|Kees Biekart. 1999. The Politics of Civil Society Building: European
Private Aid Agencies and Democratic Transitions in Central America.
Utrecht/Amsterdam: International Books/ Transnational Institute. 416 pp.
It is clear that the treatment of civil society as a fundamentally
pre- or antistate sphere and as a wellspring of democratic energies and
virtues is deeply rooted in current political thinking. However, the autonomy
and democratic qualities of associational life are partly belied by the
historical association of civil society with the liberal state and capitalism.
Our point is not to deny the importance of the separation of state and
civil society for the practice of contemporary social life, but to note
that a failure to attend to the mutually constitutive relationship of civil
society, capitalism, and the liberal state will misguide our assessments
of the emancipatory possibilities of associational life. (Pasha and
The growing `developmentalisation' of [Latin American] women as new
`client groups' of states and international regimes…contributed to NGOisation
by infusing the more professionalised sectors of the feminist movement
field with significant material resources […] Although many advances in
gender policy can be atributed to…these new movement actors, critics note
that in taking on research or service activities commissioned by state
and international agencies, feminist NGOs sometimes act like `neo-' rather
than `nongovernmental' organisations. […] Finally, the manifold democratic
contradictions made evident by the Beijing [4th World Conference
on Women, 1995 - PW] process should further caution us against uncritically
extolling the virtues of `global civil society', for it, too, is a terrain
mined by highly unequal relations of power…Though civil society is certainly
crucial to the democratisation of dominant national and international publics,
it must remain a central `target' of the democratising efforts of feminists
and other progressive activists worldwide. (Sonia Alvarez 1998: 306-17]
Introduction: less a review than…
Kees Biekart's is a highly professional, theoretically sophisticated
and empirically well-founded study. It is written by a person with many
years' experience in Central America solidarity and development work. It
was submitted for a Ph.D. and received this with honours. My response to
it here is something more than - or at least different from - a conventional
review. Biekart has stimulated me to further reading and reflection on
civil society, non-governmental organisations, solidarity and charity.
The book begins with an Introduction on `charity and solidarity'. Part
I deals with `civil society building' and the private aid agencies, both
theoretically and analytically. Part II presents democratic transitions
in Central America and evaluates the role of these agencies in this process.
There is a Conclusion on the `paradox of private foreign aid'. My expertise,
on what could considered the international relations of social movements,
and my concern, with the role being played internationally by `the solidarity
of substitution', imply that an address to the Introduction, the theoretical/analytical
framework, one international case study, and the Conclusion. If, by so
doing, I miss anything of substance, I hope others will inform me accordingly.
What we need in this area is a so-far absent dialogue.
But first I should clarify what I mean by `substitution solidarity'
and its relation to charity. The solidarity of substitution belongs to
a set that includes: Identity, Substitution, Complementarity, Reciprocity,
Affinity and Restitution. Briefly; Identity is expressed by the slogan
`Workers of the World Unite!', implying one long-term general interest;
Substitution is exemplified by development cooperation, or `standing in'
for the poor, exploited and powerless; Complementarity by the solidarity
of `differential contribution' to a common interest or aim (which could
be between workers, or North-South); Reciprocity by the exchange of similar
quantities or qualities over time; Affinity suggests personal identity/friendship
between, say, eco-feminists, socialists (of a particular hue), or even
stamp-collectors; Restitution by recognition and compensation for past
wrongs. Each of these has its own part of the meaning of international
solidarity; each is only part of the meaning, and by itself can
only be a limited and impoverished understanding of such. The limitations
of a substitution solidarity are that it is a top-down, one-way relationship,
close to charity. Like charity it does not contain any necessary
address to the causes of inequality, nor implication of a transformation
of the relation between the two parties: `the poor are always with us'.
Indeed, during the short history of development aid, it appears that `the
poor are always with us - in ever-rising numbers! Now back to the book.
