pályakép » szakmai életrajz » publikációk a szerzőtől »

In regard to the idea of a "knowledge-based society" a number of questions can be raised. Such as about the way of making use of the research results, the relationship between knowledge and moral, and the relationship between researchers and the decision-makers in the economy and politics, etc. But in view of the still growing inequalities within the world society not only in terms of income level and rate of economic growth, but also of education, dissemination of knowledge and particularly research capacities, the most crucial question is whether the so-called "knowledge-based society" will develop on a global level, or, instead, within a few countries only, serving the welfare and dominance of the latter. The deepening international development gap provides the real background for the globalisation of terrorism as well as for the rise of militarised dictatorial systems. The world society urgently needs a new, truly democratic, substantially reformed institutional system, which is based on the principle of proportionate representation, ensures equal voting power for equal number of people, and protects the human rights of all the members of human society, including the right to education, knowledge, culture and information. Such a truly democratic world order may ensure peaceful co-operation among all peoples on the basis of mutual understanding and benefits, particularly if it brings about also a "New Enlightenment", stemming from knowledge, which would free all social science theories from ideological misuse and would also detach religions from politics, thus making impossible to use theories or religions for generating hostile feelings against others, for justifying discrimination and for declaring "sacred wars".

There can be no doubt about the recognition of the fact that it is human knowledge, skill, science, in other words the development of "human capital", more concretely "intellectual capital", which primarily determines now and in the future, more than ever, the development of society. Science, which long time ago had become and for long had remained separated from the production of goods and services, from economic activities of society, as well as from the political decision-making process, has been increasingly embodied in the former and taken into account in the latter. One may conclude, indeed, that our future society, its operation and development will be primarily "based" on the accumulated and disseminated knowledge resulting from science.

However much and whole-heartedly we, representatives of science, may welcome such a tendency, and however optimists we may be about the future of a human society that is "based" on knowledge, we have to be realistic enough to raise some questions and dispel illusions.

In regard to the idea of a "knowledge-based society", a number of questions can be raised. Such as about

• the use of knowledge, the application of the research results (by whom and for what purposes, for constructive or destructive aims),
• the relationship between knowledge and moral, between science and ethical values,
• the relationship between, on the one hand, those producing research results, cultivating science, and disseminating knowledge, i.e. researchers, scholars and educationists, and, on the other, those making decisions on financing the activities of the former, on the use of research results and controlling this use, i.e. the decision-makers in the economy and politics, and so on…

Needless to point to the fact that even the greatest achievements of science (such as the discovery of nuclear energy, or of the racket technique, of laser, of robots, of electronic means of communication, or the methods of biotechnology, gene surgery, etc.) may equally be used for noble and evil purposes, for the benefits of human beings and for mass destruction, subordination or manipulation. It is also needless to note that societies, even if based indeed on knowledge, may be quite different, ranging from truly democratic to dictatorial, oppressive socio-political systems.

(1) First of all, let us be more modest and self-critical in regard to the knowledge that human society and its science can ever reach.

Although no one should underestimate the enormous progress in science, both in natural and human, social science, which we have been witnessing in the last few decades, and the speed of revealing new and new phenomena, processes, tendencies and their causes in the world universe, in Nature as well as in human bodies and societies, we must be aware of and also frank about the fact that our knowledge can never become complete and perfect.

This is - which may be called a "tragedy of Man" - not only because (as according to the Bible) the first man, Adam was not able to eat also from the "tree of eternal life", but also and mainly because of the infinite, endless and ever-changing reality that science cannot fully and perfectly cope with. Moreover, as a real tragedy or, at least, specificity of humankind, the very solution of a problem related to Nature or the human or social life, which is reached (thanks to our knowledge and science) by it, often tends to create a new problem or even a number of new problems.

Recalling the history of science, we may see not only a permanent enrichment, indeed, of our knowledge about Nature, human body and society, but also the regular revisions of earlier conceptions, replacement of former theories by new ones, and the rise of new and new paradigms, new and new recipes, not only complementing but also substituting for the previous ones. There is no unquestionable final knowledge in social science, nor such exists even in natural science.

If anybody believes in the opposite, I may recommend reconsidering how great many results of natural sciences as well as medical science, which had been taken as unquestionable in the time of their discovery, have been revised later on. I may also recommend consulting the famous book of Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers (1986), in which the authors refer to the great number of newly arising questions manifesting our ignorance about the real qualities of matter. They also note that today natural sciences, instead of focussing on phenomena supposed to be constant, realise the evolutive nature of their subject matter, and getting rid of the former hope to reduce the sum total of natural processes to limited number of laws, describe the Universe as being rich in qualitative divergences and potential astonishments. (pp. ix. and 6-7.)

Any way, reality is much more complex, and changing much more rapidly, than any theory would be able to fully catch and properly reflect it.

