A report examining the history, structure and motives of multinational corporations and their excessive influence over both governments and the general public. The report proposes a framework in which commercial activity can be significantly reduced so that corporations can primarily serve the global public good.
- How to Maximize Profits
- Corporate Welfare
- The Beginning
- Securing Legal Rights
- Dominating the Global Economy
- International Trade and Finance
- Intellectual Property Rights
- Democracy vs. Corporate Rule
- The Global Economic and Political Agenda
- Lobbying at the WTO and Creating a Trade Regime
- Corporate Links to Government
- Winning Elections
- Manipulating Public Opinion
- Public Relations, Marketing and Advertising
- Corporate Responsibility
- The Case for Sharing
- A New Economy: Sharing in Practice
- A New Business Framework: Strengthening Local Communities
- Specific Changes to Commercial Activity
- The Global Economy
- Legal Rights and the Sovereignty of the People
- Politics and Democracy
- Economics and Regulation
- Community, Society and Culture
The type of economic enterprise that concerns us in this analysis is the small number of corporations that exert an excessive influence over many aspects of global economic, political and social life. They operate in multiple countries, in all commercial markets and share similar business models, assumptions and structures. The vast majority of corporations are publicly traded and their shares are mainly owned by other corporations, senior board members, a few wealthy stake holders and, indirectly, the public through investment institutions such as insurance companies and pension funds.
These corporations thrive best in an economy where market forces determine the production, price and supply of goods and services. This fact is mirrored in the prevailing attitude to the economy that dominant governments, economists and industrialists maintain. The argument is that centrally planned economies are less efficient and are unresponsive to consumer demand. They argue that to achieve efficiency, government intervention needs to be reduced to a minimum and the democratic, public control of the economy minimized. Thus, free trade and neoliberal policies are being actively promoted through international bodies such as the WTO, World Bank and IMF.
However, this argument is flawed. For a start, corporations are themselves centrally planned economies. Decisions are not open to question within a corporation and absolute control is exercised over production and distribution networks by management. Also, whereas public companies are required to be transparent to public scrutiny, the contracts that corporations have with respect to resource management or service delivery remain a commercial secret, removing an important level of accountability.
Many of these unaccountable corporations now have a greater turnover than the GDP of most countries. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 52 are corporations and 48 are countries, and these corporations have sales figures between $51 billion and $247 billion. Seventy percent of world trade is controlled by just 500 of the largest industrial corporations, and in 2002, the top 200 had combined sales equivalent to 28% of world GDP. However, these 200 corporations only employed 0.82% of the global work force, highlighting the reduction in employment created by excessive economies of scale. In the US, ninety-eight percent of all companies account for only 25 percent of business activity; the remaining two percent account for nearly 75 percent of the remaining activity. The top 500 industrial corporations, which represent only one-tenth of one percent of all US companies, control over two-thirds of the business resources in the US and collect over 70 percent of all US profits. Thus there is also a disproportionate distribution of financial benefit from economic activity, which clearly does not pass to local communities through opportunity or wages. It is retained instead by a small number of major shareholders of an even smaller number of corporations.
Whereas corporations are based mainly in affluent countries such as the US, the EU, Japan, Canada and Australia, their key markets, productive facilities and many of their resources are based in or extracted from developing countries. According to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), inflows of foreign direct investment to the emerging markets have grown by an average of 23 percent per year between 1990 and 2000. The combined value of stock markets in emerging economies is set to exceed $5 trillion in 2006, and has more than doubled in the past decade.
As corporations grow, they find it economically beneficial (profitable) to operate in multiple countries, seeking out favourable conditions such as low labour costs, fewer regulations and other financial or tax incentives. Many of these multinational corporations can now be described as ‘transnational', as they have ‘globalized' their operations and retain no particular affiliation to any country. This allows them greater flexibility in operative structure and greater leverage over governments who compete for their business.
The convergence of economic power has created a concentration of political influence in society which is reflected nationally and globally. The resulting influence of the private sector has manipulated global economic, political and public thinking and established an unsustainable, consumerist culture.
Below we will examine the various aspects of the global economy in terms of corporate activity and influence. We also outline proposals to scale down and regulate corporate activity, and to ensure that the essentials for life are not commoditized but shared globally according to need. Replacing a significant portion of existing commercial activity with a system of sharing will have implications for many aspects of the global economy.
How to Maximize Profits
It is imperative for a publicly traded company to increase its profitability as this increases dividend payouts, stimulates investment and raises the value of its shares on the stock market. The responsibility to generate profit is shouldered by the company directors who answer to the shareholders. Generally however, the average shareholder's power is too diluted to exert any practical influence on company policy, thus the real influence lies with major shareholders such as company executives or other corporations.
Companies that are not publicly traded do not share the same imperative to satisfy shareholders' thirst for profits. They are often (but not always) smaller and have room for a more socially conscious business approach. Of course, privately owned companies face pressure to float on the stock market as they grow in size, as trading their shares publicly generates massive levels of finance which can stimulate growth. However, as Anita Roddick soon realized after publicly trading the Body Shop chain, the legal imperative for growth and short term profits is at odds with most ethically guided business models. Anita Roddik regretted stock market floatation for these reasons, and has now relinquished all remaining ownership in the corporation, having witnessed market forces and the profit motive undermine the business's ethical concerns.
In the cut throat financial market place, a company that is not maximizing its profitability (for example, it may be implementing strict environmental standards that sacrifice profit), is a prime target for an acquisition or hostile takeover by another corporation. The acquirer may have purchased a significant portion of shares and could claim to be able to increase the company's profitability, or may wish to simply dismantle the company for a quick profit. As such, ethically minded corporations find it difficult to sustain their position, and are forced instead to yield to the profit motive. Stock markets applaud when they witness acquisitions and mergers, creating profits for speculators whilst thousands of workers often find themselves unemployed.
As a result of mergers, acquisitions and jobs being transferred abroad (in line with globalized market forces), job losses in affluent countries are common. Between 1980 and 1993, over four million jobs were shed by the largest 500 industrial corporations in the US. Since President Bush took office, two million have lost their jobs and in 2004 nearly one in ten could not find a full time job. The International Labor Organization (ILO) calculates that global unemployment rates are at an all time high. Of the 2.8 billion workers in the world in 2005, nearly 1.4 billion still did not earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the two dollars a day poverty line - the same proportion as ten years ago.
The substantial benefits gained from streamlining operations serve mainly to increase profits, and are channelled into bonuses for directors and CEOs. Chevron's CEO received $37 million in total compensation in 2005, whilst Exxon's CEO received a $400 million pay and retirement package. In the meanwhile the minimum wage in America (£5.15 per hour) is at a 50 year low. Whilst global economic growth remains slow, at around three percent, corporate growth is around four times as high, again reflecting the concentration of financial gain from a global economy led by corporations. In fact, last year the number of millionaires globally swelled to a phenomenal 8.7 million, 5.7 million of whom are based in North America and Europe. In addition, Forbes reported a 15% rise in the number of billionaires since last year alone, virtually all have made their fortune from their involvement in various sectors of industry and are now worth a combined $2.6 trillion.
The other way to keep profits up is by increasing sales. This can be achieved by increasing economies of scale, moving into new lines of production, diversifying activities through acquisitions and mergers, or relocating operations to new countries in search of cheaper labour and favourable economic conditions. This expansion of corporate activity is backed by multi billion dollar marketing campaigns that are effective at promoting unsustainable consumerism and creating demand that would not exist otherwise. Often corporations target new markets in developing countries as Nestle did in the 80's and more recently, the tobacco industry. In these and many other cases, corporations deny any health risks to their products, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, in order to maximize profit. Nestlé's fierce marketing of powdered milk in the 80's caused the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million children through the contaminated water used to make the infant formula.
Nor are human rights observed. Chevron and Coca Cola have been indirectly involved in the violent killings of workers and union officials in developing countries in attempts to suppress workers rights. Instances of kidnappings, torture, discrimination, health violations, fuelling conflicts, privatizing and contaminating local water sources, using child labour and even sex trafficking have all been documented as occurring under the responsibility of the largest corporations. Sweatshops are often used in developing countries by the apparel industry which usually pay negligible wages to under age workers who often work long hours in terrible conditions.
If all else fails, financial accounts can be adjusted to create the impression of profit and growth. This was the case in numerous corporate scandals and the collapse of corporations such as Enron. Its case simultaneously implicated many other sectors of the accounting and banking industry, such as Arthur Andersen and the National Westminster Bank, who were taken in by and facilitated Enron's false accounting, financing and fraudulent activities. Of course the big losers were the 21,000 employees who not only lost their jobs, but their pension plans and savings which were all tied to Enron stock.
Environmental concerns are also secondary to securing profit, and environmental catastrophes are common ‘externalities' (see below) of the business economy. At a time when many of our resources are depletingglobally- in particular our fossil fuels, and even regionally-such as water supplies, the profit motive does not encourage restraint or conservation. Logically, a profit making company cannot advise its customers to consume less, as this directly undermines business revenues. In the case of fossil fuels, this simple fact has seen the continual increase in oil consumption that is so dangerously poisoning our biosphere. It is unlikely that alternative energy production will prove more profitable in the near future, and thus quite unlikely that alternatives will be vigorously pursued by profit making companies. In the UK, despite current drought conditions and water usage restrictions imposed upon the general public, Thames Water PLC has declared record pre-tax profits. Meanwhile it has neglected to reduce the 894 million litres a day that is lost through faulty pipes and leakage. A publicly owned and managed water supplier would not be under financial pressure by shareholders and would be able to reinvest profits into infrastructure and conservation.
Corporate profit is exaggerated by what is effectively publicly funded corporate welfare. The package of corporate welfare begins with governments who offer incentives to corporations in order to attract their business, increase their GDP and compete with other nations. National resources that rightfully belong to the public are the first carrots on the stick, and are offered at highly discounted prices to corporations without public consent. Governments even give away valuable common assets at no cost to corporations, such as oil and mineral rights, saving corporations billions of dollars in costs.
In addition, affluent governments pay out huge subsidies to the largest corporations. Government support to farmers in OECD countries totalled $283 billion in 2005, representing 29% of total farm income. Unfortunately, the majority of farmers who own small to medium sized farms do not benefit from these subsidies. 30% of farmers in the US do not receive any of the $26 billion of US subsidies, and over 85% go to only 20% of the largest farms, a pattern repeated in the EU.
Industrialized countries also subsidize corporate exports and agri-business inputs such as energy, pesticides and chemical fertilizers. This encourages energy and chemical intensive production methods that only large scale agri-business can sustain. As a direct result, the number of small farms in the US has decreased from 6.8 million in 1935 to 1.5 million in 1998. In global commodity markets these subsidies mean that producers in developing countries, many of whom produce their goods with more efficiency and less cost than the US and EU, cannot compete with agri-business suppliers. Their livelihoods are destroyed. Market competition is cut throat, valued higher than life itself. Individual cows in Japan receive $8 a day in subsidies alone, whilst half of India's 1.2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. These actions strengthen the market dominance of corporations, whilst marginalizing smaller, community based producers.
In addition, corporations pay much less tax than ordinary people, often registering their headquarters in tax havens. According to the Centre for American Progress "At a time of rising corporate profits, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that 95 percent of corporations paid less than 5 percent of their income in taxes, and 6 in 10 paid nothing at all in federal taxes from 1996 through to 2000". The corporate share of taxes paid fell from 33 percent in the 1940's to 15 percent in the 1990's. The individual's share of taxes has risen from 44 to 73 percent. At a time of record corporate revenues, the American public is making up the loss in tax revenue through Bush's biased tax regime.
The effect of corporate welfare upon the poorest nations is most disastrous. When local resources and basic goods are controlled by corporations and absentee owners, local industry is curbed, essential services are often unaffordable and profits are repatriated in wealthy countries, bypassing the local economy. Although privatization in developing countries does prove beneficial in certain cases, overall the process resembles economic mercantilism as it is ultimately fuelled by selfish, commercial interest. What is needed is a significant transfer of resources to the global south, not to multinational corporations.
When governments give away public resources, subsidize the largest industries and provide tax incentives to corporations, it usually occurs without the public's knowledge and proves detrimental to their local communities. The price we pay for goods does not include the cost we have already paid through our taxes, the cost to the poorest producers around the world, or the cost to the environment.
Classical economic thinking and accounting procedures are heavily biased against local communities and the environment, as they only reflect financial profit and loss. Maximizing profit means passing more immaterial or long-term costs on to society for them to deal with. This process is known as externalization, and externalities are typically negative social or environmental costs to a community, region or the planet which corporations do not have to account for in anyway. Corporations are compelled to externalize costs wherever possible so that they can increase their profits.
For example, export-oriented industrial agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. Agricultural externalities poison our soil, waterways and atmosphere. And corporations are learning to externalize more efficiently - they may, for example, relocate to countries with lower labour or environmental standards. The negative effect upon society and the environment of these externalities and lower standards are unaccounted for in the cost of their products or their financial reports. In the meantime, consumers are taken in by the illusion of low cost goods and services and they seek out ever cheaper suppliers. However, as the true environmental and social costs of corporate activity are becoming apparent, consumers must realize that they cannot avoid paying for them in one way or another. For example, these costs are paid through aid sent to developing countries (often after climate-change aggravated disasters); through the public money spent on tackling climate change; through the millions spent nationally tackling poverty, inequality, unemployment and other social issues; and through the detrimental effect upon quality of life that results from lower working standards and conditions.
Every year corporations are fined hundreds of millions of dollars as their externalities create serious environmental catastrophes, neglect employee rights and even cause deaths. Examples are plentiful and well documented by countless NGO and civil society groups, and usually concern the most well known and largest corporations. However, mainstream media coverage of these issues is virtually non existent. Take for example Chevron. The majority are unaware that it is guilty of some of the worst environmental and human rights abuses in the world such as the dumping of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into rivers used for bathing water in the Amazon, devastating the health of the local community.
However, fines for these corporate crimes are negligible in relation to a company's turnover. The likelihood of being fined is often accounted for well before the event. Given the potential financial savings to be gained by violating environmental protection laws and workers rights, the decision to ignore these laws constitute a simple cost-benefit calculation. Worryingly, shareholders cannot be held accountable for these violations as they are protected by their limited liability, and directors and executives successfully plea that they have no direct involvement with the corporate crime committed. Thus the corporate ‘entity' itself is fined, and little incentive to change irresponsible corporate behaviour is provided.
Taking the cost of these externalities into account, Ralph Estes estimated that the public cost of private corporations was over $3 trillion in 1995. His externalities included "workplace injuries, pollution, employment discrimination, consumer rip-offs, corporate white collar crime, tax abatements and all the other instances of corporate welfare, government contracting fraud and creative accounting" all of which have carry an equivalent financial cost to the public. Estes calculations reveal that the corporate claim to efficiency is clearly false - most corporations would not be able to continue without major changes if they bore the full costs of their of their product or service.
Clearly a corporation's pressing need for increased profits comes at too high a cost to the global public. When corporate welfare and the public cost of externalities are taken into account, corporate profit is a meaningless term. Within the current framework, corporate profit must be viewed alongside the social and environmental consequences of corporate activity. This more balanced approach calls into question the global economic system that perpetuates this state of affairs.
In 16th century Britain, the majority of corporations were charitable institutions licensed by the crown and forbidden to engage in profitable commercial activities. At the time the prevailing business model was that of partnerships of individuals who pooled their resources and acted in the interests of their own communities. Limited liability corporations were generally distrusted by most, including Adam Smith, and due to widespread corruption and fraud, they were at one stage banned for more than 50 years in the UK.
However, a few corporations were deemed to be acting directly in the nation's interest as they engaged in very large-scale, high-risk commercial activities. For example, the Massachusetts Bay Company was chartered by King Charles I in 1638 in order to colonize the new world, and it settled in the United States. This and similar companies, such as the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company, were a crucial part of the mercantile economic policies practiced by the colonial powers who were effectively running state monopolies in their colonies. These corporations were able to accumulate great financial and economic power through publicly trading shares in their companies.
The US experience of corporate monopolies enforced upon them by their colonial rulers reinforced their dislike of the corporate structure. The public and the courts were acutely aware that corporate bodies could amass undue public wealth and have excessive control over resources, production, the media and the electoral process. As a result, these powers were considered unconstitutional and held in check. Corporations could not indulge in activities which their charter did not specify, and they could not hold stock in other corporations. Some states even banned private banking charters altogether. Legislators, not courts, would cautiously grant limited charters and would hold business owners liable for any harms or injuries to persons or the community. Corporate charters were not granted freely until the mid 19th century. Until then the preferred method of economic organization was unincorporated business associations, cooperatives and publicly funded social services such as universities, libraries and firehouses. Agriculture, manufacturing, municipal markets and warehouses were all promoted and subsidized locally.
This changed prior to the American Civil war, as corporations started to abuse their charters and amassed private fortunes by creating conglomerates and trusts. The advent of the Civil War further increased their wealth and power as they benefited from the massive government spending that usually accompanies military conflict. As they learned to use their economic and political wealth more effectively, modern corporations exerted more and more influence over democratic life in the US. They used their wealth and influence to bribe officials at all levels of government, and influence court decisions. In return, governments handed over public resources such as land, water, timber and minerals, and granted massive financial subsidies. Most worryingly, they began influencing governments and courts, which secured them constitutional rights that were, up until that point, designed to protect people and their civil liberties.
Securing Legal Rights
Corporate lawyers established the precedent of ‘Corporate Personhood' in US law, which granted them the same constitutional rights as ordinary people. They first began manipulating the courts perception of the Fourteenth Amendment, originally designed to protect the civil rights of slaves. They argued that ‘equal protection rights' and ‘Due Process' should apply to corporations as well as people, and in 1889, the supreme court bestowed these rights on corporations under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus corporations became ‘persons'. This was a major turning point, allowing corporations to use these new powers to undermine the democratic rights that the constitution originally intended to confer on citizens: the right to a republican form of government, derived exclusively from the consent of the governed.
The enshrining of limited liability in British and US law in the latter half of the 19th century removed the risk factor from corporate business. It allowed investment funds to be obtained by the public trading of company shares, without imparting any legal responsibility upon the shareholders for the actions of the company. One by one, states in the US began encouraging local investment by lifting restrictions that prevented corporations from merging and acquiring other corporations and stock. Soon corporations were allowed to exist indefinitely and have business multiple interests in multiple states.
In 1906, corporate lawyers secured Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights for their clients, which originally protected people's possessions from unreasonable searches. The corporations used this protection to limit health, safety and environmental investigations in corporate facilities and to keep corporate documents private. This has undermined the public's right to proper heath and safety standards and environmental protection ever since.
Corporations were also granted protection under the Fifth Amendment, preventing corporate powers from being revoked without due process. This allowed corporations to be compensated if they loose revenue from local laws designed to protect citizens.
Under the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) corporations have been granted the right to influence legislation that is unrelated to their business. As a result corporations have infringed upon the very heart of democracy. States can no longer limit corporate advertising, even when politically motivated, or limit financial contributions to political campaigns.
These, and other changes, have undermined the people's right to treat corporations as subordinate, man-made entities. Corporate rights now directly compete with the public's right to their health, safety and welfare. The courts have chosen not to address this conflict of interest and the undermining of the democratic process. They have instead allowed modern corporations to use these rights to amass greater wealth. Economic power creates political influence, a fact that, given their new protections under US law, corporations use to their full advantage.
As the financial markets flourished in the early 20th century, the US continued on its prosperous path. The concept of private wealth generation soon dominated political and economic thought, and even the shift of emphasis to social concerns during the great depression of the 20's did little to change this view. Soon, the corporate agenda went global, spurred on by the US foreign policy objectives. A window of opportunity opened after the 2nd world war which allowed the US to create favourable trading conditions with a war torn Europe. Although generous assistance was provided through the Marshall Plan, the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank and GATT) secured US dominance of international trade and finance, guaranteeing future US prosperity. The government's tools for global economic exploitation were their faithful corporations.
Dominating the Global Economy
International Trade and Finance
More recently, corporations realized that it was possible to dramatically increase profits by shifting their operations to developing countries where wages, costs and taxes were much lower, and regulation almost nonexistent. This was achieved through the Bretton Woods Trio and free trade agreements.
