Back to homepage...

Reflections on the Export and Import of Civil Society
in Times of Globalisation

Peter Waterman

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 Blaney 1998:420).

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 basically financial.

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 to this.

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 indígenas (`Indians'). 

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 1997).

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? (606) 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 determinism, for 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. (131).

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 - PW) 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. Pp. 107-135.

Görg, Christoph and Joachim Hirsch. 1998. `Is International Democracy Possible?', Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.585-615.

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 pp.

Sogge, David (with Kees Biekart and John Saxby) ed. 1996. Compassion and Calculation: The Business of Private Foreign Aid. London: Pluto. 217 pp.

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.

[Peter 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 and future.]
Back to the top