Thus, research implies indeed a repeated search for truth, for solution, for better understanding. We can never be fully satisfied with the result of our research. In a world, which is not only infinite, but also changing (partly because of human activities), a research result can be, at best, a partial or temporary result only, and the very process of human research must also be infinite. It is hardly surprising then that those outstanding scholars recognising the limits of our knowledge and science, who could not find the "final answer" to the existence and birth of our world, turned to belief, and resorted to one or another religion outside the world of science, i.e. to the belief in the existence of some kind of "God" and a non-material world, which as being unexplainable by science, prescribes tolerance vis-ŕ-vis all those believing in the latter in a different way.

This word "re-search" properly expresses the fact that we must never consider its results as the final and complete answer to the investigated problem; that the solution of one may, indeed, open great many new problems; and while our human knowledge is more and more enriched by (natural and social science) research, it can never become complete and final. This is, by the way, that makes research, our scientific work so beautiful, encouraging and provoking, but also so tragically human.

Benjamin Franklin, a former President of the United States qualified human beings as "tool-making animals". Since his time we have learnt that some animals are also able to use and in a way to make tools, instruments. But the very instinct for investigating the causes of phenomena and tendencies, instead of simply adjusting to them, and searching repeatedly for solution to the problems, and intending to acquire a better knowledge, a better understanding of reality, i.e. the instinct for research is, indeed, the most distinctive human quality.

As regards social science, all those concepts, theorems and methods provided by scholars, who (representing one or another "school" of social science) tried to give answers to the actual problems of reality in a given time and place, must be subject to criticism, and their applicability can by no means be universal. Each theorem is, any way, worth as much only as the premises behind it are known, which set the limits to its applicability.

Social science theories are always products of abstraction and generalisation, i.e. of neglecting certain (presumably secondary or tertiary) aspects of social reality in order to focus on one or another (presumably primary and decisive) aspect, and of selecting accordingly the common features of the partially observed reality and of drawing general conclusions from the latter, while disregarding particularities and specificities. This means that without exception all social science theories are based upon a certain simplification which, on the one hand, makes easier to understand a certain problem of reality, while, on the other, sets limits to their value, validity and applicability.

A mere empiricism, however, i.e. a registration only of numerous unconnected facts or data cannot, of course, substitute for theory which in one way or another, more or less correctly or incorrectly orientates us in the masses of the latter.

A confrontation between different social science theories in a polemic debate among their representatives is not only necessary, moreover inevitable and useful, as thereby they mutually reveal the weaknesses and induce corrections in each other's conception, but it is also meaningless and irrational in so far as different theories approach the same reality from different angle and shed light on different parts of it, or apply different time and space horizon. In other words, different theories may not only conflict with, but also complement each other. No theory is able to comprehend the entire reality in its full complexity and dynamics. Those radical changes in reality, shaking the former paradigms and generating new ones, suggest a reinvestigation and corrections also in terminology.

There is no school of social science, which can be considered as the only correct one. But all the theoretical schools may give us some guidance in the investigation of reality. What follows is that the greater the variety of theoretical views, conceptions and approaches we have, the greater the number of the "tools" to choose when concrete problems of reality are to be solved.

According to the Nobel Laureate Swedish Professor G. Myrdal, theory "is no more than a correlated set of questions to the social reality under study".

Social science is necessarily and inherently critical both vis-ŕ-vis reality (including politics) and its own results (including those appearing in textbooks). It cannot do without a permanent critical analysis of the ever changing social reality and a regular critique of its own developing perceptions on the latter. Radical changes in social reality may not only dispel those illusions attached to the former state of affairs and induce social scientists to revisit their paradigms, but normally give birth also to new theoretical conceptions as well. A critical approach to the prevailing state of affairs and policy-making in order to induce, urge and help improvement is a distinctive feature of scientific research.

According to the late Dudley Seers, the first president of EADI, the Academic community of scientists and university professors, "is perhaps the only major independent centre from which many governments can expect constructive criticism of official policy" .

(2) It is exactly this role, this function and task of social science as well as the very responsibility of all scientists, which raises the second question: Will the so-called "knowledge-based society" develop on a global level, i.e. as a knowledge-based world society, in which knowledge is shared by all human beings and serves the well-being of each member of the human society, or, instead, within a few countries or a narrow stratum of societies only, serving the welfare and dominance of the latter?

What makes such a question so acute and important is the fact of the growing inequalities within the world society not only in terms of income level and rate of economic growth, but also and even more in respect of education, dissemination of knowledge and particularly research capacities.

Accumulated knowledge may function as "capital" (as a so-called "intellectual capital"), which can be used not only for producing more, better and cheaper, but, if monopolised, i.e. if acquired by a few who exclude the majority from it, may become, like other forms of "capital", a tool of domination and exploitation.

One of the main (tragic) features of the contemporary world economy is the existence of a gap in development level, moreover, the tendency of its further widening and deepening, between the minority of developed and the majority of underdeveloped (developing) countries.

The progress in science and human knowledge, which by its very nature has always been "transnational", crossing the state borders or other barriers, makes the human society capable to produce in sufficient volume all the really necessary goods for the survival and well-being of everybody, and has opened new perspectives for the development of the economy by generating technological "revolutions". However, the absolute majority of the world population is still excluded from the benefits of this progress and from the process of development itself.