The World Bank has proven to be profitable to large corporations based in the north, initiating large-scale development programs in poor countries that attract private investment. Foreign direct investment now exceeds $1 trillion per year for projects such as privatization of public utilities and creating banking systems - such projects are clearly safe bets for corporate investors. Again there is a stark concentration of political and economic power here, as 1% of all multinationals own 50% of the total stock of all foreign direct investment.
Whilst the World Bank inflates Third World borrowing for development projects, the IMF acts as the lender of last resort for the balance of payment deficits often experienced by developing countries. The combined result of these actions is massive indebtedness for impoverished countries. To guarantee returns, these same institutions impose structural adjustment programs on borrowing countries to prioritize debt repayment. This proved lucrative for financial corporations based in the north, whose interests the IMF has openly defended. When these corporations made bad loans to developing countries, the IMF provided multi billion dollar bailouts. For example, it bailed out foreign investors in Russia with an $11 billion package and orchestrated a massive bailout of the big banks that made bad loans to Asian countries. In 1995, the IMF gave almost $18 billion to Wall Street investors who stood to lose billions with the peso devaluation.
In 1995, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has worked closely with corporations in world trade negotiations. The WTO membership confers upon its member countries absolute adherence to its regulations and agreements. The agreements specify that WTO trade rules supersede any domestic laws and regulations which arguably restrict trade in any way. In this way, environmental, safety and labour laws are regularly circumvented since they can potentially reduce commercial activity. As a result, the WTO is effectively the world's highest legislative body. WTO rulings have often resulted in national governments being sued by corporations simply for placing national interests above corporate profit. The overall effect is the harmonizing of international regulations and standards to their lowest denominator, an outcome that is welcomed by the multinationals.
Intellectual Property Rights
Under the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, the most insidious corporate victories to date have been the granting of patent protections to all genetic material. In 1980, the US Supreme Court ruled that a particular genetically engineered micro-organism could be patented. This patent right was extended by the US patent Office in 1985 to cover all genetically-engineered plants, seeds and plant tissue, and was further extended to cover all animals in 1987. In 1998 EU countries extended patent laws to cover patents on plants, humans and life forms.
Biotech companies are being snapped up by giant ‘Life Science' corporations in a race to consolidate the food and seeds industry which tripled in size between 1992 and 2002. It was worth around $2,000 billion a year in 2001. By May 2002, there were 1,457 biotechnology companies in the US with a total value of $224 billion. Market consolidation is acute, 70% of patents on staple food crops are held by six multinational corporations who can set the market price for them and block competition for 20 years, thereby monopolizing the market.
Patenting costs can be up to $1 million, ensuring that those in the developing countries cannot possibly compete with the wealthy corporations. The developing world, where 75% of people's livelihoods depend upon agriculture, is the source of 90 per cent of all biological resources. Yet transnational companies based in developed counties hold 97 percent of global patents. Since 1985 there have been 10,778 patents on plants registered in the US. Overall, patent applications at the World Intellectual Property Organization have soared from 3,000 in 1979 to 67,000 in 1997.
Commercially owned genetic varieties of such staples as cotton and soya beans have devastated farming communities in developing countries, who can no longer store seeds without paying corporations for the privilege. There has been widespread opposition to what has been deemed ‘bio piracy'. This is when biotechnology corporations, in their haste to secure financial advantages, patent varieties of plants, seeds and applications that already exist and remain in use by indigenous communities. The patenting of life goes against the sharing of traditional knowledge and the preservation of biodiversity and culture. This precedent is a major victory for corporations. The potential for future profit is almost limitless.
The growth of corporate rights, economic power and political influence has mainly been confined to the past 150 years, although the seeds of corporate domination rest in more distant mercantilist and colonial practices. On the surface, the global political, economic and cultural landscape has changed dramatically over this period, and democracy is in its ascendancy. However, it is undeniable that over the same period of time, the people's democratic right to determine their economic life has been superseded by corporate interests. This consolidation of political power comes at the expense of public authority and continues to stimulate strong opposition globally. It is maintained by the neo-liberal policies being pursued on a global scale.
In line with historic conflicts all over the world, the current battle is between the global public and the corporate and political elite over the control of government. Who decides how people organize and live their lives? Who decides if people go with or without water, food, healthcare or education? These rights must rest with the global public and their representative bodies, and not with a tiny minority who directly benefit from an ideology that shrinks public involvement in these central decisions.
Corporations are not people. They do not exist without shareholders and they exist only for profit. They are incapable of demonstrating the same values that people hold and express within their communities. The US constitution was never meant to represent the rights of economic entities; there is no mention of corporations or other such entities in the constitution. The corporation must not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights. In a true democracy, corporations must exist at the pleasure of the people and under their sovereignty.
Democracy vs. Corporate Rule
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The historic relationship of the ruling class towards the public in the US and many European countries has been one of ‘men of best quality' who better understand the needs of the ‘unthinking masses'. As David Hume noted, this mass of people tends to submit their power to the few who rule them surprisingly easily, given that "force is always on the side of the governed". This line of thinking can be traced from philosophers such as Hume and Frances Hutcheson, to President James Madison- one of the principle architects of the US constitution. Madison is known for securing private property rights and stating the importance of "...protect[ing] the minority of the opulent against the majority", a view that was widely held amongst his contemporaries. Over time, this method of government led to the concentration of both political power and wealth in the hands of the few.
Modern corporations were born of this concentration of financial and political clout, to serve the ‘nation's foreign interests'. Corporate power and influence has steadily increased over the past 150 years, with corporations learning rapidly from past errors. Their increasing financial security has enabled them to manipulate the democratic process and dictate government policy very effectively, particularly in the US and the EU. Specific examples are well documented, as are the conflicts of interest that surround politicians in both these countries. The net result is that global economic policy is controlled by a small group of politicians and corporations who have similar financial interests.
The privilege of influencing policy is one that rightly belongs to the public, not the corporate elite who make up less than 1% of the population. But since political influence increases with economic and financial power, the corporate influence in national and global governance structures far outweighs public influence. Thus, democratic process has been the battle ground whereupon the pubic good has fought the corporate agenda. Only when the global public seize back the democratic process and implement appropriate measures to curb corporate influence on the democratic process will the global economy reflect the needs of the majority.
The public's attention in many western countries has turned away from government - a fact born out by the very low turnouts during recent elections in the UK and US. Such national apathy to government is to a large extent the result of the failure of political leadership to sincerely represent the public or to convince the public that they are on their side, fighting for public issues. The resulting consensus within society adds momentum to the private sector's ambitions to roll back government control in favour of market forces. It has also contributed to the strengthening of the ‘partnership' between the government and the business sector, and this has made it even easier for corporations to successfully lobby governmental to loosen their hold on the economy.
Below we examine some of the techniques that corporations use in order to create a global economy that serves their needs and how they have manipulated the government and public thought to secure their financial returns.
The Global Economic And Political Agenda
As mentioned above, the corporations' biggest success has been in standardizing a global, neo-liberal or free market ideology that supports their capitalist necessities. The success of corporate influence on the global economy is measurable, as 70% of global trade is now controlled by just 500 corporations.
In his exhaustive book, ‘When Corporations Rule the World', David Korten identifies the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission as key historical institutions that shaped modern economic globalization. These well funded, highly influential and often rather secretive institutions, brought together key government ministers, business leaders, educators and media representatives as early as 1939. Together they created the necessary consensus for economic globalization and shaped public opinion to support the policies that were essential to their goal.
Lobbying at the WTO and Creating a Trade Regime
More recently, the US and other economically dominant countries secured the ultimate competitive advantage by dominating the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although the WTO consists of 149 member countries and it is technically concerned with promoting free trade and standardizing trade rules between nations, it is extremely biased in its operation. The dominant economic powers- USA, Canada, the EU and Japan establish the trade agenda before a round of trade talks. Most countries are not involved in these key decisions. Eighty percent of all corporations reside in the US and EU, and through their lobbyists they enjoy privileged access to the government policy makers who partake in trade talks. Over 30,000 corporate lobbyists are based in Washington and Brussels, vastly outnumbering the US Congress and European Commission staff that they lobby. The vast majority of lobby groups represent business interests who spend billions of dollars annually advocating their main cause, which is currently market access in emerging economies. In the US, corporations and their agencies spent $9.7 billion lobbying Congress between 1997 and 2000, about $4.5 million per year per member of Congress.
On the other hand, many developing countries do not have the resources to send enough, if any, representatives to argue for fairer trade practices that would benefit their own economic development. In addition, WTO negotiations are undemocratic, with the public denied access to, or information about, the discussions. The same is not true of corporate lobby groups such as the European Services Forum (ESF) and many US corporations who can directly affect and have access to Trade Committees. Unsurprisingly then, the interests of rich nations and their corporations form the basis of WTO agreements and directly influence the global political and economic architecture. The corporate bottom line, espoused by the WTO, is to open market access in all countries to resources, services and intellectual property in an endless drive for greater profits.
Corporate links with the WTO as well as with the IMF and World Bank are well documented, and they continue to negotiate access to emerging markets and to secure intellectual property rights. Through the free trade agreements such as NAFTA and WTO agreements such as GATS and TRIPs, the potential for even greater corporate economic dominance is plain. Corporate rights continue to be enforced and essential common resources such as water, genetic material and knowledge are privatized, without regard for the sovereignty of developing countries.
Corporate Links to Government
In his book Captive State (2000), George Monbiot lists 43 individuals who, since the 1997 elections in the UK, have been appointed as ministers, heads, chairmen, and advisors to as many government departments and independent committees. In each case their previous corporate positions (mostly as directors, chairmen or chief executives) and existing links to industry present a direct conflict of interest with their governmental roles. To take a random example, Lord Simon of Highbury, the previous chairman of oil giant BP and vice chairman of the European Roundtable of industrialists (a powerful corporate lobby group) was appointed minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe at the Department of Trade and Industry.
As expected, the same conflict of interest exists at the highest levels in the US government, only more openly and to greater detriment. The majority of President Bush's cabinet are millionaires and several are multimillionaires. The President, Vice-President, Commerce Secretary and National Security Adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry. The Bush family had strong ties to Enron-which was President G. W. Bush's largest corporate source of funding. Bush's father, the former President, has exploited his government connections to solicit investments on behalf of the Carlyle Group. Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Halliburton Oil Company. Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed, and the list goes on, highlighting in particular a pronounced concentration of energy connections.
Unsurprisingly, US domestic and foreign policies are highly biased. The securing of Iraqi oil fields is a pertinent recent example. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, Halliburton, the Texas energy giant once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has seen its stock price more than triple in value. According to Halliburton Watch, Halliburton's contracts under the Bush administration grew by 600%.
To take a key aspect of the administration's tax plan, Bush's cabinet members, according to one estimate, saved between $5 million and $19 million each as the Bush administration repealed the Estate Tax. This will come at the cost of an estimated $1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years to the public. Those who benefited from the tax cuts represent a fraction of 1% of the American public. It is this same elite section of US citizens that dominate and manipulate the entire political system. As such, a symbiotic relationship is established, with both the government and the corporate elite sustaining each others legitimacy.
This state of affairs was cemented in the mid 1970's when the US Supreme Court extended First Amendment Constitutional Rights to corporations, allowing them to finance elections as an extension of ‘free speech' rights originally intended for people. The 2004 US presidential elections were the most expensive ever; total campaign contributions were $880,500,000. President Bush alone was in receipt of $367,228,801 for his campaign, 74% of which he collected from individuals, as opposed to organizations, businesses or the government. In US elections, money equals publicity. Even in the 2002 Congressional races, where money was much less a determinant of the victors than the 2000 elections, 95% of all House seats and 75% of Senate seats were won by the higher-spending candidate.
Contributions from businesses and political action committees (PAC) are also substantial. The coal industry donated $1.5 million during the 2002 election cycle, mostly to the Republicans, Enron gave $2 million between 1999 and 2002, and Eli Lilly and Company gave over $1 million. In return for these and countless other contributions, President Bush's policies during his administration have clearly favoured the wealthy and corporate interests by awarding lucrative contracts and by adjusting policy and laws. A Blade investigation revealed that since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, the federal government has awarded more than $3 billion in contracts to the President's 2004 Texas fund-raisers, their businesses, and lobbying clients alone. Similar issues have presented themselves in the UK, where donations to political parties by individuals with strong corporate connections have been ‘exchanged' for peerages in the House of Lords.
Money must not be equated with political influence in any country or within global governance structures. Raising massive contributions for campaign spending is only open to those with very strong connections to wealthy individuals. Civil society simply cannot compete financially, and the current state of politics in the US reflects this situation. This misused financial leverage and influence is also at the heart of global governance injustice. The IMF and World Bank operate on a ‘one dollar, one vote' basis, denying the democratic rights of the majority of the world simply because they are not wealthy enough.
Manipulating Public Opinion:
Public Relations, Marketing and Advertising
Since the 70's, as public objection to corporate rule and environmental degradation increased, corporations have mounted a successful campaign to increase corporate rights and win back public opinion. This initiative saw the rise of corporate sponsored law firms who fiercely defended corporate interests by, for example, opposing environmental and social standards and regulations. Such organizations were presented as ‘public interest' groups in an attempt to equate public and corporate interests whilst masking corporate involvement. They included environmental and consumer groups that are nothing more than extensions of corporate lobbying in disguise, promoting environmental and commercial deregulation. The academic world was also targeted as corporations funded programs and research in economics and law that favoured neo-liberal ideals. The success of the public relations campaign was guaranteed by their huge financial resources and broad coalition across business groups.
In order to influence policy more directly, conservative policy think tanks were established, such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise institute and the Cato institute. Influential Business Roundtables made up of CEOs were also established in the 70's, enabling representatives from broad spectrums of industry to actively campaign for the common agenda of economic globalization. Currently almost 200,000 public relations employees in the US actively manipulate public opinion to the advantage of their corporate sponsors.
Far from supplying public demand, corporations actively dictate cultural habits and create demand by influencing the public mind through a sophisticated and well funded combination of research, marketing, advertising and media manipulation. The result is the subtle, but quite apparent, alignment of public and corporate interest. This cultural homogenization of society both nationally and globally is fertile ground for maximizing profit. Whilst levels of unnecessary and unsustainable consumption increase globally, corporate longevity is secured. This non consensual capitalization of the public by the wealthy few is another example of an undemocratic process resulting from excessive financial capability and political influence. The sophistication and effectiveness of advertising and marketing methods is well understood. The ubiquity of the television and the increasing number of hours it is watched, especially by children, is particularly disturbing. In the US, watching TV is the 3rd most time consuming pastime, after sleeping and working. In the US, 75% of commercial television time and 50% of public television time is paid for by the 100 largest corporations. Projected global advertising expenditure for corporations in 2006 is over $427 billion dollars.
As traditional markets are saturated, or public opinion turns against a particular product, corporations, using the same aggressive marketing, shift their attention to developing countries with devastating effect. Nestle is notorious for its aggressive marketing of infant formula in poor countries in the 1980s. Because of this practice, Nestle is still one of the most boycotted corporations in the world, and its infant formula is still controversial. In Italy in 2005, police seized more than two million litres of Nestle infant formula that was contaminated with the chemical isopropylthioxanthone (ITX). In recent years, as public awareness of dire health consequences of smoking tobacco have come to light in industrialized nations, tobacco giants have had to shift their focus to increasing demand in developing countries. The WHO has reported that 84% of the estimated 1.3 billion smokers live in developing and transitional economy countries. A 1994 WHO report estimated that the use of tobacco resulted in an annual global net loss of US$ 200 billion, a third of this loss being in developing countries, stumping development efforts.
The education system provides arguably the most fertile ground on which to influence public opinion. In the US, corporations are making significant in-roads by sponsoring teaching materials and aggressively marketing and supplying junk foods through vending machines and lunch programs. Of greatest concern are corporate sponsored curriculum modules, public education propaganda videos, and grants and sponsorship programs that refocus education to pro-corporate aspects of law and economics. Competition, economic growth and profitability are emphasized- qualities that secure future corporate opportunity. There is a simultaneous shift away from learning the benefits of cooperation, community endeavor and goodwill. Together such tactics effectively skew public opinion from an early age and further enshrine the neo-liberal, corporate agenda. Unsurprisingly there is a trend in the US, the EU and developing countries for corporations to operate public schools for profit, capitalizing on yet another market opportunity.
Corporate responsibility has been the buzz word of late in business circles as environmental and social concerns have become impossible to ignore. Corporations have employed a number of tools to ensure that they are perceived as socially responsible, including pressure groups and sophisticated marketing and advertising campaigns. However, given the strict legal obligation to pursue profits, along with ever mounting market pressure to perform financially, corporate responsibility must be viewed as another public relations exercise. Currently, it seems to be working well, boosting profits by making a company more appealing to consumers who are growing more socially and environmentally mindful. Even highly respected neo-liberal economists such as Milton Freidman agree that these measures would be rejected by the board and the company's shareholders if they didn't positively impact on the bottom line. Corporate PR and loose involvement in socially and environmentally friendly schemes thus involve a simple cost-benefit analysis. All major corporations, particularly those which have the greatest negative impact upon the environment, have repackaged themselves recently as having ‘green' credentials to great effect. The oil giant BP's new green, flower-like logo and recent PR campaign is an excellent example. As a result, BP has successfully managed to shift public focus away from the fact that is one of the world's foremost polluters of the environment and considered by many as one of the top 10 corporate criminals.
There is another aspect to the issue of corporate responsibility. All publicly traded companies exist in a fiercely competitive financial market which ultimately dictates the activities and lifecycle of many companies. In a financial climate where aggressive takeovers are not only common, but are a valid and profitable form of business enterprise, truly socially conscious corporations are at an immediate disadvantage. Such enterprises typically pay very generous wages and employee benefits, locate their facilities in areas where they can make a positive impact on the community and manage their resources sustainably. They believe in more than just profits. Such firms are targets for corporate raiders who can undertake an aggressive buy-out on the basis of windfall payouts to existing shareholders. Once the bid is accepted, the new owners will abandon social responsibility and concentrate on increasing short term profits. This may involve redundancies, relocation to countries with cheaper labour or simply dismantling the company to sell component resources. The loans used to make the purchase are quickly paid off, often utilizing existing employee pension funds, and after a number of years the company may be publicly traded once again, at a higher price.
The point is that the market has its own life; it lives for profit, at all costs. It only shares humane concerns for social and environmental issues insofar as it is profitable to do so. Actions deemed to be cooperative with environmental, health, safety or social concerns, are motivated primarily by self interest, the wider interests of society are a distant second. Legally there is nothing wrong with this; it is what a corporation is designed to do, and what it is bound by through its charter. As such we should not expect anything more from these profit making economic entities, and we should certainly not expect them to harbour any significant environmental or social concern.
This analysis clearly demonstrates that at present, the battle for control of the democratic process is being won by the corporate and political elite. The phenomenon of market forces is becoming more entrenched in every aspect of public life, even influencing our subconscious minds, conscious attitudes and behaviour. As many industrialized nations call for democracy to be spread globally, the economic ideologies they have vested our future in are cancerous to these same democratic principles.
The roll of government as the democratic representatives of the people must be concretely established -in the US, the EU and in global governance structures. True democracy can only be established if the global public is empowered to make decisions that favour cooperation and economic efficiency over competition. This can only occur when corporate rights are scaled down to a level where, once again, corporations act in a limited capacity to serve the public's economic needs, and exist without the ability to influence politics or public life.
The Case for Sharing
We have described in the above analysis how multinational corporations are largely detrimental to social and economic life. The drive for profit at all cost is perpetuating an economic system that is unsustainable. Corporations do not practice sound environmental husbandry - rather the excessive consumption that they encourage harms the environment. In addition, international bodies such as the WTO strengthen the commercialization process which is gradually homogenizing global society and culture. As corporations exercise their accumulated economic and political power, the principles of democracy and sovereignty are eroded.
Extensive legislation now exists internationally and within countries to protect corporate rights. Therefore, wide-ranging structural and regulatory changes are essential if we are to transform the corporate led economy into one centered on communities that actively participate in political and economic life. The prioritization of community based enterprise and the curtailing of mega corporate entities will inevitably create greater social equity in both the north and south.
However, regulatory measures alone are not enough if the global community wishes to address the global inequality and extreme poverty that exists today. Large swathes of Africa, Asia and South America do not have the resources to compete internationally even if the terms of trade were rendered fair and their debts forgiven. Nor can regulation address important issues of who controls the global commons, on what basis common resources are utilized, how they are distributed globally, or how to ensure their equitable and sustainable consumption. And localizing economic activity would not, by itself, stop commercial interests controlling the allocation of essential resources. Within a localized and regulated economic environment, common resources would still be considered commodities that owners could manipulate for economic advantage over other communities or nations.