The Far From My Bed Show
Biekart's Introduction, is intended to identify the tension,
contradiction or movement from solidarity to charity in the work of his
`European Private Aid Agencies' (henceforth EPAAs). Since he nowhere defines
or discusses the notion of `solidarity', it appears to be used rather as
those agencies, or their Central American `partners', understood it - as
aid intended not so much for well-digging or disaster relief, more for
self-empowerment and democratisation. Whilst I understand the usage, and
prefer this kind of aid to the other, I evidently consider `solidarity'
problematic when applied to a relationship which is top-down, one-way,
North/West-to-South/East, `far from my bed' (as the Dutch have it) and
Civil society and political economy
The key concept in Part 1 is that of `civil society' (CS). Biekart presents
a thorough discussion of this much-discussed term, and of such related
ones as `citizenship' and `non-governmental organisations' (NGOs). The
latter he considers a loose and ambiguous notion which he prefers to avoid,
except when applied to organisations mediating between bodies at the base
and those higher up the aid/finance hierarchy. Although Biekart is obviously
aware that he is discussing both CS and CA (Central America) in the context
of neo-liberalism, his index does not list either `market', `capitalism'
or `globalisation'. So his CS is understood, fundamentally, in relationship
to the state. Here arises the Pasha/Blaney challenge, which seems
to me entirely relevant to understanding what is or was going on both in
Central America and in the North-South funding relationship. I will return
In so far as a new, globalised and networked capitalism is shaping up,
it does seem to me to be also shifting priorities from force to consent
- from violence to seduction (which evidently does not mean it will stop
using the former, nationally or internationally, as in ex-Yugoslavia).
We seem, in other words, to be increasingly moving from a Leninist to a
Gramscian capitalism internationally. An informatised capitalism seems
to require, for a globally-integrated world of consumers, a stable and
legitimate polity - from the nation to the globe - which is to be ensured
by some kind of CS. Whilst the density and activity of such a civil society
is variable in the extreme (in the USA it prominently includes the National
Rifle Association, and permits guns to be the primary source of death amongst
the young), the existence of a lively CS could be understood as essential
to the flexibility and innovation of a globalised, networked capitalism.
Completion of the `unfinished tasks of modernity' is clearly needed in
CA (as in the US). But even the thoroughly modern and socially-civilised
Netherlands is confronted by contradictions which capitalism produces and
reproduces. In order for citizens and social movements to surpass this
limitation they surely need to have a notion of CS that is in tension with
the market in general, capitalism more specifically and, in Central America,
an externally imposed neo-liberal capitalism in particular.
Foreign-funded farmers (and…feminists?)
In Part 2 we eventually arrive at the CA case studies, and I at the
regional peasant network known as ASOCODE (Central American Association
of Small and Medium Agricultural Producers), founded around 1991. In the
meantime we have skipped some 200 pages of dense description and sophisticated
analysis and conceptualisation of the EPAAs, their targets/recipients/partners
in CA and even Biekart's notion of an `aid chain' as the necessary object/process
for analysis. The ASOCODE falls into the category of international networks,
and to two uncommon but crucial sub-sets of such, the `sub-regional'
and the `popular'.
If, as I believe, the development of a new kind of `global solidarity',
an internationalism related to globalisation, is to come into existence,
its most crucial building blocks will have to be, like ASOCODE, both geographically
and socially close to the relevant `people'. This network went further,
providing both the stimulus to and basis for a regional coalition of Central
American civil society networks in 1994, known as ICIC (The Civil Initiative
for Central American Integration). The nature and history of the ASOCODE
reminds me quite strongly of those of feminist organising at the Latin
American/Caribbean regional level (Alvarez 1998, Waterman 1998:Ch. 6).
It may be that the clue to the rise and crisis of both lies precisely in
their role as heavy aid recipients at a time of transition from international
neo-Keynesianism to a globalised neo-liberalism.
ASOCODE and ICIC receive some 20 pages in Biekart's account, and I could
have done with a great deal more (some can be found in Edelman 1998). Biekart
deals with them under the sub-heading `Strengthening Civil Society from
a Regional Level'. The creation of this regional campesino network
comes quite clearly out of a given history, specific social changes and
a particular political opportunity. The history is that of semi-capitalist
societies, military regimes, devastating (US-sponsored) civil wars, and
of left rural insurrectionary strategies. The social changes include the
creation of rural social structures increasingly interlinked with urban
ones, ecological depredation, the crisis of the nation state confronted
by globalisation, and the formal and self-education of rural cadres. The
opportunity was precisely that offered by the demilitarisation/democratisation
process, and the creation of a regional identity and institutions, enthusiastically
backed, as they were, by at least the European PAAs.