The growing income inequalities, reflecting the international development gap, obviously undermine the stability of the world order, the sustainability of the very development process, and provide the real background for the globalisation of terrorism as well as for the rise of militarised dictatorial systems.

Contrary to such apologetically formulated arguments as explaining the terrorist actions by the sinister inclination of one or another individual who organises them, and to such misleading conceptions as blaming simply a particular idea, theory, religion or political movement for the rise of oppressive regimes (like the Stalinian was in the former Soviet Union, the Maoist one in China, etc. or the "fundamentalist" regime in Iraq or elsewhere), the fact is that terrorism and oppressive military systems are given birth again and again by the growing recognition by masses of people in less developed countries or areas, of their desperate position, which can easily be misled and mobilised by a dictator or political party and made believe in a "charismatic" leader, his declared struggle against the assigned enemies and the need for a militarised order.

Whether it stems from an ideologically motivated bias against a certain theory, religion, ethnical community, culture, etc. or from a purposeful neglect of reality, the view that misses to see the common background, the very context of international and intra-society inequalities behind the appearance and reappearances of dictatorial regimes, dictators and terrorist groups, is not only incorrect, but also misleading and illusory. It is, of course, easier to reduce the cause of terrorism and dictatorship to personalised "evils", than to face the reality for which responsibility must be taken or shared. And it is, of course, easier to mobilise human, material and financial resources against a visible or visionary enemy, than for the elimination of mass poverty, misery, unemployment and the resulting desperation in the world. However, since violence never leads but to increased violence, while the causes of the latter remain, the above-mentioned simplifying views and fallacies leading to a tremendous misuse of development resources tend to deteriorate rather than improve the state of affairs in the world and deepen its income gap between the minority belonging to the "North" and the majority embraced by the "South".

In the contemporary world economy more than 800 million people are starving. More than one third of world population live in "absolute poverty". Every day approximately 34.000 children die because of under-nourishment and sickness. Nearly 1 billion people are illiterate. More than 35 million people are refugees.

All the above facts and data point to the tragic manifestations of the international development gap and to the urgent imperative need for substantially reducing it and ensuring also the poor majority of humankind equal opportunities to develop and benefits from the results of science, technology and economic development.

For the growing inequalities it is often economic globalisation, which is blamed and accused nowadays. Globalisation is, however, not a new phenomenon. It is a process rather than a completed fact, and is more than a mere economic phenomenon. It has started long time ago, and got many aspects and implications, including, of course, social, political, institutional, and technical as well as cultural ones. The reason why it is so frequently mentioned today, is, on the one hand, the fact of its manifest acceleration in the last two decades (owing to the "revolution" of information and communication technologies, the expansion of the worldwide activities of the TNCs, the progress in trade and "capital-account" liberalisation, and the re-linking of the former "socialist" countries with the world economy), and, on the other, the growing recognition and realisation of this process among more and more people.

One of the greatest shortcomings of most of the literature on globalisation (explaining its content, components and effects) and particularly of its fashionable perception in the public opinion and mass media, is the reduction of the substance and direction of this process to one or another part, movement, component only or to a specific motive force accelerating it in a given time. Another, not less significant mistake in its evaluations is the mixing up of its effects with (a) those originating from other conditions, circumstances of reality, and/or (b) certain abstract presumptions stemming from theoretical models.

• (a) Very often such disequalising effects and harmful consequences are attributed to globalisation itself, as actually following from the given circumstances, the prevailing order of structural and institutional relations, international and intra-national systems of the world, under which globalisation has been proceeding.

  What follows is an attack, resistance campaigns, series of demonstrations with the aim or desire to stop or at least to slow down the globalisation process, instead of efforts to change those unequal and disequalising conditions, to reform the prevailing order and world system.

  The various "anti-globalisation" movements stemming from right-wing nationalist as well as radical leftist sources are acting with the belief that the process of globalisation can be stopped by demonstrations, street protests and disorder. They are in a sense similar to those movements, in the past, protesting against mechanisation (and manifested in the machine-breaking actions of "Luddites", as attributing the growth of unemployment to the introduction of machines), which did also identify the effect of a process, namely technical development which can never be stopped, with the consequences of those given circumstances it was making progress.

• (b) An opposite example is manifested in those naive (or even apologetic) evaluations identifying the expected results of globalisation with the idealised tendencies of equalisation, harmonisation, convergence, growth with equilibrium, and democratisation, etc., which are attributed to the operation of certain abstract models. (Such as, e.g., the famous Heckscher-Ohlin model of international trade or another neo-classical model of international factor flows, both suggesting a spontaneous equalisation process ). But such desirable tendencies may actually come into force - according to the original authors of such models, themselves - only under certain perfect conditions (perfect markets, perfect equilibrium, etc.).