Clearly, what is required alongside regulating corporate activity, is a substantial transfer of resources to the majority world to ensure sustained poverty reduction. Yet this cannot be achieved through existing aid or development programs. A fundamental restructuring of the global economy that replaces competitive self interest with cooperation and global equality must be initiated. This new economy would prioritize the securing of basic human needs for all by sharing essential resources, and it would replace the existing aid and development efforts.
Within a system of sharing, resources that are considered essential to life would not be commoditized or controlled by business interests. They could instead be owned by the global public on a shared ownership basis, under the direction of an international and democratic body. Local communities would be cooperating at the national level, and nations would be cooperating internationally, to ensure that all basic needs are met.
Resources would be produced and consumed locally where possible, then shared with the global community. This would enable local communities in the poorest countries to prioritize their self sufficiency and eliminate poverty. As only excess production would be shared, the system would reduce waste and allow a more efficient economy to evolve. The environment would be a major benefactor of such as system as pollution would be significantly reduced.
Sharing in this way will allow countries to maintain their sovereignty and identity, which can facilitate the cultural growth of humanity. Most importantly, global cooperation can foster goodwill amongst nations and sow the seeds for a lasting peace.
The demand for a society based on egalitarian principles continues to grow around the world as a growing number of nations and members of civil society are rejecting the neo-liberal economic model. It is clear that International consensus for change is unlikely to occur without mass public pressure. In addition, the global economy is in a very precarious state, relying on volatile financial markets and driven increasingly by commercial pressures. Many economists and analysts are predicting a global economic failure sparked by a stock market or financial collapse. This possibility is strengthened by the current conflicts over resources, political instability in many parts of world and the declining strength and influence of the US dollar. Such a crisis may turn out be the catalyst for much needed change.
A New Economy: Sharing in Practice
As the system of sharing is implemented, the production and supply of essential resources would be divorced from multinational corporate control. Essential resources would no longer be traded within a biased commercial framework or speculated upon in financial markets. This would considerably reduce corporate activity and involvement in the global economy, and directly benefit the poorest sections of society who would receive essential resources directly through a program of sharing.
Once national needs are met, excess production would be registered on the Global Sharing Network (GSN) and held in trust by the UNCRS on behalf of the ‘donor' country, for meeting needs in other countries. Note that these excesses would not necessarily be ‘exchanged' by countries, unless donors were also in need of other resources that the UNCRS held in trust. Production in excess of global needs would similarly be registered on the GSN, allowing countries to stockpile to pre-agreed levels only where prudent - for example in regions with a high risk of crop failure. Feedback from the GSN database would ensure that unnecessary global production does not occur, and waste is prevented.
The UNCRS framework would ensure that all countries are equally entitled to essential resources and would guarantee their provision even where communities are unable to contribute to the global pool of resources. As extreme poverty is eradicated, communities would find themselves living healthy, educated lives, as all their basic needs are provided for. Then, the UNCRS, in conjunction with other UN agencies, could then assist them in participating in their future economic development.
Eventually the differences in levels of development would be less prominent, as poverty is reduced and productive capacity is increased in developing countries. Once a state of relative equality exists, the GSN should function more consistently and predictably. Major disruptions to the system at that point would include unforeseen natural disasters or droughts. In such circumstances, a well established GSN would prove extremely effective at providing emergency aid such as food and medicine as efficient databases and distribution channels will already be in place. It is intended that the UN Emergency Redistribution Program and the subsequent sharing of resources replace all existing international aid and development mechanisms.
A distinction must be made between net ‘donors' and net ‘receivers' of essential resources. Developing countries would obviously be the main recipients of resources. Highly industrialized countries, in their capacity as primary donors, would have to make sacrifices by reducing their consumption levels. A simpler lifestyle, not based on consumerism is crucial for rich countries to adopt. Current consumption levels are unsustainable; the world does not have enough resources for all countries to develop to the existing western standard. The benchmark must be lower in terms of the quantity of resources we consume, but higher in terms of the quality of life we pursue. This recalibration of values must establish a way of life which all countries can realistically aspire to.
A New Business Framework: Strengthening Local Communities
Sharing the world's resources to meet basic human needs is essentially a global safety net and welfare system. However, the removal of essential goods and services from the existing commercial trading structure does not require abolishing the market-based approach to commerce. To the contrary - the two models of economy can, and must, coexist to form a modern global economy. Traditionally a market-based economy has been acknowledged as one that encourages enterprise, innovation and competition which, on a global scale, can lead to rapid technological advances for humanity. At the local level, it is this enterprising initiative that allows communities to interact economically and enrich each others lives socially. Local business, whether small farms, shops, market stalls or local services are the cornerstone of society around the world and their activity must be strengthened. Networks of small and medium sized privately owned businesses, locally based, are important factors in the creation of democratic communities and cultural diversity around the world.
Sadly, the prevalence in recent years, of huge corporations has significantly impacted on small businesses and communities, and is creating a homogenization of culture throughout the world. These corporations have created huge economies of scale which result in a downward levelling of job numbers, wages and employment standards. The most visible culprits are agri-business, giant fast food chains and retail outlets such as supermarkets. The goods supplied by these companies have quickly replaced local businesses who often supply the same goods with greater levels of nutrition and with negligible social and environmental consequences.
The effects are visible and measurable in society. For example, in the 10 years that Wal-Mart moved to Iowa, in the USA, 7326 local business closed as a direct result. In the UK, the supermarket giant, Tesco, currently opens one new ‘Tesco Express' (a smaller, local version of their larger stores) each day. This results in a local grocer going out of business each day, and 50 local specialist stores close each week. The impact on the developing world is also stark as corporations move steadily into emerging markets. India has recently experienced a surge in contracts to large agri-business firms as the government pursues the high output agricultural policies of the US and EU. This has resulted in entire villages being put up for sale in some states and, according to the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), more than 40 per cent of Indian farmers are keen to quit agriculture altogether as a result of these market pressures. In addition, the competitive activity of multinationals has helped to sustain an unfair international trading regime that increases global inequality through biased trade rules and increases global warming through inefficient import and export networks.
It is imperative that these trends are reversed, and that community involvement in economic life is strengthened and safeguarded. If corporations and the free market are to survive and work harmoniously with a system of sharing, far reaching changes need to be implemented that can ensure business activity works to benefit society. The aim should be to ensure that profit making businesses do not infringe in any way on the rights and interests of the local, national or international community.
The size of corporate enterprises should be capped and their activity more stringently regulated. The economic activities of huge multinational corporations must be divested in the local community and small-scale, locally based enterprise should be encouraged. Direct government intervention would be necessary to break up monopolies and large corporations into component parts. These smaller businesses could then be managed at the local or regional level by the public through local cooperatives or government managed initiatives. Divesting economic power in this way would reverse the ‘division of labour' trend by increasing the number of available jobs. Higher wages and better conditions would follow as the new enterprises would not be driven solely by the profit incentive.
Where economies of scale are essential, business enterprises can work in association or as cooperatives. Alternatively, under special license, it may be agreed that certain multinational corporations remain in control of the production/supply of a particular resource. In such circumstances, the corporation may be required to provide the resource at cost price to the government, and it would operate under a strict mandate to serve a specific public interest.
Of course the activity and structure of all corporations, large or small, would be subject to fundamental changes that ensure they serve the public good. Proposals for the necessary regulation of corporations are plentiful. They have been proposed by civil society groups and individuals all over the world. Comprehensive examples can be found in the work of David Korten, as well as the International Forum on Globalization. Below we present some of the most important changes that many organizations, including STWR are urgently calling for.
Specific Changes to Commercial Activity
For all its influence and power, a corporation is little more than an economic entity, whose right to ‘life' is granted by the public, through their governments. The private rights of the corporations that governments protect and strengthen only exist in the first place because they have been granted by governments. These rights must be transformed by these same governments as it is now clear that in their current incarnation, corporations no longer serve the wider public interest.
Below we highlight the technical and regulatory changes that must be implemented.
The Global Economy
Corporations should exist as an integral component of a global economy that prioritizes the provision of basic needs for the global public - economic, social, political and spiritual. The primary objective of the global economy should not be commerce, trade liberalization or economic growth, but the production and distribution of all resources that are essential to life. International consensus must eventually lead to a clear demarcation with regards to what can be commoditized and what cannot be. As all essential resources will be shared, commercial interests should have no direct influence on this aspect of the global economy. Corporations should operate within this new global framework, to serve the remaining economic, industrial and technological needs of society.
As a result of the reduction in corporate activity, it will be possible to progressively dismantle the IMF, World Bank and the WTO. Any remaining functions of these bodies should be integrated with existing UN agencies such as UNCTAD and ECOSOC. More information on this subject can be found here.
Restrictions placed upon governments to regulate corporate investment and finance as part of free trade agreements should also be overturned. Developing countries must also be allowed to protect their infant industries and protectionist measures should be progressively reduced as a country develops economically.
The financial and banking sectors are central to the working of the global economy and they should be strictly regulated. A Tobin Tax on financial transactions is essential, and there should be a graduated surtax on short term capital gains to reduce speculation and stabilize the market. The UN system should be funded by these, and other, global taxes.
Legal Rights and the Sovereignty of the People
Corporations' limited liability and corporate personhood rights must be eliminated - they should no longer have the same rights as human beings, and should instead serve the public. Holding shareholders accountable for any harm caused to the community, employees or the environment would create socially responsible business models.
Corporations should work for the benefit of society in some way. At the very least, society must retain the legal right to revoke a corporate charter and put an end to corporate activity if its actions are proven to be detrimental to society. Revoking their protection by the Fifth Amendment will allow this. The global public's democratic right to determine their social, economic, political and environmental life without interference should be reinforced. A shift along these lines would also create greater participation in the democratic process, locally and nationally.
In the US, corporate protection under the 14th amendment must be revoked, as must corporate right to free speech under the First Amendment. Corporate activity should be transparent; they should not be allowed the protection of Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.
Intellectual property rights legislation should be revised to ensure that information and knowledge are free availability where needed. It should not be possible to patent ‘life' in any form. Exclusive patent rights should be held for a significantly shorter period of time, long enough only to encourage innovation, the recovery of costs and moderate financial reward.
Politics and Democracy
To create a functional democracy, corporations should not be permitted to contribute funding for ‘political purposes'. This includes both donations to political parties as well as corporate donations to ‘non profit' organizations which pose as ‘public interest' groups whilst retaining specific political or commercial objectives. Alongside the ending of corporate donations, the political influence of corporate lobbyists should be substantially reduced to the same level as other organizations and groups. Governments must also end their practice of employing individuals from the private sector to key regulatory or strategic position within government.
To ensure that elections are not determined by the size of a party's budget, they should be publicly funded with a limited, agreed level of funding. The media must also exist without political bias. The best way to achieve this is by preventing corporate media monopolies.
Democratic political participation can be created as a result of a reduction in the number of large multinational corporations, and the break up of their economic and political influence. The global public must replace the corporate elite who heavily influence the political process. This can only be done by strengthening local communities and their ability to determine for themselves their economic and social wellbeing.
Economics and Regulation
Corporate welfare must end. This is best achieved by ending government subsidies and tax exemptions to corporations. In addition, public assets such as land and mineral rights should no longer be given away to corporations.
Competition law must be enforced to ensure that monopolies, mergers and acquisitions are regulated. Restriction also need to be placed on the maximum size a corporation can reach. In unusual circumstances, special charters for exceeding these limits could be granted. Such restrictions will ensure that corporations do not infringe on market principles by making it more difficult for smaller companies to emerge in developing countries. It will also prevent the race to the bottom that has occurred in recent years, as job numbers and employment standards have reduced to the lowest common denominator in order to boost profit.
Full cost accounting should be normal practice all for companies. This will further reduce the reckless approach to profits by ensuring corporations comprehensively bear all costs that they currently externalize. These include environmental, health, safety and social costs. Another possibility is a graduated taxation on businesses depending upon the degree to which they benefit society and the environment.
The regulatory system must be greatly strengthened to ensure that rules are effectively enforced. Regulatory agencies should be able to administer fines which are appropriate to the type and profitability of a business. Where necessary they should be able to hold directors and managers directly responsible and even suspend corporate charters or activities. The ‘precautionary principle' should be the basis of public health, safety and environmental regulations.
Community, Society and Culture
Equity in society can be encouraged through greater pay equality. The wages of senior management and CEOs should not exceed an agreed ratio - for example, 15:1. It is also important that the number of hours worked each week is significantly reduced. This would create more jobs, reduce unemployment levels and foster social, cultural and spiritual growth. This will become possible when resources are shared globally as unnecessary and wasteful productivity will be significantly reduced. The formation of trade unions should be encouraged in industry and their rights protected.
Local government bodies, councils, schools and community groups must be able to have a greater say in how their communities operate socially and economically. They should have the power to hold corporations to account. The establishment of local banks and retail outlets that work in the interests of local communities should be encouraged. The largest banking and retail chains must be divested into the hands of the local communities where they are based. Similarly, affected workers and communities should be given the first option, at preferential rates, to buy out a plant or business before it closes or is sold or merged. In this way, societies can evolve economically, socially and culturally, and participation in the democratic process can be strengthened.
Revoking the corporate claim to the First Amendment constitutional right to freedom of speech will put an end to the corporate domination of public thought. In particular, corporate influence of the public's mind through advertising must be restricted in general, and removed altogether from schools and other places where it can influence young people. Non profit organizations must be required to be transparent, as often they are posing as ‘public interest groups' when in fact they are fronts for corporations created to further their political objectives by influencing the public mind.
The failure of the global economy and the existing aid and development programs to address poverty and inequality is apparent. At the heart of this failure is the competitive, profit driven, self interest of economically dominant nations. Modern, multinational corporations are the embodiments of these traits, and they play a key role in sustaining the status quo through their economic and political influence.
An alternative system based on sharing the world's resources to meet basic human needs can act as a global safety net in a way that the existing economy cannot. Such a system is based on cooperation and can foster good-will between nations. It is essential that a system based on sharing works alongside a reformed commercial sector and local businesses. Together, these two systems can deliver a global economy that meets not only important welfare requirements, but also our need for innovation, individuality and recognition.
Discussions regarding economic systems should not be based on ideologies of socialism or capitalism, but on the practicalities and realities of our modern world. Today, the reality is that thousands will die from a lack of food, water and medicine, because of the failure of the global economy to allow them to have access to these basics. At the same time, a few business people will have earned millions of dollars in wages, thanks to the same economic system. These extremes must be reconciled urgently.
Most classical economists and first world politicians state that any alternative proposal to economic globalization is reactionary and conservative; that it effectively closes the door on a new global reality based on interdependence. Such a view is extremely simplistic. The creation of a global community that cooperates to ensure each nation's wellbeing is the goal of an economy based on sharing, and it represents a fairer model of globalization, based on interdependence, cooperation and equality. Is it not the desire to uphold outmoded systems of commerce and economy, based on competition and selfish, nationalistic foreign policy objectives, which is truly reactionary and conservative?
The need for far reaching reform of business structure and activity is apparent, as is the need for democratic participation to be re-established at the community level. Economic development must be a process which is not imposed from above, but secured locally, and then regionally. For this to occur, all necessary resources should be made available to those in the majority world who live in isolated, rural communities and urban slums. We have a United Nations General Assembly, the only world body with the potential to bring about these reforms. We also have the technology to implement complex systems that can span the globe, and we have the infrastructure and capability to distribute resources anywhere. All this is required is a shift in priorities; the political will to share what we have.