Out of a European Community-funded project on regional food security
came the proposal for a network of campesino (peasant, farmer) organisations,
led by a young charismatic activist from Costa Rica, Wilson Campos. Springing
partly out of national needs and partly out of regional ambitions, the
project rang the right bells with funding agencies - which had their eyes
on the Earth Summit planned for Rio, 1992. In the first year of its existence
the network received US$ 110,000! This project was clearly flavour-of-the-decade
with the EPAAs. Campos presented the network as the real voice of
the peasants at the grassroots, contrasting it with the rural-oriented
but mediating NGOs. This argument evidently also appealed to the funders.
By 1992, ASOCODE was receiving US$ 200,000. By 1996 the budget had risen
to US$ 1.5 million! (One wonders where exactly this very considerable
funding came from). Whilst in some cases there were existing or developing
national campesino federations, in others they were being stimulated
top-down by the network. ASOCODE produced `alternative' regional documents
on agricultural development, consulted and lobbied with new regional inter-governmental
structures. Regional governments, and inter-governmental institutions,
were impressed. They were also obviously unconcerned about any unrepresentativity
of ASOCODE, any mishandling of finance, any lack of internal democracy
or failures in reporting to financial agencies! With the help and advice
of some of the EPAAs, the leader(s) of ASOCODE made international contacts
outside the sub-region - though these seem to have been with Europe and
North America (vertically?) rather than the rest of South America, Africa
or Asia (horizontally?). At a certain moment, criticism of the network
developed amongst the national federations, which felt ASOCODE had lost
its popular address and base.
The success of ASOCODE led to the creation of the ICIC. Eight regionally
organised networks were involved, including trade unions, the peasant organisations,
small entrepreneurs, development NGOs and community organisations. As a
regional network of regional networks, the ICIC - of which Campos was again
a leader - had no national members. Foreign-funded heads without local
bodies were looming over the horizon. Biekart concludes:
Of all the case studies presented in this study, ASOCODE therefore
is probably the clearest example of the `private aid paradox': private
foreign aid facilitated the emergence of influential intermediary actors
in civil society, but simultaneously created new problems that obstructed
their organisational development. (287)
It would be interesting to check, in a couple of years, whether or not
these bodies are still around and effective, whether they might have passed
away but been recycled into other civil initiatives that could be
traced back to the funding effort, or whether they have been absorbed into
national/regional state activity.
From civilising mission to civil-society mission?
The `paradox' Biekart refers to is not, it seems to me, limited to misused
funding, personalistic leadership, distance from the base, or bureaucracy
(in the sense of institutional self-interest and self-referentiality).
It includes, I would like to suggest, the injection (with appropriate cash
incentives) of contemporary West European social-democratic values, such
as `sustainability' and `gender awareness'. Whilst the first of these seems
to have found an echo amongst campesino activists increasingly aware
of environmental depredation, the latter related to no pre-existing awareness
amongst a traditionally macho leadership. Any more than did later attempts
to parachute into ladino (`white') consciousness a sensitivity to
This, and more, is all well understood by Biekart. What he fails to
note, far less to stress, is the relationship between these practices and
those of earlier generations of White Fathers (or Mothers), who introduced
into their colonies such worthy notions as `cleanliness is next to godliness'.
In neither the historical nor the contemporary case is it easy to deny
the progressive - even life-sustaining - nature of such imports. In both
cases it is, however, necessary to recognise the nature of the relationship,
and the relative power of the parties at various positions in the `aid
chain'. (Would not `pyramid', suggesting a hierarchy, or `waterpipe', suggesting
one-way flow, have been more appropriate metaphors?).
The appropriate conceptual framework for this kind of relationship is,
surely, that of patron and client. There is here a well-developed
theoretical literature, which would seem quite adequate to the case. That
the patrons are themselves critics of colonialism, patriarchy, the church
- even of charity or capitalism - does nothing to necessarily transform
or even flatten the hierarchy. At this end: lifetime office jobs,
professional status, a comfortable income, cars (his and hers), neo-liberal
managerial doctrines and methods, health insurance (cradle to grave), generous
retirement benefits. At that end: a palid (dusky?) and, probably,
temporary echo of these things, subject to the vagaries of European state
developmental priorities, of European public response to the increasingly
slick appeals of the funding agencies. (And in this contrast I am leaving
out those at the bottom of the pyramid, at the end of the pipeline).