The theoretical theses of conventional ("mainstream") economics on international trade, factor flows and economic growth postulate an international equalisation of factor prices and incomes, i.e. in this way the convergence of the levels of national income and development of the individual countries. Insofar as among the premises of the theses in question (such as the Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson theorem) one may find the prevalence of (trade and/or "capital account") liberalisation, which is one of the motive forces of globalisation, the tendency of convergence seems to follow from the latter, too. Thus, one has no reason to be surprised if those insisting on the conventional theses naturally emphasise this assumed convergence-effect of globalisation as well.

The grave (if not the gravest) shortcoming of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Sauelson theorem which follows from the abstraction (among other simplifications) from international factor flows and the differences in the quality of the factors of production, appears, of course, as hardly reconcilable with such important and characteristic conditions pushing ahead globalisation as the international investment activities of TNCs and the rapid development of "human capital". In the case of the neo-classical thesis on international factor flows, on the other hand, it is the abstraction from international trade and division of labour, i.e. from another important component of globalisation, which has made irrelevant the link between the assumed convergence-effect of international factor flows and globalisation. Similarly, the former variants of neo-classical growth models, too, could hardly fit the interpretations of effects of globalisation, since they left the world economic processes, namely those of international trade and/or factor flows out of consideration or considered them as exogenous conditions. As a result, however, of the serious (partly theoretical, partly empirical) criticism of these models and theorems in question, a new variant of convergence theory has arisen which intends to link the investigation of the processes of international trade and factor flows with the empirical lessons concerning those comparative advantages based on knowledge-intensive industries.

According to R. Rowthorn and R. Kozul-Wright (1998): "Salvaging traditional trade theory has taken it in a direction consistent with globalisation trends. In particular, the increasing international mobility of capital has reduced the importance of differences in the level of capital stock in determining a country's comparative advantage, while the growth of trade in goods with high knowledge and skill content has increased the importance of relative endowments of skilled and unskilled labour... This revised Heckscher-Ohlin model has also opened more direct links to the neo-classical growth theory, missing from earlier expositions. An original growth model developed by Robert Solow and Trevor Swan associated with a well-behaved neo-classical production function generated a steady state on which all countries could converge in the long run, assuming that the savings rate, population growth and technologies were the same everywhere. In the transition, growth would be faster in poorer countries than in the richer economies because capital scarcity in the former would generate a higher rate of return to capital, a faster pace of capital accumulation, and consequently a faster per capita growth rate." (pp. 5-6)

It is to be noted, however, that even if we disregarded the rather unrealistic preconditions, i.e. the assumed identity of the saving rates, the rate of population growth and applied technologies, we could hardly take as acceptable and empirically verifiable the assumption about the rate of return to capital as being inversely proportional to its absolute or relative quantity, at least in regard to the primary income of capital, namely profit.

As far as the arguments - such as of J. Sachs and A. Warner (1995), or J. Court (1998) linking economic openness and convergence-tendency it is to be noted that what really matters in regard to the assumed or denied convergence-effect of globalisation is by no means the question whether the "open" or the "closed" (less open) economies can more rapidly develop. In this respect one can hardly doubt the arguments for openness. Moreover, it is even the very feasibility of isolation ("de-linking") that can be questioned. The real issue is whether the development levels of those national economies integrated in the world economy are converging or, at least, coming closer to each other or not, and whether globalisation makes it easier for the less developed countries to catch up with the more developed ones, or, instead, tends to increase the international development gap and exerts a polarising effect.

What may follow from all the above misconceptions is, on the one hand, the diversion again of the attention away from the need to change the prevailing conditions (bringing them closer to perfection) and, on the other, an apology for the prevailing order of the world.

It is a fact that in the last decades the growth of the open economies was faster and in several cases those economic policies prescribed or recommended by IMF have not only improved the economic equilibrium but, owing to the restoration of credit-worthiness and investors' confidence, have also resulted in an economic recovery. However, the new opportunities and benefits arising from the accelerated process of globalisation have by no means been shared by all the countries (unlike the concomitant vulnerability and risk which affect all). For quite a number of countries the application of the "adjustment" policy or the kind of "stabilisation programme" recommended by IMF has proved to hinder rather than promote economic development.

Among many others, Samir Amin (2000) stated that under the conditions of the world capitalist system globalisation inevitably exerts a polarising effect. What may logically follow is that instead of attempting to stop the process of globalisation, it is the system, which is to be changed or transformed to another one.

Richard Falk (1993) made a distinction between, on the one hand, the on-going process of "globalization-from-above", which is pushed forward by the big business organisations disseminating consumerism worldwide and by the most powerful nations, and, on the other, "globalization-from-below", which is concerned about environment as a common good, motivated by the claim for human rights and the aim of a human community with a diversity of cultures.

As a matter of fact, economic globalisation (just like other economic processes) has got more than one, single "face" . It has potentially favourable and unfavourable effects alike. It brings about a challenge but also an opportunity.

Apart from the successful catching-up of a few countries, the empirical facts can hardly prove the tendency of convergence in reality. However, it does not follow at all from the above that globalisation could not exert a levelling effect leading to convergence.

One of the main reasons why so many people object to and protest against globalisation is its assumed harmful effect on national sovereignty, national languages and national cultures.