Ripoti hiyo inaelezea historia, muundo na nia ya makampuni ya kimataifa na ushawishi wao mkubwa juu ya serikali na umma kwa ujumla. Ripoti hiyo inapendekeza mfumo ambao shughuli za kibiashara zinaweza kupunguzwa kwa kiasi kikubwa ili mashirika yaweza kutumika hasa kwa manufaa ya umma ya kimataifa. "Kupitia utafiti wa ""Mtazamo wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma,"" ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma"" na ""Uhusiano wa Umma.""" Wao kufanya kazi katika nchi nyingi, katika masoko yote ya kibiashara na kushiriki mifano sawa ya biashara, dhana na miundo. Kampuni nyingi ni biashara ya umma na hisa zao zinamilikiwa na makampuni mengine, wanachama wa bodi ya juu, wamiliki wa hisa wachache matajiri na, kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja, umma kupitia taasisi za uwekezaji kama vile makampuni ya bima na fedha za pensheni. Kampuni hizi zinafanikiwa zaidi katika uchumi ambapo nguvu za soko huamua uzalishaji, bei na usambazaji wa bidhaa na huduma. Jambo hili linaonekana katika mtazamo wa kawaida wa uchumi ambao serikali, wachumi na wafanya biashara wanaodhibiti. Hoja ni kwamba uchumi uliopangwa kwa njia ya kati ni usio na ufanisi na haujibu mahitaji ya watumiaji. Kwa hivyo, kwa sababu ya ufanisi, uingiliaji wa serikali unahitaji kupunguzwa hadi kiwango cha chini na udhibiti wa kidemokrasia, wa umma wa uchumi. Kwa hivyo, biashara huru na sera za neoliberal zinaendelezwa kikamilifu kupitia mashirika ya kimataifa kama vile WTO, Benki ya Dunia na IMF. Hata hivyo, hoja hiyo ni isiyo sahihi. Kwanza, mashirika yenyewe ni uchumi uliopangwa kwa njia ya kati. Maamuzi hayawezi kuhojiwa ndani ya shirika na udhibiti kamili unafanywa juu ya mitandao ya uzalishaji na usambazaji na usimamizi. Pia, wakati makampuni ya umma yanahitajika kuwa wazi kwa uchunguzi wa umma, mikataba ambayo makampuni yana kuhusiana na usimamizi wa rasilimali au utoaji wa huduma bado ni siri ya kibiashara, kuondoa ngazi muhimu ya uwajibikaji. Kampuni nyingi zisizo na uwajibikaji sasa zina mapato makubwa kuliko Pato la Taifa la nchi nyingi. Kati ya uchumi mkubwa wa dunia, 52 ni wa mashirika na 48 ni nchi, na kampuni hizo zina mauzo ya kati ya dola bilioni 51 na bilioni 247. "Hata hivyo, ""% 70 ya biashara ya dunia inadhibitiwa na makampuni 500 tu makubwa ya viwanda, na katika 2002, makampuni 200 ya juu yalikuwa na mauzo ya pamoja sawa na 28% ya Pato la Taifa la Dunia.""" Hata hivyo, makampuni hayo 200 yaliwaajiri asilimia 0.82 tu ya wafanyakazi duniani, ikionyesha kupungua kwa ajira kwa sababu ya uchumi wa kiwango cha juu. Katika Marekani, asilimia 98 ya makampuni yote yanawakilisha asilimia 25 tu ya shughuli za biashara; asilimia mbili zilizobaki zinawakilisha karibu asilimia 75 ya shughuli zilizobaki. Kampuni 500 kubwa zaidi za viwanda, ambazo zinawakilisha asilimia moja tu ya kampuni zote za Marekani, zinadhibiti zaidi ya thuluthi mbili za rasilimali za biashara nchini Marekani na kukusanya zaidi ya asilimia 70 ya faida zote za Marekani. Kwa hivyo kuna ugawaji usio wa usawa wa faida ya kifedha kutoka kwa shughuli za kiuchumi, ambayo wazi haipiti kwa jamii za mitaa kupitia fursa au mishahara. Badala yake, inashikiliwa na idadi ndogo ya wanahisa wakuu wa idadi ndogo zaidi ya mashirika. Ingawa makampuni yana makao makuu katika nchi tajiri kama vile Marekani, EU, Japan, Canada na Australia, masoko yao muhimu, vifaa vya uzalishaji na rasilimali zao nyingi zinapatikana katika nchi zinazoendelea au zinatoka katika nchi zinazoendelea. Kulingana na Shirika la Fedha la Kimataifa (IFC), uwekezaji wa moja kwa moja wa kigeni katika nchi zinazoendelea umeongezeka kwa wastani wa asilimia 23 kwa mwaka kati ya mwaka wa 1990 na 2000. Kwa mujibu wa ripoti hiyo, thamani ya soko la hisa katika nchi zinazoendelea imepita trilioni 5 mwaka huu na imepita mara mbili katika miaka kumi iliyopita. Kadiri makampuni yanavyoongezeka, yanaona ni faida ya kiuchumi (faida) kufanya kazi katika nchi nyingi, kutafuta hali nzuri kama vile gharama za chini za kazi, kanuni chache na motisha nyingine za kifedha au kodi. Wengi wa makampuni haya ya kimataifa sasa inaweza kuelezwa kama "transnational", kama wao "globalized" shughuli zao na kuhifadhi hakuna uhusiano maalum na nchi yoyote. Hii inaruhusu yao kubadilika zaidi katika muundo wa uendeshaji na leverage kubwa juu ya serikali ambao kushindana kwa ajili ya biashara yao. Mkusanyiko wa nguvu za kiuchumi umesababisha mkusanyiko wa ushawishi wa kisiasa katika jamii ambayo inaonyeshwa kitaifa na kimataifa. Uvutano wa sekta binafsi umesababisha mawazo ya kimataifa ya kiuchumi, kisiasa na umma na kuanzisha utamaduni usio endelevu wa matumizi. Chini tutaangalia mambo mbalimbali ya uchumi wa kimataifa katika suala la shughuli za ushirika na ushawishi. """Tunatoa pia mapendekezo ya kupunguza na kudhibiti shughuli za ushirika, na kuhakikisha kwamba vitu muhimu kwa maisha havitumiwi kama bidhaa, lakini vinashirikiwa ulimwenguni kulingana na mahitaji." Kuchukua nafasi ya sehemu kubwa ya shughuli za kibiashara zilizopo na mfumo wa kushiriki itakuwa na athari kwa nyanja nyingi za uchumi wa dunia. Jinsi ya kuongeza faida: Ni muhimu kwa kampuni ya biashara ya umma kuongeza faida yake, kwani hii huongeza malipo ya gawio, huchochea uwekezaji na huongeza thamani ya hisa zake kwenye soko la hisa. Wajibu wa kuzalisha faida ni shouldered na wakurugenzi wa kampuni ambao kujibu kwa wanahisa. Kwa ujumla, hata hivyo, nguvu ya hisa ya wastani ni diluted sana kutekeleza ushawishi wowote wa vitendo juu ya sera ya kampuni, hivyo ushawishi halisi iko na hisa kubwa kama vile watendaji wa kampuni au makampuni mengine. Kampuni ambazo hazifanyi biashara hadharani hazishiriki kipaumbele hichohicho cha kuridhisha kiu cha wanahisa wa faida. Wao ni mara nyingi (lakini si daima) ndogo na kuwa na nafasi kwa ajili ya mbinu ya biashara zaidi ya kijamii fahamu. Kampuni za kibinafsi zinakabiliwa na shinikizo la kuelea kwenye soko la hisa zinapokua kwa ukubwa, kwani biashara ya hisa zao kwa umma inazalisha viwango vikubwa vya fedha ambavyo vinaweza kuchochea ukuaji. Hata hivyo, kama Anita Roddick alivyogundua baada ya biashara ya umma ya mlolongo wa Body Shop, mahitaji ya kisheria ya ukuaji na faida ya muda mfupi ni kinyume na mifano ya biashara inayoongozwa na maadili. Anita Roddick alisikitika na kuingizwa kwa soko la hisa kwa sababu hizi, na sasa ameacha umiliki wote uliobaki katika shirika hilo, baada ya kushuhudia nguvu za soko na nia ya faida kuharibu wasiwasi wa maadili ya biashara. Katika soko la kifedha, kampuni ambayo haifanyi faida yake (kwa mfano, inaweza kuwa ikiweka viwango vikali vya mazingira ambavyo hutekeleza faida), ni lengo kuu la ununuzi au ununuzi wa uhasama na kampuni nyingine. Mtafutaji anaweza kuwa na kununuliwa sehemu kubwa ya hisa na inaweza kudai kuwa na uwezo wa kuongeza faida ya kampuni, au inaweza kutaka tu kuharibu kampuni kwa faida ya haraka. Kama vile, mashirika ya maadili ya akili kupata vigumu kudumisha nafasi yao, na ni kulazimishwa badala ya kutoa kwa nia ya faida. Masoko ya hisa hufurahia wakati wanapoona ununuzi na muungano, na kuunda faida kwa wawekezaji wakati maelfu ya wafanyakazi mara nyingi hujikuta hawana kazi. Kama matokeo ya kuunganishwa, ununuzi na kazi kuhamishwa nje ya nchi (sawa na nguvu za soko la kimataifa), upotezaji wa kazi katika nchi tajiri ni kawaida. Kati ya mwaka wa 1980 na 1993, zaidi ya kazi milioni nne ziliondolewa na makampuni makubwa ya viwanda 500 nchini Marekani. Tangu Bush alipochukua madaraka, watu milioni mbili wamepoteza kazi zao, na karibu mtu mmoja kati ya kumi hakuweza kupata kazi ya wakati wote. Shirika la Kazi la Kimataifa (ILO) limesema kuwa kiwango cha ukosefu wa kazi ya kuajiriwa duniani ni cha juu zaidi. Kati ya wafanyakazi bilioni 2.8 duniani mwaka 2005, karibu bilioni 1.4 bado hawakupata mapato ya kutosha kujileta wao na familia zao juu ya mstari wa umaskini wa dola mbili kwa siku - uwiano sawa na miaka kumi iliyopita. Faida kubwa zilizopatikana kutoka kwa shughuli za utaratibu hutumika hasa kuongeza faida, na huelekezwa katika bonasi kwa wakurugenzi na wakurugenzi wakuu. Mkurugenzi Mtendaji wa Chevron alipokea $ 37m katika fidia ya jumla mnamo 2005, wakati Mtendaji Mtendaji wa Exxon alipokea $ 400m ya malipo na mfuko wa kustaafu. Kiwango cha chini cha mshahara nchini Marekani (Pundo la Kiingereza la £5.15 kwa saa) ni cha chini zaidi katika miaka 50 iliyopita. Wakati ukuaji wa uchumi wa kimataifa unabaki polepole, karibu asilimia 3, ukuaji wa ushirika ni karibu mara nne ya juu, tena kuonyesha mkusanyiko wa faida ya kifedha kutoka kwa uchumi wa kimataifa unaoongozwa na ushirika. Mwaka jana, idadi ya mamilionea duniani iliongezeka hadi milioni 8.7 na milioni 5.7 kati yao ni wa Amerika ya Kaskazini na Ulaya. "Kwa kuongezea, Forbes iliripoti ongezeko la 15% katika idadi ya mabilionea tangu mwaka jana pekee, karibu wote wamefanya bahati yao kutoka kwa ushiriki wao katika sekta mbalimbali za viwanda na sasa wana thamani ya pamoja ya $ 2.6 trilioni. """ Njia nyingine ya kudumisha faida ni kwa kuongeza mauzo. Hii inaweza kupatikana kwa kuongeza uchumi wa kiwango, kuhamia katika mistari mpya ya uzalishaji, kugawanya shughuli kupitia ununuzi na kuunganisha, au kuhamisha shughuli kwa nchi mpya kwa kutafuta kazi ya bei nafuu na hali nzuri ya kiuchumi. Upanuaji huu wa shughuli za ushirika unasaidiwa na kampeni za uuzaji za mabilioni ya dola ambazo zina ufanisi katika kukuza utumiaji usio endelevu na kuunda mahitaji ambayo hayangekuwepo vinginevyo. "Kama ilivyo kwa kampuni za tumbaku, kampuni za tumbaku zinaendelea kuanzisha masoko katika nchi zinazoendelea, kama vile kampuni ya ""Nestle"" katika miaka ya 1980 na ""Tobacco"" katika miaka ya hivi karibuni." Katika kesi hizi na nyingine nyingi, makampuni hukataa hatari yoyote ya afya kwa bidhaa zao, hata mbele ya ushahidi mkubwa wa kisayansi, ili kuongeza faida. Uuzaji wa Nestlé wa maziwa ya unga katika miaka ya 1980 ulisababisha vifo vya watoto milioni 1.5 kupitia maji machafu yaliyotumiwa kutengeneza formula ya watoto wachanga. Wala haki za kibinadamu hazifuatwi. Kampuni ya Coca-Cola na Chevron zimehusika kwa njia isiyo ya moja kwa moja katika mauaji ya wafanyakazi na viongozi wa vyama vya wafanyakazi katika nchi zinazoendelea katika jaribio la kukandamiza haki za wafanyakazi. Matukio ya utekaji nyara, mateso, ubaguzi, ukiukaji wa afya, kuchochea migogoro, ubinafsishaji na uchafuzi wa vyanzo vya maji vya mitaa, kutumia kazi ya watoto na hata biashara ya ngono yote yameandikwa kuwa yanatokea chini ya jukumu la mashirika makubwa. "Mashamba ya kutengeneza nguo kwa kutumia nguvu za kulevya yanatumiwa sana katika nchi zinazoendelea na viwanda vya nguo, ambavyo kwa kawaida hulipa mishahara midogo kwa wafanyakazi wa chini ya umri ambao mara nyingi hufanya kazi kwa saa nyingi katika hali mbaya sana.""" Ikiwa yote mengine hayana matokeo, akaunti za kifedha zinaweza kurekebishwa ili kuunda hisia ya faida na ukuaji. Hii ilikuwa kesi katika kashfa nyingi za ushirika na kuanguka kwa mashirika kama vile Enron. Katika kesi hiyo, sekta nyingine nyingi za sekta ya uhasibu na benki, kama vile Arthur Andersen na Benki ya Westminster ya Kitaifa, zilishirikiana na kuwezesha uhasibu wa Enron, fedha na shughuli za udanganyifu. Kwa kweli, walipoteza sana ni wafanyikazi 21,000 ambao sio tu walipoteza kazi zao, lakini mipango yao ya pensheni na akiba ambayo yote yalikuwa yameunganishwa na hisa za Enron. Mahangaiko ya mazingira pia ni ya pili kwa kupata faida, na majanga ya mazingira ni ya kawaida "externalities" (tazama hapa chini) ya uchumi wa biashara. Wakati ambapo rasilimali zetu nyingi zinakoma ulimwenguni - hasa mafuta yetu ya makaa ya mawe, na hata kikanda - kama vile usambazaji wa maji, nia ya faida haimtia moyo kuzuia au kuhifadhi. Kwa mantiki, kampuni inayopata faida haiwezi kushauri wateja wake watumie kidogo, kwa kuwa hii inadhoofisha moja kwa moja mapato ya biashara. Katika kesi ya mafuta ya makaa ya mawe, ukweli huu rahisi umeona ongezeko la kuendelea la matumizi ya mafuta ambayo ni hatari sana sumu ya mazingira yetu. Ni vigumu kwamba uzalishaji wa nishati mbadala itakuwa kuthibitisha faida zaidi katika siku zijazo, na hivyo ni vigumu kabisa kwamba mbadala itakuwa vigorously kufuatiliwa na makampuni faida. "Hata hivyo, licha ya ukame wa sasa na vikwazo vya matumizi ya maji vilivyowekwa kwa umma, Thames Water PLC imesema ""faida za rekodi kabla ya kodi.""" Kwa mujibu wa ripoti hiyo, nchi hiyo imepuuza kupunguza lita milioni 894 za maji zinazopotea kwa sababu ya mabomba na kuvuja kwa maji. Mtoaji wa maji wa umma na kusimamiwa haungekuwa chini ya shinikizo la kifedha na wanahisa na angeweza kuwekeza faida katika miundombinu na uhifadhi. Faida ya ushirika ni exaggerated na nini ni ufanisi umma unaofadhiliwa ustawi wa ushirika. "Hatua ya ""welfare"" ya kampuni huanza na serikali zinazotoa motisha kwa makampuni ili kuvutia biashara zao, kuongeza Pato lao la Taifa na kushindana na mataifa mengine." Rasilimali za kitaifa ambazo kwa haki ni za umma ni karoti za kwanza kwenye fimbo, na hutolewa kwa bei ya punguzo kubwa kwa mashirika bila idhini ya umma. Serikali hata hutoa mali muhimu za kawaida bila gharama kwa mashirika, kama vile haki za mafuta na madini, kuokoa mashirika mabilioni ya dola katika gharama. Kwa kuongezea, serikali tajiri hulipa misaada mikubwa sana kwa makampuni makubwa zaidi. Msaada wa serikali kwa wakulima katika nchi za OECD ulifikia jumla ya dola bilioni 283 mnamo 2005, ikimaanisha 29% ya mapato ya jumla ya kilimo. Kwa bahati mbaya, wengi wa wakulima ambao wana mashamba madogo hadi ya kati hawafaidiki na ruzuku hizi. Zaidi ya asilimia 30 ya wakulima nchini Marekani hawapati yoyote ya $ 26 bilioni ya misaada ya Marekani, na zaidi ya asilimia 85 kwenda kwa asilimia 20 tu ya mashamba makubwa, muundo unaorudiwa katika EU. Nchi zilizoendelea pia hufadhili mauzo ya nje ya makampuni na vifaa vya biashara ya kilimo kama vile nishati, dawa za kuua wadudu na mbolea za kemikali. Hii inahimiza njia za uzalishaji wa nishati na kemikali ambazo biashara kubwa ya kilimo tu inaweza kudumisha. Kwa sababu hiyo, idadi ya mashamba madogo nchini Marekani imepungua kutoka milioni 6.8 mwaka 1935 hadi milioni 1.5 mwaka 1998. Katika masoko ya bidhaa za kimataifa, ruzuku hizo zina maana kwamba wazalishaji katika nchi zinazoendelea, ambao wengi wao hutengeneza bidhaa zao kwa ufanisi zaidi na gharama nafuu kuliko Marekani na EU, hawawezi kushindana na wauzaji wa biashara ya kilimo. Njia zao za kuishi zimeharibiwa. Ushindani wa soko ni kukata koo, thamani zaidi kuliko maisha yenyewe. Mbwa mmoja mmoja nchini Japan hupokea dola 8 kwa siku katika misaada pekee, wakati nusu ya watu bilioni 1.2 wa India wanaishi kwa chini ya dola 2 kwa siku. Hatua hizi huimarisha utawala wa soko wa mashirika, wakati wa kuondoa wazalishaji wadogo, wa jamii. Kwa kuongezea, mashirika hulipa kodi ndogo sana kuliko watu wa kawaida, mara nyingi yakiri makao makuu yao katika maeneo yasiyo na kodi. "Kulingana na Kituo cha Maendeleo ya Amerika, ""Katika wakati wa kuongezeka kwa faida za ushirika, Ofisi ya Uhasibu ya Serikali ya Marekani (GAO) inaripoti kwamba asilimia 95 ya mashirika yalilipa chini ya asilimia 5 ya mapato yao katika kodi, na sita kati ya kumi hawakulipa kodi yoyote ya shirikisho kutoka 1996 hadi 2000.""" Sehemu ya kodi ya kampuni iliyolipwa ilipungua kutoka asilimia 33 katika miaka ya 1940 hadi asilimia 15 katika miaka ya 1990. Sehemu ya mtu binafsi ya kodi imepanda kutoka asilimia 44 hadi 73. Wakati wa rekodi ya mapato ya ushirika, umma wa Marekani ni kufanya up hasara katika mapato ya kodi kupitia utawala wa kodi ya upendeleo wa Bush. Matokeo ya ustawi wa mashirika juu ya mataifa maskini zaidi ni yenye msiba sana. Wakati rasilimali za ndani na bidhaa za msingi zinadhibitiwa na mashirika na wamiliki wa mbali, viwanda vya ndani hupunguzwa, huduma muhimu mara nyingi hazipatikani na faida hurudishwa katika nchi tajiri, kuzunguka uchumi wa ndani. Ingawa ubinafsishaji katika nchi zinazoendelea ni muhimu katika baadhi ya kesi, kwa ujumla mchakato huo unafanana na biashara ya kiuchumi kwa kuwa mwishowe huendeshwa na maslahi ya kibiashara ya ubinafsi. """Kilivyohitajika ni uhamisho mkubwa wa rasilimali kwa Kusini ya Dunia, sio kwa mashirika ya kimataifa." Serikali zinapotoa rasilimali za umma, kutoa ruzuku kwa viwanda vikubwa na kutoa motisha za kodi kwa mashirika, kwa kawaida hutokea bila ufahamu wa umma na kuthibitika kuwa mbaya kwa jamii zao za mitaa. """Bidhaa tunazolipa hazijumuishi gharama ambazo tayari tumelipa kupitia ushuru wetu, gharama kwa wazalishaji maskini