Biekart is not unaware of all this. There is, however, a fundamental
(i.e. foundational) shortcoming of development funding, which I do not
think is highlighted by Biekart. This is that the local process of struggle
and learning, by which women and indigenous peoples impose themselves,
from below or beyond, on conservative or privileged others, is truncated,
with the consequent danger of the disappearance of any `woman friendliness',
or `ecological awareness', once the external financial stimulus for such
disappears. For me, therefore, there is no private aid paradox,
there is a private aid syndrome and/or a private aid contradiction.
All that Biekart tells us was, surely, predictable before the event, at
the dawn of development aid.
This is not to say that the EPAA represents evil. It is to raise the
question of what (or whom, and how) it represents. There are, no doubt,
`good' funding agencies or projects. But the fact that there might, according
to one human interest, identity or prefence, be `good' wolves (or mice),
does not tell us enough about the nature of the species `wolf'. There are,
after all, `good' capitalist states. The Netherlands is an excellent example,
and one wishes, for the sake of US schoolchildren, as for its Central American
backyard - and for the rest of us living under the volcano - that the US
had a similar state. In so far as these funding agencies do in some sense
mediate between European civil societies and Third World peoples (mark
my language), perhaps one should follow the argument of Wilson Campos and
either do away with the mediator, or at least turn them into public
or civil aid agencies, i.e. something directly dependent on, open
and accountable to, a relevant part of the European public (labour, women,
ecological, pacifist, human rights, etc). When, around 1890, Australian
and British dockworkers practised effective solidarity (sub-species: reciprocal?)
during successive dockstrikes, the money came out of worker and public
pockets. Maybe we could be inspired by this model, learn from it, and invent
a new one appropriate to our age and problems.
I don't think I am saying anything particularly original or radical
here. Much of the substance and tone can, I think, be found in a rather
more sceptical work - to which Biekart contributed and for which he was
co-responsible (Sogge 1996). In judging the impact of the private funding
agencies, he here concluded as follows:
In sum, the record of agencies directly impacting on wider democratic
processes in countries or regions is not encouraging. Governments have
more than enough ways of keeping agencies and their local intermediaries
in their place - as welcome substitutes for public services and placators
of what might otherwise be a potentially destabilising mass of people who
are poor and politically marginalised […] Overall, despite the misleading
but politically correct use of the term `empowerment', the bulk of the
agency community is developmentally conservative and unempowering, happily
fulfilling traditional roles of social support and welfare provision. The
vocal few, advocating a different position in development do not correspond
to the mainstream of agency activity. (Fowler and Biekart 1996: 128).
The question remains of not only why there are so few good wolves/mice,
but of the nature, role and function of such within an environment more
broadly defined or understood.
Niet of of, maar en en?
So, back to civil society - and my exotic subhead. This is the economical
Dutch for `not either/or but both this and that'. I am referring to the
political-economic critique of a primarily political concept of civil society.
My employment of the initial quote should not (Goddess forbid!) be taken
as an identification with any political-economic determinism. Both the
item I here cite and the one I mention below mount serious challenges to
an over-political understanding of CS. But neither of them even defines,
far less problematises the rock on which they stand, that of political
economy. We need an understanding which allows for both, and possibly more
(social psychology? cultural politics?).
Without pretending that I can here solve the problem I have raised about
an understanding of CS, let us see if a consideration of other recent material
might point us in the right general direction. Pasha and Blaney (1998)
consider that the notion of `global civil society' (GCS) and `transnational
associational life' (TAL), are either premature or predefined, that they
aid the development of the neo-liberal world order, and that what is required
is a reassertion of the importance of a democratised nation state in the
Third World. The story they have to tell is
one less heroic, even defeatist, about the prospects of opposition
to the oligarchical features of the international system'. (437)
Although there are notes in P&B that suggest their attraction to the
heroic and optimistic story of the GCS/TAL advocates, they seem to me deeply
mired within 1) a political-economic determinism which suggests that nothing
can change until everything changes, 2) a state-nation-defined notion of
politics, which suggests that `politics' occurs only in address to, within,
or between, states. It is this that leads them to reassert a theoretical
status and progressive international political role for a Third World that
can hardly be recognised since 1) the disappearance of the Second one,
and 2) its own political, economic and strategic differentiation. P&B
are therefore 1) insensitive to what I would call `theoretically critical
and socially committed globalisation theory' (Waterman 1998:Ch. 7), and
to such radically new phenomena as 2) the international campaign that got
landmines banned, 3) the campaign that - at time of writing - is still
keeping Pinochet under arrest in the UK, and 4) the contribution to a new
kind of national and global civil society by a tiny band of Zapatistas
and marginalised Mayan people in the south east of Mexico (Planeta Tierra
Görg and Hirsch (1998, henceforth G&H) seem to come out of
the same stable as P&B, have similar worries, but are enabled by their
attraction to the idea of `international democracy', and approval of certain
kinds of NGOs, to spell this out positively - even if with heavy qualifications.