As a matter of fact, "national sovereignty" cannot be but relative and limited only in the world of interdependencies. Thus, the real issue is not sovereignty or independence, but the fact of non-symmetrical reduction of sovereignty and the very asymmetrical pattern of interdependencies . The policy of "de-linking" is not only doomed to fail but not even feasible today.

Globalisation is often criticised for leading towards a sort of universal "global" culture on the line of "cultural imperialism" . The latter would imply the dominance of the North-American or Anglo-Saxon culture which, owing to the markedly unequal international distribution of the means of communication, to the hegemonic role of the English language in printed and, particularly, electronic media (radio and TV broadcasting, E-mail, Internet, etc.) and the geographical extension of its use, as well as to the demonstration effects of the American lifestyle and consumer habits, would suppress the still existing cultures and languages of other nations and nationalities.

Among the manifestations of such a "cultural colonisation" quite different phenomena and effects are mentioned. Such as: the international spread of the American type quick-lunch bars and meals at the expense of traditional local restaurants and national cuisines; the appearance of big shopping centres and hotel-networks threatening the survival of small shops, retail trade and family-run hotels; the substitution of poor quality imported commerce-literature and mechanised music, and entertainment programmes arriving through electronic channels , etc. for national literature, dances and music; the spread of primitive, standardised "soap operas" and comic strips, of cheap films and video cassettes propagating violence and disseminating pornography; the dominance of American media and TV companies broadcasting all over the world (for business and political reasons) often biased information; the penetration into national languages, of a growing number of words from English, the knowledge of which becomes a general requisite world-wide; the spread of the American type of business thinking and behaviour, and the growth in the number of business schools disseminating the latter; the Americanisation of education, in general; the spread of individualism and hedonist spirit undermining the cohesion and solidarity within local societies; an international assimilation of the elite strata (alienated from the nation concerned) and also that of the teenagers' stratum sharing a standardised education and mechanised entertainment; and so on...

While the number of illiterates is enormous in our world, a new type of illiteracy has appeared, indeed, with the progress of information technology, namely the lack of knowledge and understanding of the language of computers, e-mails, Internet.

Although the above-mentioned rather mixed and excessively generalised phenomena are undoubtedly linked with the accelerated process of globalisation and imply not only a considerable challenge, moreover a source of conflict, but also a potentially great threat, indeed, for national cultures and languages, they are by no means so necessary and inevitable concomitants of globalisation which an appropriate national policy would be unable to treat and counterbalance.

For the national cultures, however, there can be also favourable effects of globalisation and even of the above-mentioned phenomena attributed to it. For example, the English language of computers, Internet, E-mail, and, particularly, the new "on-line" interpretation technique, which may make its dominance temporary only, has considerably facilitated the communication among nations. The electronic telecommunication equipments and the world-wide network of radio and TV broadcasting, e-mail and Internet facilities are opening new opportunities for people even in the most remote areas to learn, for the children even in the least developed countries, if being assisted, to get an access to education, to absorb knowledge and skill, and also for the culture of small nations, nationalities, ethnic and religious communities to get known elsewhere .

The new communication and information technologies bring the inhabitants of remote countries and continents closer to each other. Thereby they may facilitate the mutual understanding of the problems, the ways of thinking and intentions of each other and can promote the rise of a sort of "global social consciousness" as well as the development of the mechanisms ensuring the representation, manifestation and reconciliation of the different interests of the world civil society and its various parts.

In view of the above, here again the complexity, great variety and contradictory directions of the potential effects should be emphasised, the extent, intensity and final outcome of which largely depend on the responses of the individual societies and government policies, too.

Thus, globalisation, while accompanied by growing risks, vulnerability and potential disadvantages or dangers, may bring about new opportunities and potential advantages for the developing countries, too, in the field of trade, international capital flows, transfers of technologies, financing development programmes, internationalised production, moreover, economic co-operation with other developing countries, too.

It will turn out only in the future whether such a "knowledge-based" world society would (could) arise as ensuring for all the countries, nations and people an equal opportunity of development, an equal chance for learning and catching up, as well as bearable human life conditions, subsistence and security.

For the time being, the task and responsibility of social science is to investigate and reveal those conditions in the contemporary world, which bring about opposite tendencies and set obstacles to the rise of a really knowledge-based world society. Such as follows:

(1) The present system of the world economy and politics is heavily burdened by structural disequilibria , asymmetrical nature of interdependencies, deepening inequalities, inadequacy of institutions, anti-democratic practice of decision-making and disproportionate representation, concentration of power and various dangerous tendencies stemming from the above, which increasingly undermine the security of the world society and human life in general.

The existing international institutions are not based upon the democratic principle of proportional representation, nor is their decision-making mechanism democratic in the sense of equal voting power of an equal number of people. There is no powerful institution that is taking care of the "global commons", and there is no management of the non-renewable natural resources of the Earth.

The security of the world society is increasingly threatened not only by regional wars, militarisation, environmental pollution, accumulation of industrial waste, ecological imbalances, extinction of numerous animal and plant species of the world, etc., but also by globalised terrorism and criminality , by easier spread of epidemics, and by the uncontrolled use of new research results and technologies.