zaidi ulimwenguni, au gharama kwa mazingira." Mawazo ya kiuchumi ya kawaida na taratibu za uhasibu ni kubwa dhidi ya jamii za mitaa na mazingira, kwani zinaonyesha tu faida na hasara ya kifedha. Kuongeza faida inamaanisha kupitisha gharama zaidi zisizo za kimwili au za muda mrefu kwa jamii ili waweze kushughulika nazo. Utaratibu huu unajulikana kama externalization, na externalities ni kawaida hasi kijamii au mazingira gharama kwa jamii, mkoa au sayari ambayo makampuni hawana kuwa na akaunti kwa vyovyote vile. Makampuni hulazimika kutoa gharama mbali na mahali pengine popote iwezekanavyo ili waweze kuongeza faida zao. Kwa mfano, kilimo cha viwandani kinachoelekezwa kwa usafirishaji ni kichocheo kikuu cha mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa. Vitu vya nje vya kilimo huchafua udongo wetu, njia za maji na angahewa. Na makampuni yanajifunza kuhamisha nje kwa ufanisi zaidi - wanaweza, kwa mfano, kuhamia nchi zilizo na viwango vya chini vya kazi au mazingira. Athari mbaya kwa jamii na mazingira ya mambo haya ya nje na viwango vya chini hazijulikani katika gharama ya bidhaa zao au ripoti zao za kifedha. Wakati huo huo, watumiaji huvutiwa na udanganyifu wa bidhaa na huduma za bei nafuu na hutafuta wauzaji wa bei nafuu zaidi. Hata hivyo, kama gharama halisi za mazingira na kijamii za shughuli za ushirika zinaonekana, watumiaji lazima watambue kwamba hawawezi kuepuka kulipa kwa njia moja au nyingine. Kwa mfano, gharama hizi zinalipwa kupitia misaada iliyotumwa kwa nchi zinazoendelea (mara nyingi baada ya majanga yaliyozidishwa na mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa), kupitia fedha za umma zinazotumika kukabiliana na mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa, kupitia mamilioni ya dola zinazotumika kitaifa kukabiliana na umaskini, ukosefu wa usawa, ukosefu wa ajira na masuala mengine ya kijamii, na kupitia athari mbaya kwa ubora wa maisha inayotokana na viwango vya chini vya kazi. Kila mwaka, makampuni yanatozwa faini ya mamia ya mamilioni ya dola kwa sababu ya athari zao za nje zinazosababisha majanga makubwa ya mazingira, kupuuza haki za wafanyakazi na hata kusababisha vifo. Mifano ni nyingi na imethibitishwa vizuri na mashirika yasiyo ya kiserikali na makundi ya jamii ya kiraia, na kwa kawaida inahusu mashirika maarufu na makubwa zaidi. Hata hivyo, vyombo vya habari vya kawaida havijashughulikia masuala hayo. Kwa mfano, fikiria kampuni ya Chevron. "Watu wengi hawajui kuwa ni hatia ya baadhi ya ukiukaji mbaya zaidi wa mazingira na haki za binadamu ulimwenguni, kama vile kutupa galoni bilioni 18 za taka za sumu katika mito inayotumiwa kwa maji ya kuogelea katika Amazon, ikiharibu afya ya jamii ya ndani. """ Hata hivyo, faini kwa ajili ya uhalifu huu wa ushirika ni ndogo ikilinganishwa na mzunguko wa kampuni. Mara nyingi uwezekano wa kutozwa faini hufikiriwa mapema kabla ya tukio hilo kutokea. Kwa kuzingatia uwezekano wa kuokoa fedha kwa kuvunja sheria za ulinzi wa mazingira na haki za wafanyakazi, uamuzi wa kupuuza sheria hizi ni hesabu rahisi ya gharama na faida. Kwa wasiwasi, wanahisa hawawezi kuwajibika kwa ukiukaji huu kwani wanalindwa na dhima yao ndogo, na wakurugenzi na watendaji wanafanikiwa kuomba kwamba hawana ushiriki wa moja kwa moja na uhalifu wa ushirika uliofanywa. Hivyo kampuni "kiungo" yenyewe ni faini, na motisha kidogo ya kubadilisha tabia ya kampuni irresponsible ni zinazotolewa. Kwa kuzingatia gharama za mambo haya ya nje, Ralph Estes alikadiria kuwa gharama ya umma ya mashirika ya kibinafsi ilikuwa zaidi ya $ 3 trilioni mnamo 1995. "Madhara ya nje ya kampuni ni pamoja na ""majeraha ya mahali pa kazi, uchafuzi wa mazingira, ubaguzi wa ajira, udanganyifu wa watumiaji, uhalifu wa white collar, ushuru wa kodi na matukio mengine yote ya ustawi wa kampuni, udanganyifu wa mkataba wa serikali na uhasibu wa ubunifu"" ambayo yote yana gharama sawa ya kifedha kwa umma." Hesabu hizi zinaonyesha kwamba madai ya usimamizi wa kampuni ni ya uwongo - makampuni mengi hayangeweza kuendelea bila mabadiliko makubwa ikiwa wangebeba gharama kamili ya bidhaa au huduma zao. Ni wazi kwamba uhitaji wa kampuni ya kuongeza faida unakuja kwa gharama kubwa sana kwa umma wa kimataifa. Wakati ustawi wa ushirika na gharama ya umma ya externalities ni kuchukuliwa katika akaunti, faida ya ushirika ni neno meaningless. Ndani ya mfumo wa sasa, faida ya kampuni lazima kutazamwa pamoja na matokeo ya kijamii na mazingira ya shughuli za kampuni. Njia hii yenye usawaziko zaidi huuliza mfumo wa kiuchumi wa ulimwengu ambao huendeleza hali hii ya mambo. Katika karne ya 16 Uingereza, wengi wa mashirika walikuwa taasisi za misaada leseni na taji na marufuku ya kushiriki katika shughuli za kibiashara faida. Wakati huo, mfano wa biashara uliokuwa ukitawala ulikuwa ule wa ushirikiano wa watu binafsi ambao walijumuisha rasilimali zao na kutenda kwa maslahi ya jamii zao wenyewe. Kampuni za dhima ndogo zilikuwa na kutokuamini kwa ujumla na wengi, ikiwa ni pamoja na Adam Smith, na kwa sababu ya ufisadi na udanganyifu uliosambazwa, zilikuwa katika hatua moja zilizokatazwa kwa zaidi ya miaka 50 nchini Uingereza. Hata hivyo, makampuni machache yalionwa kuwa yanafanya kazi moja kwa moja kwa maslahi ya taifa kwa kuwa yalifanya shughuli za kibiashara za kiwango kikubwa sana na zenye hatari kubwa. Kampuni ya Massachusetts Bay ilianzishwa na Mfalme Charles I wa Uingereza mnamo 1638 ili kuanzisha koloni katika eneo la New World. Kampuni hizo, kama vile Kampuni ya India Mashariki ya Uholanzi na Kampuni ya India Mashariki ya Uingereza, zilikuwa sehemu muhimu ya sera za kiuchumi za biashara zilizotumiwa na mamlaka za kikoloni ambazo zilikuwa zikiendesha kwa ufanisi udhibiti wa serikali katika koloni zao. Kampuni hizo ziliweza kukusanya nguvu kubwa za kifedha na kiuchumi kwa kufanya biashara ya hisa za kampuni zao hadharani. Uzoefu wa Marekani wa ubaguzi wa ushirika uliowalazimishwa juu yao na watawala wao wa kikoloni uliimarisha chuki yao ya muundo wa ushirika. """Watu na mahakama walikuwa na ufahamu mkubwa kwamba mashirika yanaweza kukusanya utajiri wa umma usiofaa na kuwa na udhibiti wa kupita kiasi juu ya rasilimali, uzalishaji, vyombo vya habari na mchakato wa uchaguzi." Matokeo yakawa kwamba mamlaka hizo zilionwa kuwa zisizo za kikatiba na zikadhibitiwa. Kampuni hazingeweza kufanya shughuli ambazo hazikutajwa katika mkataba wao, na hazingeweza kushikilia hisa katika makampuni mengine. Baadhi ya majimbo hata marufuku mkataba wa benki binafsi kabisa. "Wakilishi wa sheria, sio mahakama, wangetoa kwa tahadhari hati za kisheria na kuwajibisha wamiliki wa biashara kwa madhara yoyote au majeraha kwa watu au jamii. """ Mkataba wa kampuni haukupewa kwa uhuru hadi katikati ya karne ya 19. Hadi wakati huo, njia iliyopendekezwa ya shirika la kiuchumi ilikuwa vyama vya biashara visivyojumuishwa, vyama vya ushirika na huduma za kijamii zinazofadhiliwa na umma kama vile vyuo vikuu, maktaba na vituo vya moto. Kilimo, utengenezaji, masoko ya manispaa na maghala yote yaliendelezwa na kufadhiliwa ndani ya nchi. Hii ilibadilika kabla ya Vita vya wenyewe kwa wenyewe vya Marekani, wakati mashirika yalipoanza kutumia vibaya mikataba yao na kukusanya mali za kibinafsi kwa kuunda makundi na amana. Kuja kwa Vita vya wenyewe kwa wenyewe kuliongeza zaidi utajiri na nguvu zao kwani walifaidika na matumizi makubwa ya serikali ambayo kwa kawaida huambatana na mzozo wa kijeshi. Wakiwa wamejifunza kutumia utajiri wao wa kiuchumi na kisiasa kwa ufanisi zaidi, mashirika ya kisasa yalifanya ushawishi mkubwa zaidi juu ya maisha ya kidemokrasia nchini Marekani. Walitumia utajiri na uvutano wao kuwadanganya maofisa katika ngazi zote za serikali, na kuathiri maamuzi ya mahakama. Kwa kubadilishana, serikali zilitoa rasilimali za umma kama vile ardhi, maji, mbao na madini, na kutoa ruzuku kubwa ya kifedha. Jambo la kushangaza zaidi ni kwamba walianza kuathiri serikali na mahakama, ambazo ziliwapa haki za kikatiba ambazo hadi wakati huo zilikuwa zimekusudiwa kulinda watu na uhuru wao wa kiraia. "Kutetea Haki za Kisheria: Wanasheria wa Kampuni walianzisha ""Utu wa Kampuni"" katika sheria ya Marekani, ambayo iliwapa haki sawa za kikatiba kama watu wa kawaida." Kwanza walianza kudanganya maoni ya mahakama ya Marekebisho ya Kumi na Nne, ambayo awali yaliundwa kulinda haki za kiraia za watumwa. "Walidai kwamba ""haki za ulinzi sawa"" na ""Mchakato wa Haki"" zinapaswa kutumika kwa mashirika kama vile watu, na katika 1889, mahakama kuu ilitoa haki hizi kwa mashirika chini ya mamlaka ya Marekebisho ya Kumi na Nne." Hivyo mashirika yakawa "watu". Hii ilikuwa hatua kubwa ya kubadilisha, kuruhusu mashirika kutumia nguvu hizi mpya kudhibiti haki za kidemokrasia ambazo katiba awali ilikusudia kuwapa raia: haki ya aina ya serikali ya jamhuri, inayotokana tu na idhini ya wale wanaotawaliwa. Kuanzishwa kwa dhima ndogo katika sheria za Uingereza na Marekani katika nusu ya mwisho ya karne ya 19 iliondoa sababu ya hatari kutoka kwa biashara ya ushirika. Sheria hiyo iliruhusu fedha za uwekezaji kupatikana kwa biashara ya umma ya hisa za kampuni, bila kutoa wajibu wowote wa kisheria kwa wanahisa kwa vitendo vya kampuni. Mmoja baada ya mwingine, majimbo nchini Marekani yalianza kuhamasisha uwekezaji wa ndani kwa kuondoa vizuizi ambavyo vilizuia mashirika kuunganisha na kupata mashirika mengine na hisa. Punde si punde mashirika yaliruhusiwa kuwepo kwa muda usiojulikana na kuwa na biashara maslahi mbalimbali katika majimbo mbalimbali. Mwaka 1906, wanasheria wa kampuni walipata haki za katiba za Marekebisho ya Nne kwa wateja wao, ambayo awali ililinda mali za watu kutoka kwa utafutaji usio na sababu. Kampuni hizo zilitumia ulinzi huo kupunguza uchunguzi wa afya, usalama na mazingira katika vifaa vya kampuni na kuweka hati za kampuni kuwa za faragha. Hii imeharibu haki ya umma ya viwango sahihi vya afya na usalama na ulinzi wa mazingira tangu wakati huo. Mashirika pia yalipewa ulinzi chini ya Marekebisho ya Tano, kuzuia mamlaka ya mashirika kutoka kuondolewa bila utaratibu sahihi. Hii iliruhusu mashirika kulipwa fidia ikiwa wangepoteza mapato kutoka kwa sheria za mitaa zilizobuniwa kulinda raia. Chini ya Marekebisho ya Kwanza (Uhuru wa Hotuba) mashirika yametolewa haki ya kuathiri sheria ambayo haihusiani na biashara yao. Matokeo yake ni kwamba mashirika yamevunja msingi wa demokrasia. Serikali haziwezi tena kupunguza matangazo ya biashara, hata wakati wa kisiasa, au kupunguza michango ya kifedha kwa kampeni za kisiasa. Mabadiliko haya, na mengine, yameharibu haki ya watu ya kutibu mashirika kama mashirika ya chini, yaliyotengenezwa na wanadamu. Haki za kampuni sasa zinashindana moja kwa moja na haki ya umma kwa afya yao, usalama na ustawi. Mahakama zimechagua kutozungumzia mgogoro huu wa maslahi na kudhoofisha mchakato wa kidemokrasia. Badala yake wameruhusu mashirika ya kisasa kutumia haki hizo kukusanya utajiri mkubwa zaidi. Nguvu za kiuchumi huunda ushawishi wa kisiasa, ukweli ambao, kwa kuzingatia ulinzi wao mpya chini ya sheria ya Marekani, mashirika hutumia kwa faida yao kamili. Wakati soko la fedha lilipokuwa likizidi kusitawi katika karne ya 20, Marekani iliendelea na njia yake ya mafanikio. "Wakati huo, dhana ya ""kuzalisha utajiri wa kibinafsi"" ilitawala mawazo ya kisiasa na kiuchumi, na hata mabadiliko ya msisitizo kwa maslahi ya kijamii wakati wa mshuko mkubwa wa uchumi wa miaka ya 1920 hayakufanya mengi kubadilisha mtazamo huu." Muda si muda, mpango wa ushirika ukawa wa kimataifa, ukichochewa na malengo ya sera za kigeni za Marekani. Wakati huo huo, fursa kubwa ilifunguliwa baada ya Vita Kuu ya Pili ya Dunia, ambayo iliwawezesha Marekani kuunda hali nzuri za biashara na Ulaya iliyovunjwa na vita. Ingawa msaada mkubwa ulitolewa kupitia Mpango wa Marshall, uundaji wa taasisi za Bretton Woods (IMF, Benki ya Dunia na GATT) ulihakikisha utawala wa Marekani katika biashara ya kimataifa na fedha, kuhakikisha ustawi wa Marekani wa baadaye. Vifaa vya serikali kwa ajili ya unyonyaji wa kiuchumi wa kimataifa vilikuwa mashirika yao ya uaminifu. Katika miaka ya hivi karibuni, makampuni yameona kuwa inawezekana kuongeza faida kwa kuhamisha shughuli zao kwenda nchi zinazoendelea ambapo mishahara, gharama na kodi ni ya chini sana na kanuni ni karibu haipo. Hii ilifikiwa kupitia Trio ya Bretton Woods na makubaliano ya biashara huru. Benki ya Dunia imethibitika kuwa yenye faida kwa mashirika makubwa yaliyo katika kaskazini, ikianzisha programu za maendeleo ya kiwango kikubwa katika nchi maskini ambazo huvutia uwekezaji wa kibinafsi. Uwekezaji wa moja kwa moja wa kigeni sasa unazidi $ 1 trilioni kwa mwaka kwa miradi kama vile ubinafsishaji wa huduma za umma na kuunda mifumo ya benki - miradi kama hiyo ni wazi bets salama kwa wawekezaji wa ushirika. Kwa upande mwingine, kuna mkusanyiko mkubwa wa nguvu za kisiasa na kiuchumi hapa, kwani 1% ya makampuni yote ya kimataifa yanamiliki 50% ya jumla ya uwekezaji wa moja kwa moja wa kigeni. Wakati Benki ya Dunia inaongeza madeni ya Dunia ya Tatu kwa miradi ya maendeleo, IMF hufanya kazi kama mkopeshaji wa mwisho kwa mapungufu ya usawa wa malipo ambayo mara nyingi hupatikana na nchi zinazoendelea. Matokeo ya pamoja ya hatua hizi ni madeni makubwa kwa nchi maskini. Ili kuhakikisha faida, taasisi hizo zilezile huweka mipango ya marekebisho ya muundo juu ya nchi zinazokopa ili kuweka kipaumbele kulipa deni. Hii ilithibitika kuwa faida kwa mashirika ya kifedha yaliyo katika kaskazini, ambayo maslahi yake IMF imetetea waziwazi. Kampuni hizo zilipotoa mikopo mbaya kwa nchi zinazoendelea, IMF ilitoa misaada ya mabilioni ya dola. Kwa mfano, ilisaidia wawekezaji wa kigeni nchini Urusi kwa pakiti ya dola bilioni 11 na kuandaa mpango mkubwa wa kuokoa benki kubwa ambazo zilitoa mikopo mbaya kwa nchi za Asia. Mwaka 1995, IMF iliwapa wawekezaji wa Wall Street karibu dola bilioni 18 ambao waliweza kupoteza bilioni kwa sababu ya kupunguzwa kwa thamani ya peso. Mkataba wa jumla wa ushuru na biashara (GATT) ulibadilishwa na Shirika la Biashara Ulimwenguni (WTO) mnamo 1995 na kuanzishwa kwa Shirika la Biashara Ulimwenguni (WTO) mnamo 1995. Uanachama wa WTO unatoa nchi wanachama wake kufuata kabisa kanuni na makubaliano yake. Mkataba huo unasema kwamba sheria za biashara za WTO zinabadilisha sheria na kanuni za ndani ambazo zinaweza kuzuia biashara kwa njia yoyote. Kwa njia hii, sheria za mazingira, usalama na kazi mara kwa mara hupuuzwa kwa sababu zinaweza kupunguza shughuli za kibiashara. Kwa sababu hiyo, WTO ni chombo cha juu zaidi cha kisheria ulimwenguni. "Makubaliano ya WTO mara nyingi yamesababisha serikali za kitaifa kushtakiwa na mashirika kwa kuweka maslahi ya kitaifa juu ya faida ya kampuni.""" Athari ya jumla ni uratibu wa kanuni za kimataifa na viwango kwa mtoaji wao wa chini, matokeo ambayo ni kuwakaribisha na makampuni ya kimataifa. Mkataba wa WTO kuhusu masuala ya biashara yanayohusiana na haki za mali ya akili (TRIPS) ni mkataba wa kimataifa wa kimataifa wa haki za mali ya akili (IPR) ambao unatoa ulinzi wa hati miliki kwa bidhaa zote za urithi. Mwaka 1980, Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani iliamua kwamba viumbe wadogo waliobadilishwa chembe za urithi vinaweza kupewa hati miliki. Haki hii ya patent ilipanuliwa na Ofisi ya Patent ya Marekani mnamo 1985 kufunika mimea yote ya uhandisi wa maumbile, mbegu na tishu za mimea, na ilipanuliwa zaidi kufunika wanyama wote mnamo 1987. Mwaka 1998 nchi za EU ziliongeza sheria za hati miliki ili kufunika hati miliki za mimea, wanadamu na aina za maisha. Kampuni za biotech zinakamatwa na makampuni makubwa ya sayansi ya maisha katika mbio ya kuimarisha sekta ya chakula na mbegu ambayo iliongezeka mara tatu kati ya 1992 na 2002. Kwa mfano, mwaka 2001 ilifikia thamani ya dola bilioni 2 kwa mwaka. Mnamo Mei 2002, kulikuwa na kampuni 1,457 za biotechnology nchini Marekani na thamani ya jumla ya $ 224 bilioni. "Hii ni kwa sababu asilimia 70 ya hati miliki za mazao ya chakula ni za makampuni sita ya kimataifa ambayo yanaweza kuweka bei ya soko kwa ajili yao na kuzuia ushindani kwa miaka ishirini, na hivyo kudhibiti soko. """ Gharama ya hati miliki inaweza kufikia $ 1 milioni, kuhakikisha kwamba wale katika nchi zinazoendelea hawawezi uwezekano wa kushindana na makampuni tajiri. Nchi zinazoendelea, ambapo asilimia 75 ya maisha ya watu hutegemea kilimo, ni chanzo cha asilimia 90 ya rasilimali zote za kibiolojia. Kampuni za kimataifa zilizo katika nchi zilizoendelea zinamiliki asilimia 97 ya hati miliki duniani. Tangu mwaka 1985 Marekani imeweka hati miliki za mimea 10,778. Kwa ujumla, maombi ya hati