Dealing with NGOs and GCS under the rubric `between myth and reality',
G&H seem themselves paralysed between an old myth and a new reality.
The myth (OK, a theory related to a stage of capitalist development),
is that of a contradiction between economic `globalisation' (put in cautious
quotes) and the political form of the nation-state. The new reality is
that of a globalisation (mine comes without quotes) in which hegemonic
power may be shifting from the political institutional form (state/interstate)
to the socio-cultural one (consumption, media viewing, tourism). And in
which even the political-institutional form/level may be being dispersed
to the locality, the region (within, between nation states), the hemisphere,
the globe. G&H do rehearse a series of challenges to notions of international
democracy, but worry that, given the nature of the international sphere
of decision-making, it becomes necessary to ask
what is the meaning of `democracy' if there exist neither a `people'
in the democratic-constitutional legal sense, nor general elections, nor
active and legitimate political parties, nor a parliament and organs of
representation, nor a central state equipped with a monopoly of coercion?
It is curious, given their Marxist station of departure, that their terminus
appears to be liberal democracy and the bourgeois-democratic state. But
what they seem to me to reveal is rather the challenge, to radical-democrats,
to reinvent democracy, to reconceptualise civil society, globally/locally,
re-discover/re-create a people, precisely to meet the threats and promises
of a globalised and informatised capitalist (dis)order. Despite their desire
to do this, during which they again raise important problems, they cite
the Zapatista movement (of indigenous peasants in the Deep South
of Mexico) not as an example or source of relevant new experiences and
ideas, but to argue its limitations (in the face of their industrial-nation-state
model). And yet more clearly than P&B do they reveal their political-economic
The various possibilities for democracy will only be realised when
the dominant mode of capitalist production and the dominant mode of the
capitalist way of life have been fundamentally altered. (612)
Fundamentally altered, hey? As by such possible democrats as Lenin? Mao?
Pol Pot? President for Life, Fidel Castro? Presidente Gonzalo (prematurely
appointed, with a view to a `fundamental alteration' of capitalist production
and the semi-liberal nation-state in Peru)?
Back to Central America, which I will take here socio-culturally, so
as to include at least the South-East of Mexico just mentioned. Zapatismo
clearly comes out of a comparable conjuncture to that which Biekart reveals
in CA. It has also benefited from EPAA funding, at least indirectly (according
to the account of de la Grange and Rico 1997). But the CS it is attempting
to create also comes out of both national and indigenous
experience. Its discourse is not, as Yúdice (1999) says of the local,
national and foreign NGOs involved with the two Brazilian projects he examines
`largely overdetermined by this network of collaborators and intermediaries'.
Here is the take of Holloway and Peláez 1998 on the Zapatista concept
of civil society:
The EZLN proposes…the promotion of horizontal social solidarities
(this seems the best interpretation of the constant affirmation of `for
everyone, everything; nothing for ourselves'). This is to occur through
a strategy which…consists in overcoming the separation between `political
society' and `civil society', by dissolving the former into the latter.