The end of the "bipolar world order", which involved a certain (though dangerous) balance of military power and a quasi-security built upon "mutual deterrence", has resulted, at least for the time being, a unipolar world order with an excessive concentration of military power.

In the light of all these, nobody, except a fool, would consider our world as "the best of all the possible ones", nor could anybody deny the urgent need for substantially reforming the contemporary world order.

(2) In the search for alternative, various conceptions were born about a "new world order". Instead of sharing one or another ideological variant or venturing any utopian prognosis concerning the future system of the world society, it is perhaps sufficient to point to those differences in the operation and governance between the developed "national" (or regional) systems and the present world system, which may suggest possible solutions for the latter. Although none of the existing "national" systems is free of inequalities and disequilibria, nor is truly democratic, nevertheless those ways and means they apply in treating such anomalies and the improvement they have actually achieved in economic management, social welfare and democratisation may present a possible guidance for reforming the world order.

If within "national" societies, within the individual countries a mixed market economy coupled with a social welfare state and a pluralistic democracy seems to be the best among the realistically available alternatives for the time being, or even in the long run, then "internationally", too, i.e. for the world society as a whole, a similar pattern is to be developed, and the possible ways how to reach it have to be explored.

• (a) In a well-developed "national" (and also regional) system of capitalist market economy there is a more or less integrated market not only of products and services, but also of both capital and labour. The free mobility of capital ensures a tendency of equalisation of profit rates, while that of manpower tends to equalise the wage rates for the same categories of labour. Although conventional textbook-theses assume similar tendencies internationally, too, in the world economy not only the trade in products and services is still facing those trade barriers remaining (despite the successful steps of liberalisation) or arising as new ones, but international labour flows are restricted so much that (unlike the unfolding world market of capital) there is no integrated market for labour.

  If liberalisation, which is so much praised by "mainstream"-economists, could really make progress not only in regard to international trade and capital flows, but also to international labour flows, immigration policies, residence and employment permits, and, thus, gradually an integrated world market of labour could unfold, then the international income gap would substantially decrease, indeed, as the average wages in the same labour categories would tend to equalise internationally, too.

• (b) One could argue, of course, that for the individual developed countries the consequence of such a liberalisation of inward labour flows, implying free immigration and unrestricted employment of foreigners (i.e. a full respect, not only in slogan, but also in practice, of "human rights"), would be disastrous due to the mass inflow of people from the underdeveloped part of the world (the so-called "March from the South"). However, similar threats did appear also within national economies when and where industrialisation, modernisation and better life and employment facilities in the urban areas strongly attracted masses from backward rural areas, tending to cause over-population, unemployment, insecurity and a decline in the living standard in the more advanced urban centre of the economy.

  Such a threat or actual consequence, however, has mostly been diminished by an appropriate purposeful policy of the government in some of the countries concerned. Namely, by progressive taxation for a regular income-redistribution in favour of the poor and in order to get sufficient budget revenues to finance development projects in the backward regions, and also by directing investments towards the latter by means of applying special incentives to encourage private investments, too, in the less developed parts of the economy. (In such regional blocs as the European Union, the so-called Structural and Cohesion Funds have been introduced to promote the development of less-developed regions and help them to catch up with the more developed, thereby reducing the above-mentioned threat of migration.)

• (c) Such methods cannot internationally be applied, of course, without the existence and operation, on the one hand, of a really global governing body, which is able to levy and collect international taxes, runs a central budget and directly or indirectly finances development projects in underdeveloped regions, and, on the other, of a public sector of the world economy .

  Since in the prevailing world system there is no public sector on global level, and the existing international organisations are neither capable nor even authorised to fulfil such tasks, it seems obvious enough that global solutions (similar to those already exercised within developed countries) require either new, really global institutions or radical reforms of the existing ones for the establishment of a "global governance", and the rise of a global public sector, as well.

• (d) In the countries of developed market economies undoubtedly great changes and achievements have taken place since the Second World War in regard to social welfare, security and public services. They include the rise of the "Welfare State", the establishment of a certain "social safety net" and the institutionalisation of what is called "social market economy". A "social market economy" implies, in fact, the combination of a "normal" operation of the market economy with such welfare measures, social security arrangements and, in general, with an effective social policy of the State aiming at counteracting or compensating for the socially undesired disequalising effects of the operation of the market.

  Similar arrangements are badly needed in the world system as well, which, instead of some ad hoc measures of aid and various charity actions, could more efficiently treat the global problems of misery, starvation, epidemics and mass unemployment.

• (e) If capitalism, at least in the most developed countries, has changed a lot, and since the mid-20th century it has been indeed substantially different from that of the mid-19th century, then it is mainly due to the rise of "countervailing forces" within the system, such as trade unions, labour parties and other social or political non-government organisations. These forces responded to the socially disequalising effects of the system, which follow from market spontaneity and "logic of capital", and have gradually forced the operation of capital as well as the policy of the governments to reduce intra-society inequalities and conflicts by welfare measures. Similar "countervailing forces", however, hardly exist in the world system as yet. While the forces of capital are increasingly organised in the form of "enterprise empires", such as TNCs, and are not only competing, but also co-operating with each other (as in "strategic alliances"), the forces of labour are still organised (if at all) mostly on "national" level, despite the old slogan of "international workers' solidarity").