miliki katika Shirika la Dunia la Mali ya Akili yameongezeka kutoka 3,000 mnamo 1979 hadi 67,000 mnamo 1997. Aina za bidhaa za kibiashara kama vile pamba na maharagwe ya soya zimeharibu jamii za wakulima katika nchi zinazoendelea, ambao hawawezi kuhifadhi mbegu bila kulipa mashirika kwa ajili ya upendeleo huo. Kumekuwa na upinzani mkubwa kwa kile ambacho kimehesabiwa kuwa "ulaghai wa kibiolojia". Hii ni wakati mashirika ya bioteknolojia, katika haraka yao ya kupata faida za kifedha, patent aina ya mimea, mbegu na matumizi ambayo tayari zipo na kubaki katika matumizi na jamii za asili. Upatenti wa maisha unapingana na kushiriki maarifa ya jadi na kuhifadhi utofauti wa kibiolojia na utamaduni. Kisa hiki ni ushindi mkubwa kwa mashirika. Uwezekano wa kupata faida ya wakati ujao ni karibu usio na kikomo. Kuongezeka kwa haki za ushirika, nguvu za kiuchumi na ushawishi wa kisiasa kwa ujumla kumekuwa kumepunguzwa kwa miaka 150 iliyopita, ingawa mbegu za utawala wa ushirika zimekaa katika mazoea ya kibiashara na ukoloni ya mbali zaidi. Kwa upande wa nje, mazingira ya kisiasa, kiuchumi na kitamaduni ya dunia yamebadilika sana katika kipindi hiki, na demokrasia iko katika hali ya kuibuka. Hata hivyo, ni jambo lisiloweza kukataliwa kwamba katika kipindi hichohicho cha wakati, haki ya kidemokrasia ya watu kuamua maisha yao ya kiuchumi imebadilishwa na maslahi ya ushirika. Kuunganishwa kwa nguvu za kisiasa kunakuja kwa gharama ya mamlaka ya umma na inaendelea kuchochea upinzani mkubwa ulimwenguni. Inadumishwa na sera za neoliberal zinazofanywa kwa kiwango cha kimataifa. Kama ilivyo katika mapigano ya kihistoria duniani kote, vita ya sasa ni kati ya umma wa kimataifa na ushirika na wasomi wa kisiasa juu ya udhibiti wa serikali. Ni nani anayeamua jinsi watu wanavyojipanga na kuishi maisha yao? Ni nani anaamua kama watu wanaenda na au bila maji, chakula, huduma za afya au elimu? Haki hizi lazima ziwe na umma wa kimataifa na vyombo vyao vya uwakilishi, na sio na wachache wachache ambao wananufaika moja kwa moja kutoka kwa itikadi ambayo hupunguza ushiriki wa umma katika maamuzi haya ya msingi. Makampuni si watu. Hawapo bila wanahisa na wapo tu kwa faida. Hawawezi kuonyesha maadili yaleyale ambayo watu wanashikilia na kueleza ndani ya jumuiya zao. Katiba ya Marekani haikutarajiwa kuwakilisha haki za mashirika ya kiuchumi; hakuna kumbukumbu ya mashirika au mashirika mengine kama hayo katika katiba. Shirika hilo halipaswi kufurahia ulinzi wa Katiba ya Haki. Katika demokrasia ya kweli, mashirika lazima kuwepo kwa furaha ya watu na chini ya enzi yao. "Hata hivyo, uhuru wa demokrasia hauko salama ikiwa watu wanahubiria ukuaji wa nguvu za kibinafsi hadi hatua ambapo inakuwa nguvu kuliko serikali yenyewe ya kidemokrasia.""" "Hiyo katika kiini chake ni ufashisti: umiliki wa serikali na mtu binafsi, na kikundi au mamlaka yoyote ya kibinafsi ya kudhibiti.""" Rais Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Uhusiano wa kihistoria wa madarasa ya kutawala kuelekea umma nchini Marekani na nchi nyingi za Ulaya umekuwa mmoja wa ""wanamume wa ubora bora"" ambao wanaelewa vizuri mahitaji ya ""watu wasio na mawazo.""" "Hume alitaja kwamba ""watu wengi wana mwelekeo wa kuwakabidhi mamlaka yao kwa wachache ambao wanawatawala kwa urahisi wa kushangaza, kwa kuwa nguvu huwa upande wa wale wanaotawaliwa.""" Mstari huu wa kufikiri unaweza kufuatiliwa kutoka kwa wanafalsafa kama vile Hume na Frances Hutcheson, kwa Rais James Madison - mmoja wa wasanifu wakuu wa katiba ya Marekani. Madison anajulikana kwa kupata haki za mali binafsi na kusema umuhimu wa "...kulinda wachache wa matajiri dhidi ya wengi", maoni ambayo yalifanyika sana miongoni mwa watu wa wakati wake. Baada ya muda, njia hiyo ya utawala ilisababisha nguvu za kisiasa na utajiri kukusanywa mikononi mwa wachache. Mashirika ya kisasa yalizaliwa kutokana na mkusanyiko huu wa ushawishi wa kifedha na kisiasa, ili kutumikia'maslahi ya kigeni ya taifa'. Nguvu na ushawishi wa kampuni umekuwa ukiongezeka kwa kasi katika miaka 150 iliyopita, na makampuni yanajifunza haraka kutoka kwa makosa ya zamani. Usalama wao wa kifedha unaoongezeka umewawezesha kudhibiti mchakato wa kidemokrasia na kuamuru sera za serikali kwa ufanisi sana, haswa nchini Marekani na EU. Mifano maalum imethibitishwa vizuri, kama vile migogoro ya maslahi ambayo huzunguka wanasiasa katika nchi zote mbili. Matokeo yake ni kwamba sera za kiuchumi za dunia zinadhibitiwa na kundi dogo la wanasiasa na makampuni ambayo yana maslahi sawa ya kifedha. """Heshima ya kuathiri sera ni moja ambayo kwa haki inamilikiwa na umma, sio wasomi wa ushirika ambao hufanyiza chini ya 1% ya idadi ya watu." Lakini kwa kuwa ushawishi wa kisiasa huongezeka na nguvu za kiuchumi na kifedha, ushawishi wa ushirika katika miundo ya utawala wa kitaifa na wa kimataifa unazidi sana ushawishi wa umma. Hivyo, mchakato wa kidemokrasia umekuwa uwanja wa vita ambapo manufaa ya umma imepigana na ajenda ya ushirika. Ni wakati tu umma wa kimataifa utakaporudisha mchakato wa kidemokrasia na kutekeleza hatua zinazofaa za kuzuia ushawishi wa ushirika kwenye mchakato wa kidemokrasia, uchumi wa kimataifa utaonyesha mahitaji ya wengi. Uangalifu wa umma katika nchi nyingi za magharibi umegeuka mbali na serikali - ukweli uliozaliwa na ushiriki mdogo sana wakati wa uchaguzi wa hivi karibuni nchini Uingereza na Marekani. "Ukosefu huo wa ujasiri wa taifa kwa serikali ni kwa kiasi kikubwa matokeo ya kushindwa kwa uongozi wa kisiasa kuwakilisha umma kwa unyoofu au kuwasadikisha umma kwamba wako upande wao, wakipigana kwa maswala ya umma. """ Mapatano yanayotokana ndani ya jamii huongeza kasi kwa matarajio ya sekta binafsi ya kuondoa udhibiti wa serikali kwa niaba ya nguvu za soko. Pia imesababisha kuimarishwa kwa ushirikiano kati ya serikali na sekta ya biashara, na hii imefanya iwe rahisi zaidi kwa mashirika kufanikiwa kushawishi serikali kupunguza udhibiti wao juu ya uchumi. Chini tunachunguza baadhi ya mbinu ambazo mashirika hutumia ili kuunda uchumi wa kimataifa unaotumikia mahitaji yao na jinsi wameweza kudhibiti serikali na mawazo ya umma ili kupata mapato yao ya kifedha. Kama ilivyotajwa hapo juu, mafanikio makubwa ya mashirika yamekuwa katika kuunganisha nadharia ya kimataifa, neoliberal au soko huru ambayo inasaidia mahitaji yao ya ubepari. Uwezo wa biashara ya kimataifa katika uchumi wa dunia ni muhimu kwa sababu asilimia 70 ya biashara ya dunia inamilikiwa na makampuni 500 tu. "Katika kitabu chake ""When Corporations Rule the World,"" David Korten anaelezea ""Mashirika ya Bilderberg, Baraza la Mahusiano ya Nje na Tume ya Trilateral kama taasisi muhimu za kihistoria ambazo ziliunda utandawazi wa kisasa wa kiuchumi.""" Taasisi hizo zenye fedha nyingi, zenye ushawishi mkubwa na mara nyingi zenye siri, ziliwakusanya pamoja mawaziri muhimu wa serikali, viongozi wa biashara, walimu na wawakilishi wa vyombo vya habari mapema mwaka 1939. Pamoja waliunda makubaliano muhimu kwa utandawazi wa kiuchumi na kuunda maoni ya umma kuunga mkono sera ambazo zilikuwa muhimu kwa lengo lao. Kuendesha kampeni katika WTO na kuunda mfumo wa biashara Hivi karibuni, Marekani na nchi nyingine zinazodhibiti uchumi zilipata faida ya mwisho ya ushindani kwa kutawala Shirika la Biashara Ulimwenguni (WTO). Ingawa WTO ina nchi 149 wanachama na ni kiufundi kuhusika na kukuza biashara huru na standardizing sheria za biashara kati ya mataifa, ni sana upendeleo katika utendaji wake. Nchi zenye nguvu za kiuchumi - Marekani, Canada, EU na Japan - huanzisha ajenda ya biashara kabla ya raundi ya mazungumzo ya biashara. Nchi nyingi hazihusiki katika maamuzi haya muhimu. Asilimia 80 ya makampuni yote yanapatikana katika EU na Marekani, na kupitia wanasheria wao wanafurahia upatikanaji wa upendeleo kwa watunga sera wa serikali ambao wanashiriki katika mazungumzo ya biashara. Zaidi ya washawishi 30,000 wa ushawishi wa ushirika wana makao makuu huko Washington na Brussels, idadi kubwa kuliko wafanyikazi wa Bunge la Marekani na Tume ya Ulaya ambao wanashawishi. "Kundi kubwa ya lobby inawakilisha maslahi ya biashara ambayo hutumia mabilioni ya dola kila mwaka kutetea sababu yao kuu, ambayo kwa sasa ni upatikanaji wa soko katika uchumi unaojitokeza. """ Kampuni na mashirika yao yametumia dola bilioni 9.7 katika kampeni za kutaka kuingilia Bunge kati ya 1997 na 2000, karibu dola milioni 4.5 kwa mwaka kwa kila mwanachama wa Bunge. Kwa upande mwingine, nchi nyingi zinazoendelea hazina rasilimali za kutuma wawakilishi wa kutosha, ikiwa zipo, kujadili mazoea ya biashara ya haki ambayo yangefaidi maendeleo yao ya kiuchumi. Kwa kuongezea, mazungumzo ya WTO hayana demokrasia, na umma umekataliwa upatikanaji wa, au habari kuhusu, majadiliano. Hii ni kweli kwa makundi ya ushawishi wa ushirika kama vile Mkutano wa Huduma za Ulaya (ESF) na makampuni mengi ya Marekani ambayo yanaweza kuathiri moja kwa moja na kuwa na upatikanaji wa Kamati za Biashara. Kwa hiyo, haishangazi kwamba maslahi ya mataifa tajiri na makampuni yao yanaunda msingi wa makubaliano ya WTO na kuathiri moja kwa moja usanifu wa kisiasa na kiuchumi wa kimataifa. "Mtazamo wa msingi wa biashara, ulioungwa mkono na WTO, ni kufungua upatikanaji wa soko katika nchi zote kwa rasilimali, huduma na mali ya akili katika harakati isiyo na mwisho ya faida kubwa. """ Mahusiano ya kampuni na WTO, IMF na Benki ya Dunia ni vizuri kumbukumbu, na wao kuendelea kujadili upatikanaji wa masoko yanayotokea na kupata haki za mali ya akili. Kwa njia ya makubaliano ya biashara huru kama vile NAFTA na makubaliano ya WTO kama vile GATS na TRIPS, uwezekano wa kutawala zaidi kwa uchumi wa ushirika ni wazi. Haki za kampuni zinaendelea kutekelezwa na rasilimali muhimu za kawaida kama vile maji, nyenzo za maumbile na maarifa zinahamishwa, bila kuzingatia uhuru wa nchi zinazoendelea. "Katika kitabu chake ""Captive State,"" George Monbiot anaorodhesha watu 43 ambao tangu uchaguzi wa 1997 nchini Uingereza, wameteuliwa kama mawaziri, wakuu, wasimamizi na washauri wa idara nyingi za serikali na kamati huru." Katika kila kesi, nafasi zao za zamani za ushirika (kwa kawaida kama wakurugenzi, mwenyekiti au mkurugenzi mtendaji) na viungo vya sasa kwa tasnia zinaonyesha mgogoro wa maslahi wa moja kwa moja na majukumu yao ya serikali. Bwana Simon Highbury, mwenyekiti wa zamani wa BP, na makamu wa mwenyekiti wa Meza ya Mzunguko ya Ulaya ya Wafanyabiashara (kikundi chenye nguvu cha ushawishi wa ushawishi wa ushirika), aliteuliwa kuwa waziri wa Biashara na Ushindani wa Ulaya katika Idara ya Biashara na Viwanda. Kama inavyotarajiwa, mgogoro huo wa maslahi upo katika ngazi za juu zaidi za serikali ya Marekani, tu wazi zaidi na kwa madhara makubwa zaidi. Wengi wa baraza la mawaziri la Rais Bush ni mamilionea na kadhaa ni mamilionea. Rais, Makamu wa Rais, Waziri wa Biashara na Mshauri wa Usalama wa Taifa wote wana uhusiano mkubwa na sekta ya mafuta. Familia ya Bush ilikuwa na uhusiano mkubwa na Enron-ambayo ilikuwa chanzo kikubwa cha fedha cha kampuni ya Rais G. W. Bush. Baba ya Bush, Rais wa zamani, ametumia uhusiano wake na serikali kuomba uwekezaji kwa niaba ya Carlyle Group. Cheney alipata dola milioni 50 wakati akiwa mkurugenzi mtendaji wa kampuni ya mafuta ya Halliburton. Condoleezza Rice alikuwa mkurugenzi wa Chevron. Waziri wa Biashara wa Marekani Donald Evans ameshikilia hisa za Tom Brown Inc, kampuni ya uchimbaji wa mafuta na gesi ambayo alikuwa akiongoza, kwa thamani ya dola milioni 5 hadi milioni 25. Haishangazi kwamba sera za ndani na za nje za Marekani zina upendeleo mkubwa. Ulinzi wa mashamba ya mafuta ya Iraq ni mfano wa hivi karibuni unaofaa. Tangu kuanza kwa vita vya Iraq, kampuni kubwa ya nishati ya Texas ya Halliburton, iliyokuwa ikiongozwa na makamu wa rais Dick Cheney, imeona thamani ya hisa zake zikipita mara tatu. Kulingana na Halliburton Watch, mikataba ya Halliburton chini ya utawala wa Bush iliongezeka kwa 600%. Kwa mujibu wa ripoti ya serikali ya Bush, serikali ya Marekani imeokoa kati ya dola milioni 5 na milioni 19 kila mmoja baada ya serikali ya Bush kuondoa kodi ya mali isiyohamishika. Hii itakuja kwa gharama ya takriban dola bilioni 1 katika miaka 10 ya kwanza kwa umma. Wale waliopata faida ya kupunguzwa kwa kodi ni asilimia moja tu ya wananchi wa Marekani. Ni sehemu hiyo hiyo ya wasomi wa raia wa Marekani ambao wanatawala na kudhibiti mfumo mzima wa kisiasa. Kama vile, uhusiano symbiotic ni imara, na wote serikali na ushirika wasomi kudumisha kila mmoja uhalali. "Hatua hiyo ilichukuliwa wakati Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ilipofungua kesi ya sheria ya ""Free Speech"" ambayo iliruhusu mashirika ya fedha kufadhili uchaguzi wa Marekani." Uchaguzi wa Rais wa Marekani wa mwaka 2004 ulikuwa wa gharama kubwa zaidi duniani, na jumla ya michango ya kampeni ilikuwa $880,000,000. Rais Bush peke yake alipokea $ 367,228,801 kwa kampeni yake, ambayo 74% alikusanya kutoka kwa watu binafsi, kinyume na mashirika, biashara au serikali. Katika uchaguzi wa Marekani, fedha ni sawa na utangazaji. Hata katika uchaguzi wa bunge wa 2002, ambapo fedha hazikuwa muhimu sana kwa washindi kuliko uchaguzi wa 2000, asilimia 95 ya viti vyote vya Bunge na asilimia 75 ya viti vya Seneti vilishindwa na mgombea mwenye matumizi ya juu zaidi. Mchango kutoka kwa wafanyabiashara na kamati za hatua za kisiasa (PAC) pia ni kubwa. Kampuni ya makaa ya mawe ilitoa dola milioni 1.5 wakati wa uchaguzi wa 2002, Enron ilitoa dola milioni 2 kati ya 1999 na 2002, na Eli Lilly na Kampuni ilitoa zaidi ya dola milioni 1. Kwa kubadilishana na michango hii na mingine isiyohesabika, sera za Rais Bush wakati wa utawala wake zimekuwa wazi kuunga mkono maslahi ya matajiri na ushirika kwa kutoa mikataba ya faida na kwa kurekebisha sera na sheria. "Uchunguzi wa ""Blade"" ulifunua kwamba tangu Bush alipochukua madaraka mwaka 2001, serikali ya shirikisho imetoa zaidi ya mabilioni ya dola 3 katika mikataba kwa wakusanyaji wa fedha wa Rais wa Texas mwaka 2004, biashara zao, na wateja wa lobbying peke yao." "Mashtaka kama hayo yametokea nchini Uingereza, ambapo michango ya vyama vya siasa kutoka kwa watu wenye uhusiano mkubwa na makampuni ""imebadilishwa"" kwa vyeo vya cheo cha juu katika Baraza la Mabwana." Pesa hazipaswi kulinganishwa na ushawishi wa kisiasa katika nchi yoyote au ndani ya miundo ya utawala wa kimataifa. Kuongeza michango mikubwa kwa ajili ya matumizi ya kampeni ni wazi tu kwa wale wenye uhusiano mkubwa sana na watu tajiri. Jamii ya kiraia haiwezi kushindana kifedha, na hali ya sasa ya siasa nchini Marekani inaonyesha hali hii. Utegemezo huu wa kifedha na ushawishi uliotumiwa vibaya pia ni kiini cha ukosefu wa haki wa utawala wa kimataifa. "Bwembe ya Fedha ya Kimataifa (IMF) na Benki ya Dunia (WB) zinafanya kazi kwa msingi wa ""dola moja, kura moja,"" kukataa haki za kidemokrasia za wengi wa ulimwengu kwa sababu tu hawana utajiri wa kutosha." Kuendesha maoni ya umma: Uhusiano wa Umma, Uuzaji na Matangazo Tangu miaka ya 1970, kama upinzani wa umma kwa utawala wa ushirika na uharibifu wa mazingira uliongezeka, mashirika yameanzisha kampeni ya mafanikio ya kuongeza haki za ushirika na kushinda maoni ya umma. Hatua hii iliona kuongezeka kwa kampuni za sheria zinazodhaminiwa na kampuni ambazo zilitetea kwa ukali maslahi ya kampuni kwa, kwa mfano, kupinga viwango na kanuni za mazingira na kijamii. Mashirika hayo yaliwasilishwa kama vikundi vya "maslahi ya umma" katika jaribio la kulinganisha maslahi ya umma na ya ushirika wakati wa kuficha ushiriki wa ushirika. "Wanajamii wa mazingira na watumiaji ambao ni ""viendelezi vya ushawishi wa ushirika katika kujificha, kukuza uondoaji wa udhibiti wa mazingira na kibiashara.""" Ulimwengu wa kitaaluma pia ulilengwa kama mashirika ya fedha programu na utafiti katika uchumi na sheria ambayo walipendelea maadili ya neoliberal. Mafanikio ya kampeni ya mahusiano ya umma yalitegemezwa na rasilimali zao kubwa za kifedha na muungano mpana katika vikundi vya biashara. Ili kuathiri sera moja kwa moja, sera za kihafidhina za kufikiri zilianzishwa, kama vile Heritage Foundation, Taasisi ya Biashara ya Marekani na Taasisi ya Cato. Meza za Mzunguko za Biashara za Utendaji zilizofanyizwa na Mkurugenzi Mtendaji pia zilianzishwa katika miaka ya 1970, na kuwezesha wawakilishi kutoka kwa aina mbalimbali za viwanda kufanya kampeni kwa bidii kwa ajenda ya kawaida ya utandawazi wa kiuchumi. Hivi sasa, karibu wafanyakazi 200,000 wa mahusiano ya umma nchini Marekani wanashughulikia maoni ya umma kwa faida ya wadhamini wao wa ushirika. Mbali na kutoa mahitaji ya umma, mashirika huamua tabia za kitamaduni