The EZLN do not use the concept of `class' or `class struggle' in their
discourse, in spite of the fact that Marxist theory has clearly played
an important part in their formation. They have preferred, instead, to
develop a new language, to speak of the struggle of truth and dignity…
In looking for support, or in forming links with other struggles, they
have appealed not to the working class or the proletariat, but to `civil
society'. By `civil society', they seem to mean `society in struggle',
in the broadest sense: all those groups and initiatives engaged in latent
or overt struggles to assert some sort of control over their future, without
aspiring to hold governmental office. (180)
The same collection is also acutely aware of both the source of Zapatista
power and originality, in a highly localised place, and, in its equally
powerful and original address to the global, which makes effective use
of cyberspace. One does not have to subordinate oneself to the seductive
Zapatista language (nor over-interpret it as Holloway and Peláez
tend to) to see how - win, lose, compromise - the Zapatista understanding
of civil society as local/global, real/virtual, can inspire radically new
theory on how CS might be generalised under conditions of globalisation:
Networks - such as women's, environmental, ethnic and other social
movements networks - are the location of new political actors and the source
of promising cultural practices and possibilities. It is thus possible
to speak of a cultural politics of cyberspace and the production of cybercultures
that resist, transform or present alternatives to the dominant virtual
and real worlds. This cybercultural politics can be most effective if it
fulfils two conditions: awareness of the dominant worlds that are being
created by the same technologies on which the progressive networks rely
(including awareness of how power works in the world of transnational networks
and flows); and an ongoing tacking back and forth between cyberpolitics
(political activism of the Internet) and what I call place politics, or
political activism in the physical locations at which the networker sits
and lives. (Escobar 1999:32)
At the same time, however, a contributor to the Holloway/Peláez
volume cautions that
the emergence of…challenges to governability have also drawn on the
currently popular concept of `civil society' to contemplate how such threats
might be tamed and integrated… [A recent RAND Corporation report provides]
a sketch of the problems of integrating the increasingly powerful networks
of `civil society' into a workable balance with the state (hierarchy) and
business (market). For those whose understanding of democracy sees the
state and business as fundamental obstacles to its realisation, such a
conceptualisation can only lead to formulae for cooptation, neutralisation
and defeat. (Cleaver 1998)
What seems to be coming out of this socio-cultural Central America is less
a notion of civil society as something exported (from the North by DFAAs)
or imported (into the South by NGOs), as a hypothetical circulation
of understandings and practices, within a solidarity discourse and
practice, extending across our mixed times as well as our muddled world.
Biekart himself ends his book, quite literally, with the following notion:
In the years ahead, progressive private aid agencies will have to
choose whether or not to use this [the CA/CS experience - PW] in order
to `reinvent' solidarity, for example by performing an active role in forging
transnational alliances and bridging the gap between Northern and Southern
civil society, a function that is currently being performed, unchallenged,
by the transnational corporate sector. (302)
I will respond to this in a moment, but I want to again contrast the hope
expressed briefly here with the much more specific conclusion to the Sogge
collection. Here Biekart suggests four possible scenarios for the future
of private Northern development agencies, ending with this one:
The Common Agenda, and Reinvention[:] Pressed by allies and
confronted with mounting social and environmental decay in the North, some
agencies begin to rethink and recast themselves along lines of a common
[global - PW] agenda… They drop their exclusive focus on problems `out
there' in the South. Structural adjustment, and widening social fissures,
are now also realities of the North as well as the South. Agencies seek
areas of joint interest with bodies hitherto focused on home ground… They
develop pragmatic divisions of labour with activist and knowledge-based
Southern NGOs… [V]olunteers and donating memberships …grow [in the North
- PW]. The latter are drawn into…campaigns…that touch everyday life North
and South. In short, a scenario in which generosity and solidarity dethrone
calculation and cold charity. (Biekart and Sogge 1996:205. My italics -
This notion comes close to the one I earlier suggested, of learning from
and reinventing the old labour internationalism.
It is not true, finally, that transnational corporations are currently
unchallenged. Such solidarity is being reinvented, even in the immediate
neighbourhood of Central America, often in innovative `cross-border, cross-movement'
alliances (Pollack 1998, cf. de la Cueva 1999, RECHIP 1999), which do,
occasionally, effectively challenge the transnational corporate sector.
Some such have, again, been funded by Dutch funding agencies (the Santiago
Summit of 1997 recorded in RECHIP 1999)! I therefore hope that Kees Biekart
might, in some forthcoming work, use his evident capacities to investigate
such phenomena, which represent the advance guard of the struggle to civilise
national, regional and global society. My feeling is, however, that the
North-South relations even here need to be considered in relation to a
solidarity discourse and practice. Standing on the theoretical and ethical
rock of international solidarity, wielding the kind of conceptual tools
I have suggested (improved ones would be welcome), we could then consider
to what extent funding agencies might or might not be making a contribution
toward the civilising of our dangerously globalised world.