  Although contacts and certain international co-operation have developed among national trade unions and other social organisations, too, such non-government organisations have a role neither in the decision-making process of international bodies, nor, particularly in that of TNCs. At all UN bodies (except ILO) NGOs appear (if at all) as observers only.

  A reform of the UN that, for example, would establish a "Second Chamber" of the General Assembly consisting of representatives of internationally organised or co-operating NGOs could likely be a great step towards the rise of "countervailing forces" on world level.

• (f) Disequilibria, cyclical recessions and over-production crises had been quite efficiently treated by the (Keynesian) anti-cyclical economic policy of the State in the advanced market economies in the period of (at least) the first two decades after the Second World War. If such a policy (elaborated for and applied within the framework of the national economy) regulating the economic processes by market-conform methods of State intervention proved, as it did, less efficient by the end of the 1960s, when it led to increasing inflation together with a slowing down of economic growth, then it was the most likely due to the fact that the progress in globalisation and regional integration as well as the expansion of the TNCs' activities have made the "national" framework of regulation of economic processes increasingly outdated and irrelevant.

  What follows is that the same policy, if applied to the global framework of the world economy, could be efficient enough to curb the amplitude of cycles in the latter, to prevent deep recessions and reduce the disequilibria by generating effective demand through appropriate fiscal and monetary policies, income redistribution and stimulating private investments.

• (g) As already noted, the unfolding of a modern market economy in the developed countries has been accompanied not only by the rise of an adequate institutional and legal system of "superstructure", namely of the "nation-state", but also (though only more recently and by no means perfectly) by a process of democratisation, namely by the evolution of a pluralistic democracy with a multi-party parliamentary system of more or less proportionate representation, regular free elections and equality of voting rights and power. In the prevailing world system there is no appropriate institutional and legal superstructure adequate for the globalised world economy, no pluralistic democracy has developed, no democratic representation and voting regime exists.

  The operation of all the existing international organisations, including all the UN bodies, is based upon the principle of State representation, which renders a false equality between a State with a few thousand inhabitants and another one with more than a billion. Their voting system, whether implying, accordingly, a "one State - one vote" principle (as in the UN General Assembly), or a system of "qualified votes", i.e. different voting powers weighted by some "quotas" (as within the IMF and WB), is markedly undemocratic.

  They also must respect, at least in principle, "national sovereignty" (in fact: the sovereignty of States). The UN resolutions are not binding, as they lack the required enforcement power and mechanism.

  Human rights, which it is fashionable to mention nowadays, mostly appear also in a false context, as the rights of citizens within their own country, to be respected and protected by their own state only. Thus, they are totally confused with citizens' rights. While the latter are tied to citizenship, human rights in a real sense must belong to all members of humankind, of the world's human society, independently of citizenship, national, ethnic, caste and family origin, gender, social status, class, or religious, cultural or other differences. Human rights in such a real sense are not yet respected even by the most democratic states. While they may fully guarantee citizens' rights to all their citizens, they enforce severe regulations to prevent the citizens of other states from exercising human rights in the territory under their sovereignty and control. Human rights include not only the right of emigration but also the right to immigrate, to choose freely one's place for living and working .

  Human rights which also include the right to security and development, to non-discrimination, to a peaceful and decent life, to a clean, unpolluted, healthy environment, to remunerative payment for work, at least to a minimum income and to satisfy basic needs, to develop one's potential, to access to education, knowledge, culture and information, to free association and to participate in a democratic way in public affairs, to representation and to take part in decision-making, etc., can only be realised if they are guaranteed on the world scene, too, and respected all over the world. This is one of the only way to eliminate completely discrimination and exploitation, to make the world market really integrated and competitive also in respect of labour, to liberalise the flows of, and access to, all factors of production, to all products and services, including cultural ones, internationally too, and to democratise the governance of global interdependence.

  The conclusion that obviously follows from the above is that the world society urgently needs a new, truly democratic, or substantially reformed and democratised institutional system, which is based on the principle of proportionate representation, ensures equal voting power for equal number of people, protects the human rights of all the members of human society, makes the articulation and reconciliation of diverse interests operationally feasible through and between cross-border political organisations of the individual classes, self-identified strata and professional groups of the world society, and is equipped with a legal enforcement power.

  While the new communication and information technologies make the cross-border contacts between people belonging to the same social class, stratum or professional group more and more easier, such direct contacts (unlike the indirect ones, through their governments) may considerably facilitate mutual understanding and interest reconciliation.

• (h) To the old conventional (and, in fact, ideological) question of whether the State of the Market should be the governing power, the only correct answer is none of them, but the Civil Society . Thus, a truly democratic world order cannot rely on the spontaneity of the market, nor on the dirigisme of some state-power. Instead, it must ensure the upper hand to the global civil society unfolding and organising itself on world level.