na kuunda mahitaji kwa kuathiri akili ya umma kupitia mchanganyiko wa kisasa na unaofadhiliwa vizuri wa utafiti, uuzaji, matangazo na udanganyifu wa vyombo vya habari. Matokeo ni mpangilio wa hila, lakini dhahiri kabisa, wa maslahi ya umma na ya ushirika. Ulinganifu huu wa kitamaduni wa jamii kitaifa na kimataifa ni ardhi yenye rutuba kwa ajili ya kuongeza faida. Wakati viwango vya matumizi yasiyo ya lazima na yasiyoweza kudumu vinaongezeka ulimwenguni, urefu wa maisha ya ushirika umehakikishwa. Utekelezaji huu wa umma bila makubaliano na watu wachache matajiri ni mfano mwingine wa mchakato usio wa kidemokrasia unaotokana na uwezo wa kupita kiasi wa kifedha na ushawishi wa kisiasa. Uwezo na ufanisi wa njia za matangazo na uuzaji unaeleweka vizuri. Kuenea kwa televisheni na kuongezeka kwa saa zinazotumiwa kutazama televisheni, hasa na watoto, ni jambo lenye kusumbua hasa. Katika nchi za Ulaya, kutazama televisheni ni jambo la tatu kwa muda mrefu zaidi baada ya kulala na kufanya kazi. Katika Marekani, asilimia 75 ya muda wa televisheni ya kibiashara na asilimia 50 ya wakati wa televisheni ya umma hulipwa na makampuni makubwa ya 100. Matumizi ya matangazo ya biashara ya kimataifa kwa mwaka 2006 ni zaidi ya dola bilioni 427. Kwa kuwa masoko ya kawaida yamejaa, au maoni ya umma yanageuka dhidi ya bidhaa fulani, mashirika, kwa kutumia uuzaji huo huo mkali, hubadilisha umakini wao kwa nchi zinazoendelea na athari mbaya. Nestle ilijulikana kwa biashara yake ya bidhaa za formula za watoto wachanga katika nchi maskini. Kwa sababu ya mazoea hayo, Nestle bado ni mojawapo ya makampuni yanayopigwa marufuku zaidi ulimwenguni, na chakula chake cha watoto bado ni chenye ubishi. Mwaka 2005 Italia ilikamata lita milioni mbili za formula ya watoto wachanga ya kampuni ya Nestle, ambayo ilikuwa imechafuliwa na kemikali ya isopropylthioxanthon. Katika miaka ya hivi karibuni, kadiri watu walivyoanza kufahamu madhara mabaya ya kuvuta sigara kwa afya katika nchi zilizoendelea, makampuni makubwa ya tumbaku yamelazimika kuelekeza fikira zao kwenye kuongezeka kwa mahitaji katika nchi zinazoendelea. WHO inasema kuwa asilimia 84 ya watu milioni 1.3 wanaovuta sigara wanaishi katika nchi zinazoendelea na nchi zenye uchumi wa mpito. Kwa mujibu wa ripoti ya WHO ya mwaka 1994, matumizi ya tumbaku yalisababisha hasara ya dola bilioni 200 kila mwaka duniani, na theluthi moja ya hasara hiyo ni ya nchi zinazoendelea, na hivyo kusababisha matatizo ya maendeleo. Mfumo wa elimu hutoa bila shaka ardhi yenye rutuba zaidi ambayo inaweza kuathiri maoni ya umma. Katika Marekani, makampuni yanafanya maendeleo makubwa kwa kudhamini vifaa vya kufundisha na kwa mashujaa masoko na usambazaji wa vyakula vya junk kupitia mashine za kuuza na programu za chakula cha mchana. "Kuna wasiwasi mkubwa juu ya moduli za mtaala zinazodhaminiwa na kampuni, video za propaganda za elimu ya umma, na ruzuku na programu za udhamini ambazo zinaelekeza elimu kwa masuala ya sheria na uchumi wa kampuni. """ Ushindani, ukuaji wa kiuchumi na faida zinasisitizwa - sifa ambazo huhifadhi fursa za baadaye za ushirika. Kuna mabadiliko ya wakati mmoja mbali na kujifunza faida za ushirikiano, juhudi za jamii na nia njema. Pamoja mbinu kama hizo kwa ufanisi kupotosha maoni ya umma kutoka umri mdogo na zaidi kuimarisha neoliberal, ajenda ya ushirika. "Hata hivyo, ""katika Marekani, EU na nchi zinazoendelea kuna mwelekeo wa mashirika kuendesha shule za umma kwa faida, na kuitumia fursa nyingine ya soko.""" "Jukumu la ushirika limekuwa neno la ""buzz"" katika duru za biashara, kwani wasiwasi wa mazingira na kijamii umekuwa haiwezekani kupuuza." Kampuni zimetumia zana kadhaa kuhakikisha kuwa zinaonekana kuwa na jukumu la kijamii, pamoja na vikundi vya shinikizo na kampeni za uuzaji na matangazo ya hali ya juu. Hata hivyo, kutokana na wajibu mkali wa kisheria wa kufuatilia faida, pamoja na shinikizo la soko linaloongezeka kila wakati kufanya kazi kifedha, wajibu wa ushirika lazima uonekane kama zoezi jingine la mahusiano ya umma. Kwa sasa, inaonekana inafanya kazi vizuri, ikiongeza faida kwa kufanya kampuni kuwa ya kuvutia zaidi kwa watumiaji ambao wanakua zaidi kijamii na mazingira. Hata wanauchumi wa neoliberal wanaoheshimiwa sana kama vile Milton Friedman wanakubali kwamba hatua hizi zingekataliwa na bodi na wanahisa wa kampuni ikiwa hazingekuwa na athari nzuri kwenye mstari wa chini. PR ya ushirika na ushiriki wa huru katika mipango ya kijamii na mazingira ya kirafiki kwa hivyo inahusisha uchambuzi rahisi wa gharama na faida. Mashirika yote makubwa, hasa yale ambayo yana athari kubwa zaidi hasi juu ya mazingira, yamejipaka upya hivi karibuni kama kuwa na sifa za 'kijani' kwa athari kubwa. Nembo mpya ya BP, ambayo ni rangi ya kijani na inaonekana kama maua, na kampeni yake ya hivi karibuni ya PR ni mfano mzuri. "Kama matokeo, BP imefanikiwa kugeuza umakini wa umma mbali na ukweli kwamba ni moja ya wachafuzi wakuu wa mazingira ulimwenguni na inachukuliwa na wengi kama moja ya ""wakosaji wa juu 10 wa ushirika.""" Kuna jambo jingine kuhusu suala la daraka la mashirika. Kampuni zote zinazouzwa hadharani zipo katika soko la kifedha lenye ushindani mkali ambalo mwishowe huamuru shughuli na mzunguko wa maisha ya kampuni nyingi. Katika hali ya kifedha ambapo upatikanaji wa mashambulizi sio tu ni kawaida, lakini ni aina halali na faida ya biashara, mashirika ya kweli ya kijamii ni katika hasara ya haraka. Kampuni hizo kwa kawaida hulipa mishahara na faida za wafanyakazi, huweka vifaa vyao katika maeneo ambayo zinaweza kuwa na athari nzuri kwa jamii na kusimamia rasilimali zao kwa njia endelevu. Wao huamini katika mambo zaidi ya faida tu. Kampuni kama hizo ni malengo kwa ajili ya corporate raiders ambao wanaweza kufanya aggressive kununua nje juu ya msingi wa malipo ya mshindi kwa wanahisa wa sasa. Mara tu zabuni ikikubaliwa, wamiliki wapya wataacha uwajibikaji wa kijamii na kuzingatia kuongeza faida za muda mfupi. Hii inaweza kuhusisha redundancies, kuhamishwa kwa nchi na kazi ya bei nafuu au tu kuvunja kampuni ya kuuza rasilimali sehemu. Mikopo inayotumiwa kununua bidhaa hiyo hulipwa haraka, mara nyingi kwa kutumia fedha za uzeeni za wafanyakazi, na baada ya miaka kadhaa kampuni hiyo inaweza kuuzwa tena kwa bei ya juu. Jambo ni kwamba soko lina maisha yake mwenyewe; linaishi kwa faida, kwa gharama yoyote. Inashiriki tu wasiwasi wa kibinadamu kwa masuala ya kijamii na mazingira kwa kadiri inavyofaa kufanya hivyo. Hatua zinazohesabiwa kuwa za ushirikiano na mazingira, afya, usalama au wasiwasi wa kijamii, zinachochewa hasa na maslahi ya kibinafsi, maslahi ya jumla ya jamii ni ya pili mbali. Kisheria hakuna kitu kibaya na hii; ni nini shirika ni iliyoundwa kufanya, na nini ni amefungwa na kupitia mkataba wake. Kwa hivyo, hatupaswi kutarajia chochote zaidi kutoka kwa mashirika haya ya kiuchumi yanayopata faida, na hakika hatupaswi kutarajia kuwa na wasiwasi wowote mkubwa wa mazingira au kijamii. Uchambuzi huu unaonyesha wazi kwamba kwa sasa, vita vya kudhibiti mchakato wa kidemokrasia vinashindwa na wasomi wa ushirika na kisiasa. "Mtazamo wa ""nguvu za soko"" unazidi kuenea katika kila sehemu ya maisha ya umma, hata kuathiri akili zetu za chini ya fahamu, mitazamo ya ufahamu na tabia." "Wakati mataifa mengi ya viwanda yanapoomba demokrasia ienezwe ulimwenguni, itikadi za kiuchumi ambazo wameweka wakati wetu ujao ni kansa kwa kanuni hizi za kidemokrasia.""" """Jukumu la serikali kama wawakilishi wa kidemokrasia wa watu lazima lianzishwa kwa usahihi - katika Marekani, EU na katika miundo ya utawala wa kimataifa." """Demokrasia ya kweli inaweza kuanzishwa tu ikiwa umma wa ulimwengu una nguvu ya kufanya maamuzi ambayo yanaunga mkono ushirikiano na ufanisi wa kiuchumi juu ya ushindani." Hii inaweza kutokea tu wakati haki za ushirika zinapopunguzwa hadi kiwango ambapo, tena, mashirika hufanya kazi kwa uwezo mdogo wa kuhudumia mahitaji ya kiuchumi ya umma, na kuwepo bila uwezo wa kuathiri siasa au maisha ya umma. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika uchambuzi wa juu, ""Makampuni ya kimataifa ni kwa kiasi kikubwa madhara kwa maisha ya kijamii na kiuchumi.""" Kusudi la kupata faida kwa gharama yoyote ile linaendeleza mfumo wa kiuchumi ambao hauwezi kudumu. Makampuni hayazoezi ufugaji mzuri wa mazingira - badala yake matumizi ya kupita kiasi ambayo hutia moyo huharibu mazingira. Kwa kuongezea, mashirika ya kimataifa kama vile WTO yanaimarisha mchakato wa kibiashara ambao unabadilisha hatua kwa hatua jamii na utamaduni wa ulimwengu. Kadiri mashirika yanavyofanya kazi kwa nguvu zao za kiuchumi na kisiasa, kanuni za demokrasia na enzi kuu zinaharibiwa. Sheria nyingi sasa zipo kimataifa na ndani ya nchi kulinda haki za kampuni. Kwa hivyo, mabadiliko makubwa ya muundo na udhibiti ni muhimu ikiwa tunataka kubadilisha uchumi unaoongozwa na kampuni kuwa moja inayozingatia jamii ambazo zinashiriki kikamilifu katika maisha ya kisiasa na kiuchumi. "Kutoa kipaumbele kwa biashara ya jamii na kupunguza mashirika makubwa ya ushirika bila shaka kutaunda usawa mkubwa wa kijamii kaskazini na kusini. """ Hata hivyo, hatua za udhibiti peke yake hazitoshi ikiwa jamii ya kimataifa inataka kushughulikia ukosefu wa usawa wa kimataifa na umaskini mkubwa ambao upo leo. """Wazungu wengi wa Afrika, Asia na Amerika Kusini hawana rasilimali za kushindana kimataifa hata kama masharti ya biashara yangekuwa ya haki na madeni yao yangesamehewa." Pia, kanuni haziwezi kushughulikia masuala muhimu ya nani anadhibiti mali ya kawaida ya dunia, ni kwa msingi gani rasilimali za kawaida hutumiwa, jinsi zinagawanywa ulimwenguni, au jinsi ya kuhakikisha matumizi yao ya haki na endelevu. Na kuhamisha shughuli za kiuchumi hakungekomesha maslahi ya kibiashara kudhibiti mgawo wa rasilimali muhimu. Katika mazingira ya kiuchumi yaliyowekwa mahali na yaliyodhibitiwa, rasilimali za kawaida bado zingechukuliwa kuwa bidhaa ambazo wamiliki wangeweza kudhibiti kwa faida ya kiuchumi juu ya jamii au mataifa mengine. Ni wazi kwamba kile kinachohitajika pamoja na kudhibiti shughuli za ushirika ni uhamisho mkubwa wa rasilimali kwa ulimwengu wa wengi ili kuhakikisha kupunguzwa kwa umaskini. Hata hivyo, hilo haliwezi kutimizwa kupitia programu za misaada au za maendeleo zilizopo. """Ni lazima uanzishe marekebisho ya msingi ya uchumi wa dunia ambayo inabadilisha maslahi ya kibinafsi ya ushindani na ushirikiano na usawa wa kimataifa." Uchumi huu mpya utaweka kipaumbele katika kuhakikisha mahitaji ya msingi ya kibinadamu kwa wote kwa kushiriki rasilimali muhimu, na utachukua nafasi ya misaada ya sasa na juhudi za maendeleo. Ndani ya mfumo wa kushiriki, rasilimali ambazo zinachukuliwa kuwa muhimu kwa maisha hazitakuwa bidhaa au kudhibitiwa na maslahi ya biashara. Badala yake, inaweza kuwa mali ya umma wa kimataifa kwa msingi wa umiliki wa pamoja, chini ya uongozi wa shirika la kimataifa na la kidemokrasia. Jamii za mitaa zitashirikiana katika ngazi ya kitaifa, na mataifa yatashirikiana katika ngazi ya kimataifa, kuhakikisha kwamba mahitaji yote ya msingi yanatimizwa. Rasilimali zitazalishwa na kutumiwa ndani ya nchi ikiwezekana, kisha zigawanywe na jamii ya kimataifa. Hii itawezesha jamii za mitaa katika nchi maskini zaidi kuweka kipaumbele kujitegemea kwao na kuondoa umaskini. Kwa kuwa uzalishaji wa ziada tu ndio ungegawanywa, mfumo huo ungepunguza taka na kuruhusu uchumi wenye ufanisi zaidi ukue. Mazingira yangekuwa mfadhili mkuu wa mfumo kama huo kwani uchafuzi ungepunguzwa kwa kiasi kikubwa. Kushiriki kwa njia hii kutawaruhusu nchi kudumisha uhuru na utambulisho wao, ambayo inaweza kuwezesha ukuaji wa kitamaduni wa ubinadamu. Zaidi ya yote, ushirikiano wa kimataifa unaweza kukuza mapenzi mema kati ya mataifa na kupanda mbegu za amani ya kudumu. Mahitaji ya jamii inayotegemea kanuni za usawa yanaendelea kuongezeka ulimwenguni kote, kwani idadi inayoongezeka ya mataifa na wanachama wa jamii ya kiraia wanakataa mtindo wa uchumi wa neoliberal. Ni wazi kwamba makubaliano ya kimataifa kwa ajili ya mabadiliko ni uwezekano mdogo kutokea bila shinikizo kubwa la umma. Kwa kuongezea, uchumi wa ulimwengu uko katika hali ya kutokuwa na uhakika sana, ukitegemea masoko ya kifedha yasiyo na utulivu na kuendeshwa zaidi na shinikizo la kibiashara. Wataalamu wengi wa uchumi na wachambuzi wanatabiri kushindwa kwa uchumi wa ulimwengu kunasababishwa na soko la hisa au kuanguka kwa fedha. Hii inawezekana kwa sababu ya migogoro ya sasa juu ya rasilimali, ukosefu wa utulivu wa kisiasa katika sehemu nyingi za dunia na kupungua kwa nguvu na ushawishi wa dola ya Marekani. Mgogoro kama huo waweza kuwa kichocheo cha badiliko linalohitajiwa sana. "Uchumi Mpya: Kushiriki katika Mazoezi: ""Kama mfumo wa kushiriki unatekelezwa, uzalishaji na usambazaji wa rasilimali muhimu utaachiliwa kutoka kwa udhibiti wa ushirika wa kimataifa." Rasilimali muhimu hazingehalalishiwa tena ndani ya mfumo wa kibiashara wenye upendeleo au kujadiliwa katika masoko ya kifedha. Hii itapunguza sana shughuli za ushirika na ushiriki katika uchumi wa kimataifa, na moja kwa moja kufaidi tabaka maskini zaidi za jamii ambao watapokea rasilimali muhimu moja kwa moja kupitia mpango wa kushiriki. Baada ya mahitaji ya kitaifa kutoshelezwa, uzalishaji wa ziada utaandikishwa kwenye Mtandao wa Kushiriki Ulimwenguni (GSN) na kuhifadhiwa kwa uaminifu na UNSR kwa niaba ya nchi ya "mtoaji" ili kukidhi mahitaji katika nchi zingine. Kumbuka kwamba ziada hizi hazingekuwa lazima "kubadilishana" na nchi, isipokuwa wafadhili walikuwa pia haja ya rasilimali nyingine kwamba UNCRS uliofanyika katika amana. Uzalishaji unaozidi mahitaji ya kimataifa pia utaandikishwa kwenye GSN, na kuruhusu nchi kuhifadhi kwa viwango vilivyokubaliwa mapema tu wakati wa busara - kwa mfano katika mikoa yenye hatari kubwa ya kushindwa kwa mazao. Kwa mujibu wa taarifa za GSN, mradi huo una lengo la kuondoa uzalishaji usio wa lazima na kuzuia taka. Mfumo wa UNSCR utahakikisha kuwa nchi zote zina haki sawa ya kupata rasilimali muhimu na kuhakikisha utoaji wao hata ambapo jamii haziwezi kuchangia katika hifadhi ya rasilimali ya ulimwengu. """Umaskini uliokithiri ukifutwa, jamii zitapata maisha yenye afya na elimu, kwa kuwa mahitaji yao yote ya msingi yatatimizwa." UNFPA, pamoja na mashirika mengine ya Umoja wa Mataifa, inaweza kusaidia katika ushiriki katika maendeleo yao ya kiuchumi ya baadaye. Hatimaye tofauti katika viwango vya maendeleo itakuwa chini ya kuonekana, kama umaskini ni kupunguzwa na uwezo wa uzalishaji ni kuongezeka katika nchi zinazoendelea. Mara baada ya hali ya usawa wa kiasi kuwepo, GSN inapaswa kufanya kazi kwa uthabiti zaidi na kwa kutabiri. Vikwazo vikubwa kwa mfumo huo wakati huo vingetia ndani misiba ya asili au ukame usiotazamiwa. Katika hali kama hizo, mfumo wa GSN uliosimamishwa vizuri utaonekana kuwa na ufanisi mkubwa katika kutoa misaada ya dharura kama vile chakula na dawa, kwani hifadhidata na njia za usambazaji tayari zitakuwa ziko. Mpango wa Umoja wa Mataifa wa kugawa rasilimali kwa dharura na kugawana rasilimali kwa njia hiyo, unatarajiwa kuchukua nafasi ya mifumo yote ya misaada ya kimataifa na maendeleo. Ni lazima kutofautisha kati ya "mtoaji wa wavu" na "mpokeaji wa wavu" wa rasilimali muhimu. Nchi zinazositawi bila shaka zitakuwa wamiliki wakuu wa rasilimali. Nchi zilizoendelea sana kiwandani, zikiwa wafadhili wakuu, zingelazimika kutoa dhabihu kwa kupunguza viwango vyao vya matumizi. Mtindo wa maisha rahisi, usiotegemea utumiaji ni muhimu kwa nchi tajiri kupitisha. Viwango vya sasa vya matumizi ni vya kutoweza kudumu; ulimwengu hauna rasilimali za kutosha kwa nchi zote kuendeleza kwa kiwango cha magharibi kilichopo. Kiwango lazima kiwe cha chini kwa suala la wingi wa rasilimali tunazotumia, lakini cha juu kwa suala la ubora wa maisha tunayofuatilia. Utaratibu huu wa upya wa maadili lazima uanzishe njia ya maisha ambayo nchi zote zinaweza kutamani kwa uhalisi. "Mfumo mpya wa biashara: Kuimarisha jamii za mitaa ""Kushiriki rasilimali za ulimwengu ili kukidhi mahitaji ya msingi ya binadamu kimsingi ni mtandao wa usalama wa kimataifa na mfumo wa ustawi." Hata hivyo, kuondolewa kwa bidhaa muhimu na huduma kutoka muundo wa biashara ya kibiashara ya sasa haihitaji kuondoa mbinu ya soko kwa ajili ya biashara. Kinyume chake - mifano miwili ya uchumi inaweza, na lazima, kuishi pamoja kuunda uchumi wa kisasa wa kimataifa. Kwa kawaida, uchumi wa soko umekubaliwa kuwa moja ambayo inahimiza biashara, ubunifu na ushindani ambao, kwa kiwango cha kimataifa, unaweza kusababisha maendeleo ya haraka ya kiteknolojia kwa wanadamu. Katika ngazi ya ndani, ni