Alvarez, Sonia. 1998. `Latin American Feminists "Go Global": Trends
of the 1990s and Challenges for the New Millennium', in Sonia Alvarez,
Evelina Dagnino and Arturo Escobar (eds.), Cultures of Politics: Politics
of Cultures - Re-visioning Latin American Social Movements. Boulder:
Westview. Pp. 293-324.
Cleaver, Harry. 1998. `The Zapatistas and the Electronic Fabric of Struggle'
in John Holloway and Eloína Paláez (eds.), Zapatista!
Reinventing Revolution in Mexico. London: Pluto. 81-103.
de la Cueva, Héctor. 1998. `Global Crisis & Trade Union Recomposition
in the Face of Regionalization of the Worldwide Economy'. Mexico DF: Centro
de Investigación Laboral. 9 pp.
de la Grange, Bertrand and Maite Rico. 1998. Marcos, la genial impostura
[Marcos, the Brilliant Imposture]. Mexico DF: Aguilar. 471 pp.
Edelman, Marc. 1998. `Organising across Borders: The Rise of a Transnational
Peasant Movement in Central America', in Jutta Blauert and Simon Zadek
(eds.), Mediating Sustainability: Growing Policy from the Grassroots.
London: Kumarian press. 215-47.
Escobar, Arturo. 1999. Gender, Place and Networks: A Political Ecology
of Cyberculture, in Wendy Harcourt (ed.), Women@Internet: Creating
New Cultures in Cyberspace. London: Zed Press. Pp. 149-55.
Fowler, Alan and Kees Biekart. 1996. `Do Private Agencies Really Make
a Difference?' in Sogge, David (with Kees Biekart and John Saxby) ed. Compassion
and Calculation: The Business of Private Foreign Aid. London: Pluto.
Görg, Christoph and Joachim Hirsch. 1998. `Is International Democracy
Possible?', Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No.
Holloway, John and Eloína Peláez (eds). 1998. Zapatista!
Reinventing Revolution in Mexico. London: Pluto Press. 201 pp.
Pasha and Blaney. 1998. `Elusive Paradise: The Promise and Peril of
Global Civil Society', Alternatives, Vol. 23, pp. 417-50.
Planeta Tierra. 1997. Cronicas intergálacticas: Primera encuentro
intercontinental por la humanidad y contra el neoliberalismo. (Intergalactic
Chronicles: First International Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism).
Montañas del Sureste Mexicano: Planeta Tierra. 279 pp.
Pollack, Aaron. 1998. `Toward "A World in Which Many Worlds Fit": The
Importance of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation for International
Organising', Research Paper, MA in Politics of Alternative Development
Strategies, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague. 119 pp.
RECHIP. 1999. Memoria de la Cumbre de los Pueblos de América
(15-18 de abril de 1998) [Report of the Summit of the Peoples of America
(25-28 April 1998]. Santiago: RECHIP. 150pp.
Sogge, David and Kees Biekart. 1996. `Calculation, Compassion…and Choices',
in Sogge, David (with Kees Biekart and John Saxby) ed. Compassion and
Calculation: The Business of Private Foreign Aid. London: Pluto. 217
Sogge, David (with Kees Biekart and John Saxby) ed. 1996. Compassion
and Calculation: The Business of Private Foreign Aid. London: Pluto.
Tejeda, José Luis. 1999. México: Globalización,
estado y nación (Globalisation, State and Nation). Paper to
the international seminar on Globalisation: The Insertion of Mexico and
Inclusive Alternatives for the 21st Century, UNAM-UAM, Mexico
DF, April 13-15.
Waterman, Peter. 1998. Globalisation, Social Movements and the New
Internationalisms. London: Cassell. 320 pp.
Yúdice, George. 1999. `Activism under Neoliberalism in Brazil:
Civil Society Networks', Polygraph (Duke University, Durham, NC),
No. 11, pp. 49-65.
Waterman, who retired from the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague,
in 1998, is author of Globalization, Social Movements and the New Internationalisms
(Mansell, London and New York, 1998) and co-editor of Labor Worldwide
in the Era of Globalization: Alternatives for Unions in the New World Order
(Macmillan, London and St Martin's New York, 1999). He is currently working
on `internationalists', the active agents of internationalisms past, present