  Such a civil society needs both the market and a kind of global state-power in order to rule and control both, namely by making use of the latter to regulate the spontaneous market, correct and compensate for its unfavourable social consequences, internationally disequalising and polarising effects, and by making use also of the former, thus ensuring the freedom of market activities, the independence of private business and normal operation of product, service and factor markets, in order to prevent any centralised power from over-ruling the society.

• (i) Finally, in view of the requirements of a truly democratic world order, which may ensure peaceful co-operation among all peoples on the basis of mutual understanding and benefits, there appears an imperative need also for a "New Enlightenment". The latter, which can stem, like the former, 18th century Enlightenment, from knowledge and underlines the role and importance of science in the operation of society, would free all social science theories from ideological (mis)interpretation, from their apologetic misuse and manipulative distortion for legitimising political interests and practices, and would put an end to the "religious" belief in any of them as a single "vehicle of Truth". It would also detach religions from politics, i.e. make impossible to use religion for generating hostile feelings against others, for justifying discrimination and for declaring "sacred wars".

*

Although all the above conclusions may appear as products of wishful thinking or utopian ideas, but, in fact, there seems hardly any other alternative scenario for the survival of the world society and sustainability of its development, than substantially reforming the existing world order.

Unless a thorough transformation, by gradual reforms, of the prevailing world order takes place, unless the international development gap, which implies also a gap in skill, knowledge and technological level, is drastically reduced, the very idea of a "knowledge-based society" remains a naďve illusion only, if not a new apology for the prevailing unequal order. If the "knowledge-based society" is not going to develop on a world level, neither its development, nor its very existence can be sustainable.

^1.See: Myrdal, G. (1968), p. 25.

^2.See: Livingstone, I. - Routh, G. - Rweyemamu, J.F. - Svendsen, K.E. eds. (1969), p. 29.

^3.In the Sub-Saharan African countries the number of those having less than $1 per day increased from 217 million to 291 million in the period of 1987-1998. - World Bank (1999).

^4.Barbara Parker (1998) correctly states: "The point is that 'easy' either/or, good/bad characterizations of globalisation are incapable of capturing the complexity of the phenomenon." (p. 35.)

^5.For a critique of the Heckscher-Ohlin model and other trade theories see Szentes, T. (2002).

^6.Jacques Chirac, the President of France raised the claim for "globalisation with a human face", which would be based upon the following seven principles: (1) "collective responsibility and collective action"; (2) "equity"; (3) "solidarity - to avoid exclusion of people or nations"; (4) "diversity"; (5) "safety first, environmentally and otherwise (do no harm)"; (6) "liberty and respect for human rights", and (7) "complementarity and subsidiarity". - Overseas Development Institute (1999), p.3.

^7.For an analysis of asymmetrical interdependencies in the contemporary world economy see Szentes, T. (2003).

^8.See e.g. Tomlinson, J. (1991), Cultural Imperialism. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

^9.Barbara Parker pointed to that the "major source of cultural globalisation is entertainment media, including film, television, print media, games and human interactions, live and recorded performances, and other activities such as films, theme parks, and athletic performances. Unlike print media, electronic images and telecommunications are democratic, transmitted to broad audience including the educated and the illiterate alike." - Parker, B. (1998), p. 183.

^10.The 24-hour global television news network of the Cable News Network (CNN) by 1993 has already reached 200 countries and more than 16 per cent of all homes with television. - Parker, B. (1998), p. 184.

^11.Owing to the globalising system of communication and world-wide tourism, some local singing, dancing and entertaining cultures, artistic activities, health protecting methods and natural therapies, diets and meals of national cuisines, wine cultures, etc., which belonged earlier to narrow circles, small local communities only, may disseminate and become known and enjoyed by an increasing number of people in other parts of the world.

^12.Disequilibria in the world economy have been manifested in the process of cumulative indebtedness of great many countries, in the regularly returning crises or recessions, and in the very need for international financial assistance as a voluntary, artificial method substituting for organised income-redistribution. Disequilibria necessarily follow from the growing international development gap reflecting large-scale inequalities in the distribution of structural roles in international division of labour, in the ownership and control over development resources, and other asymmetries of interdependent relations.

^13."At the global level, common defense needs include defense against acts of military aggression and also against growing worldwide terrorism and global criminal activities. Both are growing in scope and number." - Parker, B. (1998), p. 406.

^14.See Pronk, J. (1991).

^15.See - among others - Simai, M. (1994), Waterman, P. (1991), Commission on Global Governance (1995), etc.

^16."While the world has become much more highly integrated economically, the mechanisms for managing the system in a stable, sustainable way have lagged behind." - Commission on Global Governance (1995), pp. 135-136.

^17.The Report of the South Commission (1990) correctly referred to the hypocritical distinction drawn between the labour services of the "South" as "immigration", to be controlled by national laws, and the technology-related services of the skilled labour of the North, which should enjoy free international mobility just like capital.

^18.See Nerfin, M. (1987).