mpango huu wa biashara ambao unaruhusu jamii kuingiliana kiuchumi na kutajirisha maisha ya kila mmoja kijamii. Biashara za mitaa, iwe ni mashamba madogo, maduka, vibanda vya soko au huduma za mitaa ni jiwe la msingi la jamii ulimwenguni kote na shughuli zao lazima ziimarishwe. Mtandao wa biashara ndogo na za kati za kibinafsi, zenye msingi wa ndani, ni mambo muhimu katika kuunda jamii za kidemokrasia na utofauti wa kitamaduni ulimwenguni kote. Kwa bahati mbaya, kuenea kwa miaka ya hivi karibuni, ya mashirika makubwa imekuwa na athari kubwa kwa biashara ndogo na jamii, na ni kuunda homogenization ya utamaduni duniani kote. Kampuni hizi zimeunda uchumi mkubwa wa kiwango ambacho kinasababisha kupungua kwa idadi ya kazi, mishahara na viwango vya ajira. Washtakiwa wanaoonekana zaidi ni biashara ya kilimo, minyororo mikubwa ya vyakula vya haraka na maduka ya rejareja kama vile maduka makubwa. Bidhaa zinazotolewa na makampuni haya zimebadilisha biashara za ndani ambazo mara nyingi hutoa bidhaa sawa na viwango vya lishe na matokeo ya kijamii na mazingira. Athari zake zinaonekana na kupimwa katika jamii. Wal-Mart ilihamia Iowa, Marekani, na kuanzisha biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara ya biashara. Katika Uingereza, supermarket kubwa, Tesco, kwa sasa inafungua moja mpya 'Tesco Express' (ndogo, toleo la ndani ya maduka yao makubwa) kila siku. Hii inamaanisha kuwa duka moja la vyakula linashindwa kila siku na maduka 50 ya bidhaa za kipekee hufungwa kila wiki. Athari kwa ulimwengu unaositawi pia ni kali wakati mashirika yanapotembea kwa kasi katika masoko yanayoibuka. India imepata ongezeko la mikataba ya biashara kubwa ya kilimo, wakati serikali inaendelea na sera za kilimo za uzalishaji wa juu za Marekani na EU. Hii imesababisha vijiji vyote kuuzwa katika baadhi ya majimbo na, kulingana na Shirika la Taifa la Uchunguzi wa Sampuli (NSSO), zaidi ya asilimia 40 ya wakulima wa India wanataka kuacha kilimo kabisa kama matokeo ya shinikizo hili la soko. Kwa kuongezea, shughuli za ushindani za makampuni ya kimataifa zimesaidia kudumisha mfumo wa biashara ya kimataifa usio wa haki ambao huongeza usawa wa kimataifa kupitia sheria za biashara zenye upendeleo na huongeza joto la dunia kupitia mitandao isiyo na ufanisi ya uagizaji na usafirishaji. Ni muhimu kwamba mwenendo huu umebadilishwa, na kwamba ushiriki wa jamii katika maisha ya kiuchumi umeimarishwa na kulindwa. Ikiwa makampuni na soko huru zinapaswa kuishi na kufanya kazi kwa upatano na mfumo wa kushiriki, mabadiliko ya mbali yanahitaji kutekelezwa ambayo yanaweza kuhakikisha shughuli za biashara zinafanya kazi kwa manufaa ya jamii. Lengo ni kuhakikisha kwamba biashara za faida hazivunji haki na maslahi ya jamii ya ndani, ya kitaifa au ya kimataifa. Ukubwa wa makampuni ya ushirika unapaswa kuwa na kikomo na shughuli zao zinasimamiwa kwa ukali zaidi. Shughuli za kiuchumi za mashirika makubwa ya kimataifa lazima ziondolewe katika jamii ya ndani na biashara ndogo ndogo, za ndani zinapaswa kuhamasishwa. Uingiliaji wa moja kwa moja wa serikali ungekuwa muhimu kuvunja monopolies na makampuni makubwa katika sehemu za sehemu. Biashara hizi ndogo zinaweza kusimamiwa katika ngazi ya mitaa au mkoa na umma kupitia vyama vya ushirika wa mitaa au mipango inayosimamiwa na serikali. Utoaji wa nguvu za kiuchumi kwa njia hii ungepunguza mwelekeo wa "ugawanyiko wa kazi" kwa kuongeza idadi ya kazi zinazopatikana. Mishahara ya juu na hali bora zingefuata kwani biashara mpya hazingekuja kuendeshwa tu na kichocheo cha faida. Mahali ambapo uchumi wa kiwango ni muhimu, makampuni ya biashara yanaweza kufanya kazi katika ushirika au kama vyama vya ushirika. Kwa upande mwingine, chini ya leseni maalum, inaweza kukubaliwa kwamba mashirika fulani ya kimataifa hubaki katika udhibiti wa uzalishaji au usambazaji wa rasilimali fulani. Katika hali kama hizo, shirika linaweza kuhitajika kutoa rasilimali kwa bei ya gharama kwa serikali, na itafanya kazi chini ya amri kali ya kutumikia maslahi maalum ya umma. "Hata hivyo, shughuli na muundo wa mashirika yote, makubwa au madogo, utaathiriwa na mabadiliko ya msingi ambayo yanahakikisha kwamba yanatumikia ""mafao ya umma.""" Mapendekezo ya udhibiti unaohitajika wa mashirika ni mengi. Zimependekezwa na vikundi vya jamii ya kiraia na watu binafsi ulimwenguni kote. Mifano kamili inaweza kupatikana katika kazi ya David Korten, pamoja na Mkutano wa Kimataifa juu ya Utajiri. Hapa chini tunaelezea baadhi ya mabadiliko muhimu ambayo mashirika mengi, ikiwa ni pamoja na STWR, yanataka haraka. Kwa sababu ya ushawishi wake wote na nguvu, shirika ni kidogo zaidi ya kiungo cha kiuchumi, ambaye haki ya'maisha' ni kupewa na umma, kupitia serikali zao. Haki za kibinafsi za mashirika ambayo serikali zinalinda na kuimarisha zipo tu kwa sababu zimetolewa na serikali. Haki hizi lazima zibadilishwe na serikali hizo zile, kwani sasa ni wazi kwamba katika hali yao ya sasa, mashirika hayajawahi tena kuhudumia maslahi ya umma. Chini sisi kuonyesha mabadiliko ya kiufundi na kisheria ambayo lazima kutekelezwa. """Makampuni ya uchumi wa kimataifa yanapaswa kuwepo kama sehemu muhimu ya uchumi wa kimataifa ambao unatoa kipaumbele kwa utoaji wa mahitaji ya msingi kwa umma wa kimataifa - kiuchumi, kijamii, kisiasa na kiroho." Lengo kuu la uchumi wa dunia haipaswi kuwa biashara, uhuru wa biashara au ukuaji wa kiuchumi, lakini uzalishaji na usambazaji wa rasilimali zote ambazo ni muhimu kwa maisha. Mapatano ya kimataifa lazima hatimaye yalisababisha mipaka ya wazi kuhusu kile kinachoweza kuwa bidhaa na kile kisichoweza kuwa. Kwa kuwa rasilimali zote muhimu zitashirikiwa, maslahi ya kibiashara hayapaswi kuwa na ushawishi wa moja kwa moja kwenye kipengele hiki cha uchumi wa ulimwengu. Kampuni zinapaswa kufanya kazi ndani ya mfumo huu mpya wa kimataifa, ili kuhudumia mahitaji ya kiuchumi, viwanda na kiteknolojia ya jamii. Kwa sababu ya kupunguzwa kwa shughuli za ushirika, itawezekana kuondoa hatua kwa hatua IMF, Benki ya Dunia na WTO. Kazi yoyote iliyobaki ya mashirika haya inapaswa kuunganishwa na mashirika ya sasa ya Umoja wa Mataifa kama vile UNCTAD na ECOSOC. Habari zaidi juu ya mada hii inaweza kupatikana hapa. Vizuizi vilivyowekwa kwa serikali kudhibiti uwekezaji wa ushirika na fedha kama sehemu ya makubaliano ya biashara huru vinapaswa pia kuondolewa. Nchi zinazoendelea lazima pia kuruhusiwa kulinda viwanda vyao vya mwanzo na hatua za ulinzi zinapaswa kupunguzwa hatua kwa hatua kama nchi inaendelea kiuchumi. Sekta za fedha na benki ni muhimu kwa utendaji wa uchumi wa kimataifa na zinapaswa kudhibitiwa kwa ukali. Kodi ya Tobin juu ya shughuli za kifedha ni muhimu, na inapaswa kuwa na kodi ya juu ya faida ya muda mfupi ya mtaji ili kupunguza uvumi na kudumisha soko. Mfumo wa Umoja wa Mataifa unapaswa kufadhiliwa na hizi, na nyingine, kodi za kimataifa. Haki za kisheria na uhuru wa watu: Haki za mashirika ya dhima ndogo na haki za mtu wa kampuni lazima ziondolewe - haipaswi tena kuwa na haki sawa na wanadamu, na badala yake inapaswa kutumikia umma. Kuweka wanahisa kuwajibika kwa madhara yoyote yanayosababishwa na jamii, wafanyikazi au mazingira kutaunda mifano ya biashara yenye uwajibikaji wa kijamii. Mashirika yanapaswa kufanya kazi kwa manufaa ya jamii kwa njia fulani. "Kwa hivyo, jamii lazima ihifadhi haki ya kisheria ya kukataa mkataba wa ushirika na kumaliza shughuli za ushirika ikiwa vitendo vyake vinathibitishwa kuwa vya madhara kwa jamii. """ Kuondoa ulinzi wao kwa Marekebisho ya Tano kutairuhusu hii. Haki ya kidemokrasia ya umma wa kimataifa kuamua maisha yao ya kijamii, kiuchumi, kisiasa na mazingira bila kuingiliwa inapaswa kuimarishwa. Mabadiliko katika mistari hii pia yangeunda ushiriki mkubwa katika mchakato wa kidemokrasia, ndani na kitaifa. "Kwa mujibu wa sheria ya Marekani, sheria ya 14th Amendment inapaswa kuondolewa, na haki ya uhuru wa kujieleza ya kampuni chini ya Marekebisho ya Kwanza ya Sheria ya Marekani inapaswa kuondolewa.""" Shughuli za ushirika zinapaswa kuwa wazi; hawapaswi kuruhusiwa ulinzi wa Haki za Katiba za Marekebisho ya Nne. Sheria za haki za mali ya akili zinapaswa kurekebishwa ili kuhakikisha kwamba habari na maarifa yanapatikana kwa bure inapohitajika. Haipaswi kuwa inawezekana patent "maisha" katika fomu yoyote. Haki za kipekee za hati miliki zinapaswa kushikiliwa kwa muda mfupi sana, muda wa kutosha tu kuhamasisha uvumbuzi, kuokoa gharama na thawabu ya kifedha ya wastani. Siasa na Demokrasia Ili kuunda demokrasia inayofanya kazi, mashirika hayapaswi kuruhusiwa kuchangia fedha kwa "malengo ya kisiasa". Hii ni pamoja na michango kwa vyama vya kisiasa kama vile michango ya kampuni kwa mashirika ya "nonprofit" ambayo hujifanya kama vikundi vya "maslahi ya umma" wakati wa kudumisha malengo maalum ya kisiasa au kibiashara. Pamoja na kukomesha michango ya ushirika, ushawishi wa kisiasa wa washawishi wa ushirika unapaswa kupunguzwa kwa kiasi kikubwa kwa kiwango sawa na mashirika na vikundi vingine. Serikali pia lazima ziache mazoezi yao ya kuajiri watu kutoka sekta binafsi kwa nafasi muhimu ya udhibiti au mkakati ndani ya serikali. Ili kuhakikisha kwamba uchaguzi hauamuliwi na ukubwa wa bajeti ya chama, unapaswa kufadhiliwa na umma na kiwango cha kifedha kilichopunguzwa, kilichokubaliwa. Vyombo vya habari pia vinapaswa kuwepo bila upendeleo wa kisiasa. Njia bora ya kufikia hili ni kwa kuzuia kampuni za vyombo vya habari kudhibiti. Ushirikiano wa kidemokrasia wa kisiasa unaweza kuundwa kama matokeo ya kupunguzwa kwa idadi ya mashirika makubwa ya kimataifa, na kuvunjika kwa ushawishi wao wa kiuchumi na kisiasa. """Watu wote duniani wanapaswa kuchukua nafasi ya wasomi wa ushirika ambao wana ushawishi mkubwa juu ya mchakato wa kisiasa." Hii inaweza kufanywa tu kwa kuimarisha jamii za mitaa na uwezo wao wa kuamua wenyewe ustawi wao wa kiuchumi na kijamii. Uchumi na Udhibiti Ustawi wa Kampuni lazima ukomeshwe. Hii hutimizwa vizuri zaidi kwa kukomesha ruzuku ya serikali na msamaha wa kodi kwa mashirika. Kwa kuongezea, mali za umma kama vile ardhi na haki za madini hazipaswi tena kutolewa kwa mashirika. Sheria ya ushindani lazima itekelezwe ili kuhakikisha kwamba ubaguzi, muungano na ununuzi umepangwa. Vikwazo pia zinahitaji kuwekwa juu ya ukubwa wa juu ambao shirika linaweza kufikia. Katika hali zisizo za kawaida, mikataba maalum kwa ajili ya kuzidi mipaka hii inaweza kutolewa. Vizuizi hivyo vitahakikisha kwamba mashirika hayavunji kanuni za soko kwa kufanya iwe vigumu zaidi kwa makampuni madogo kuibuka katika nchi zinazoendelea. "Hii pia itazuia mbio ya chini ambayo imetokea katika miaka ya hivi karibuni, wakati idadi ya kazi na viwango vya ajira vimepunguzwa kwa ""mwisho wa kawaida wa chini"" ili kuongeza faida." Uhasibu kamili wa gharama inapaswa kuwa mazoezi ya kawaida kwa makampuni yote. Hii itapunguza zaidi mbinu ya busara ya faida kwa kuhakikisha mashirika kubeba kikamilifu gharama zote ambazo kwa sasa externalize. Hizi ni pamoja na mazingira, afya, usalama na gharama za kijamii. Uwezekano mwingine ni ushuru wa hatua kwa hatua kwa biashara kulingana na kiwango ambacho wananufaisha jamii na mazingira. Mfumo wa udhibiti lazima uimarishwe sana ili kuhakikisha kwamba sheria zinatekelezwa kwa ufanisi. Mashirika ya udhibiti yanapaswa kuwa na uwezo wa kusimamia faini ambazo zinafaa kwa aina na faida ya biashara. Mahali ambapo ni lazima waweze kuwajibisha wakurugenzi na wasimamizi moja kwa moja na hata kusimamisha mikataba au shughuli za kampuni. "Kanuni ya tahadhari" inapaswa kuwa msingi wa afya ya umma, usalama na kanuni za mazingira. Jumuiya, Jamii na Utamaduni Usawa katika jamii unaweza kuhamasishwa kupitia usawa mkubwa wa mshahara. Mshahara wa watendaji wakuu na wakurugenzi wa kampuni haupaswi kuzidi uwiano ulioamuliwa - kwa mfano, 15: 1. Pia ni muhimu kwamba idadi ya saa za kazi kila wiki hupunguzwa kwa kiasi kikubwa. Hii ingeunda kazi zaidi, kupunguza viwango vya ukosefu wa kazi na kukuza ukuaji wa kijamii, kitamaduni na kiroho. Hii itakuwa inawezekana wakati rasilimali ni pamoja kimataifa kama zisizohitajika na uzalishaji wasteful itakuwa kwa kiasi kikubwa kupunguzwa. Uundaji wa vyama vya wafanyakazi unapaswa kuhamasishwa katika viwanda na haki zao zinalindwa. "Mashirika ya serikali za mitaa, halmashauri, shule na vikundi vya jamii lazima viweze kuwa na sauti kubwa katika jinsi jamii zao zinavyofanya kazi kijamii na kiuchumi. """ Wanapaswa kuwa na nguvu ya kuwajibisha makampuni. Uanzishwaji wa benki za mitaa na maduka ya rejareja ambayo hufanya kazi kwa maslahi ya jamii za mitaa inapaswa kuhamasishwa. Mifumo mikubwa ya benki na ya rejareja lazima itolewe mikononi mwa jamii za mitaa ambapo ziko. Vivyo hivyo, wafanyakazi walioathiriwa na jamii zinapaswa kupewa chaguo la kwanza, kwa viwango vya upendeleo, kununua kiwanda au biashara kabla ya kufungwa au kuuzwa au kuunganishwa. Kwa njia hii, jamii zinaweza kubadilika kiuchumi, kijamii na kitamaduni, na ushiriki katika mchakato wa kidemokrasia unaweza kuimarishwa. "Kurejesha madai ya ushirika kwa haki ya kikatiba ya Marekebisho ya Kwanza ya uhuru wa kujieleza kutamaliza utawala wa ushirika wa mawazo ya umma. """ "Hasa, ushawishi wa ushirika wa akili ya umma kupitia matangazo lazima upunguzwe kwa ujumla, na kuondolewa kabisa kutoka shule na maeneo mengine ambapo inaweza kuathiri vijana. """ "Mashirika yasiyo ya faida yanapaswa kuhitajika kuwa wazi, kwa kuwa mara nyingi wanajifanya kama ""vikundi vya maslahi ya umma"" wakati kwa kweli ni mbele kwa mashirika yaliyoundwa ili kuendeleza malengo yao ya kisiasa kwa kuathiri akili ya umma." Kushindwa kwa uchumi wa kimataifa na mipango ya misaada na maendeleo ya sasa kushughulikia umaskini na ukosefu wa usawa ni dhahiri. Katika moyo wa kushindwa hii ni ushindani, faida inaendeshwa, maslahi ya kibinafsi ya mataifa ya kiuchumi kutawala. Makampuni ya kisasa ya kimataifa ni mfano wa sifa hizi, na wao kucheza jukumu muhimu katika kudumisha hali ya sasa kupitia ushawishi wao wa kiuchumi na kisiasa. Mfumo mbadala unaotegemea kugawana rasilimali za dunia ili kukidhi mahitaji ya msingi ya binadamu unaweza kutenda kama mtandao wa usalama wa kimataifa kwa njia ambayo uchumi wa sasa hauwezi. Mfumo huo unategemea ushirikiano na unaweza kuendeleza mapenzi mema kati ya mataifa. Ni muhimu kwamba mfumo unaotegemea kushiriki kazi pamoja na sekta ya kibiashara iliyobadilishwa na biashara za mitaa. Pamoja, mifumo hii miwili inaweza kutoa uchumi wa kimataifa ambao hukidhi mahitaji muhimu ya ustawi, lakini pia mahitaji yetu ya uvumbuzi, ubinafsi na utambuzi. """Mazungumzo kuhusu mifumo ya kiuchumi hayapaswi kutegemea itikadi za ujamaa au ubepari, bali juu ya mambo ya vitendo na hali halisi ya ulimwengu wetu wa kisasa." """Ukweli ni kwamba maelfu ya watu watakufa kutokana na ukosefu wa chakula, maji na dawa kwa sababu ya kushindwa kwa uchumi wa dunia kuwawezesha kupata vitu vya msingi." Wakati huohuo, wafanyabiashara wachache watakuwa wamepata mamilioni ya dola katika mishahara, shukrani kwa mfumo huo huo wa kiuchumi. Mambo hayo ya kupita kiasi yanapaswa kupatanishwa haraka. "Wanadharia wengi wa uchumi wa kawaida na wanasiasa wa ulimwengu wa kwanza wanasema kwamba pendekezo lolote mbadala wa utandawazi wa kiuchumi ni la kurudi nyuma na la kihafidhina; kwamba kwa ufanisi linafunga mlango kwa hali halisi mpya ya ulimwengu kulingana na utegemezi wa pamoja. """ Maoni kama hayo ni sahili sana. Kuunda jamii ya kimataifa inayoshirikiana kuhakikisha ustawi wa kila taifa ni lengo la uchumi unaotegemea kushiriki, na inawakilisha mfano wa haki zaidi wa utandawazi, unaotegemea kutegemeana, ushirikiano na usawa. Je, si tamaa ya kuendeleza mifumo ya zamani ya biashara na uchumi, kulingana na ushindani na ubinafsi, malengo ya sera za kigeni za kitaifa, ambayo ni kweli reactionary na kihafidhina? """Hitaji la marekebisho makubwa ya muundo na shughuli za biashara ni dhahiri, kama vile haja ya ushiriki wa kidemokrasia kuanzishwa tena katika ngazi ya jamii." Maendeleo ya kiuchumi lazima yawe mchakato ambao hauwezi kulazimishwa kutoka juu, lakini kuhifadhiwa mahali, na kisha kikanda. Ili hili litokee, rasilimali zote muhimu zinapaswa kutolewa kwa wale katika ulimwengu wa wengi ambao wanaishi katika jamii za vijijini zilizojitenga na vitongoji vya mijini. """Tuna Mkutano Mkuu wa Umoja wa Mataifa, shirika pekee la ulimwengu lenye uwezo wa kuleta mageuzi haya." """Tuna teknolojia ya kutekeleza mifumo tata ambayo inaweza kupanua dunia, na tuna miundombinu na uwezo wa kusambaza rasilimali mahali popote." """Kile kinachohitajika ni mabadiliko katika vipaumbele, nia ya kisiasa ya kushiriki kile tunacho."