some of the failures. .... " then author praised how China carefully managed economic growth and lifted serveral hundred million people out of poverty.. However ".... the sad truth is ... that outside of China, poverty in the developing world has increased over the past two decades. Some 40 percent of the world's 6.5 billion people live in poverty ( a number that is up 36 percent from 1981)..." 877 million live in extreme poverty ( 3% more than 1981)..." --- shocking 40% world population!
"...Globalization has exposed developing countries more risk, but markets to insure against these risks are notably absent. In more advanced countries, goverments fill in the gap by providing pensions for senior citizens, disability payments, health insurance, welfare and unemployment insurance. But in developing countries, governments are typically too poor to implement social insurance programs. What little money they have is more likely to be spent in basic education and health, and on building infrastructure. ...." -- How's China doing on this?
Does globalization help on poverty? here the author says up to this point because the way the system setup, developing countries are under represented. Such as China...and
"... By now it has become clear that opening up markets ( taking down trade barriers, opening up to capital flows) by itself will not "solve" the problem of poverty; it may even make it worse. What is needed is both more assistance and a fairer trade regime..."
" ... The World Bank defines poverty as living on less than $2 a day, absolute or extreme poverty is living on less than $1 a day..." --- how many people live in developed countries can really undersand this?! 天天吃白薯!
"Think for a minute what it means to live on 1 or 2 dollars a day. Life for people this poor is brutal. Childhood malnutrituion is endemic, life expectancy is often below 50 years. and medical care is scarce. Hours are spent each day searching for fuel and drinkable water and eking out a miserable livelihood, planting cotton on a semi-arid plot of land and hoping that ....." --- very very sad
"Gloablization has played a part both in the biggest success -- and in some of the failures. .... " then author praised how China carefully managed economic growth and lifted serveral hundred million people out of poverty.. However ".... the sad truth is ... that outside of China, poverty in the developing world has increased over the past two decades. Some 40 percent of the world's 6.5 billion people live in poverty ( a number that is up 36 percent from 1981)..." 877 million live in extreme poverty ( 3% more than 1981)..." --- shocking 40% world population!
"...Globalization has exposed developing countries more risk, but markets to insure against these risks are notably absent. In more advanced countries, goverments fill in the gap by providing pensions for senior citizens, disability payments, health insurance, welfare and unemployment insurance. But in developing countries, governments are typically too poor to implement social insurance programs. What little money they have is more likely to be spent in basic education and health, and on building infrastructure. ...." -- How's China doing on this?
Does globalization help on poverty? here the author says up to this point because the way the system setup, developing countries are under represented. Such as China...and
"... By now it has become clear that opening up markets ( taking down trade barriers, opening up to capital flows) by itself will not "solve" the problem of poverty; it may even make it worse. What is needed is both more assistance and a fairer trade regime..."
Chapter 2 -- The Promise of Development
"The debate about economic globalization is mixed with debates about economic theory and values. Three quarter centry ago, three major schools of economic ...."
The author expecially lay out the model of Washington Consensus strategey for development.
" This policy focused on minimizing the role of government, emphasizing privatization, trade and capital market liberalization....."
" In practice, the Washington Consensus put little emphasis on equity... " --- trouble trouble trouble!
"..... The alternative view, which I hold, sees government having a more active role, in both promoting development and protecting the poor. ... There are many other areas in which markets, by themselves, do not work well. There will be too much of some things, like pollution and environmental degradation, and too little of others, like research. What separates developed from less developed countries is not just a gap in resources but a gap in knowledge, which is why investments in education and technology -- largely from goverment -- are so important--- Very well said! The importance of value that is NOT and should NOT be material driven!
Then the author addressed world region's economic development respectively: East Asia, Latin America, Africa, and South Asia, also did he include discussions of countries in transition from communism which including China of course.
尽管才读了不到两章， 但很钦佩作者的 global perspective。 并不以自己是出自大国， 曾做过 world bank senior VP 和 chief economist 而自居。而是冷静，求实，以事实作为根据，切身处地的从 global economy 的角度出发， 为 developing 国家着想， proposed best solution for them regardless if those ideas from Washington or not.
"The debate about economic globalization is mixed with debates about economic theory and values. Three quarter centry ago, three major schools of economic ...."
The author expecially lay out the model of Washington Consensus strategey for development.
" This policy focused on minimizing the role of government, emphasizing privatization, trade and capital market liberalization....."
" In practice, the Washington Consensus put little emphasis on equity... " --- trouble trouble trouble!
"..... The alternative view, which I hold, sees government having a more active role, in both promoting development and protecting the poor. ... There are many other areas in which markets, by themselves, do not work well. There will be too much of some things, like pollution and environmental degradation, and too little of others, like research. What separates developed from less developed countries is not just a gap in resources but a gap in knowledge, which is why investments in education and technology -- largely from goverment -- are so important--- Very well said! The importance of value that is NOT and should NOT be material driven!
Then the author addressed world region's economic development respectively: East Asia, Latin America, Africa, and South Asia, also did he include discussions of countries in transition from communism which including China of course.
尽管才读了不到两章， 但很钦佩作者的 global perspective。 并不以自己是出自大国， 曾做过 world bank senior VP 和 chief economist 而自居。而是冷静，求实，以事实作为根据，切身处地的从 global economy 的角度出发， 为 developing 国家着想， proposed best solution for them regardless if those ideas from Washington or not.
Chapter 3 --- Making Trade Fair.
读得好慢，但是读的很
读得好慢，但是读的很