In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Their results have revealed a core of 737 firms with control of 80% of this network, and a “super entity” comprised of 147 corporations that have a controlling interest in 40% of the network’s TNCs.
[Note to the reader: see the very end of this article for a ranking of the top 50 ‘control holders’]
When we hear conspiracy theorist talk about this or that powerful group (or alliance of said groups) “pulling strings” behind the scenes, we tend to dismiss or minimize such claims, even though, deep down, we may suspect that there’s some degree of truth to it, however distorted by the theorists’ slightly paranoid perception of the world. But perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.
But now we have the results of a global network analysis (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) that, for the first time, lays bare the “architecture” of the global ownership network. In the paper abstract, the authors state:
“We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure* and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.” [emphasis added]
* This “bow tie” structure is similar to the structure of the WWW (analyzing for most influential/most trafficked websites); see diagram below.
Data from previous studies neither fully supported nor completely disproved the idea that a small handful of powerful corporations dominate much or most of the world’s commerce. The researchers acknowledge previous attempts to analyze such networks, but note that these were limited in scope to national networks which “neglected the structure of control at a global level.”
What was needed, assert the researchers, was a complex network analysis.
“A quantitative investigation is not a trivial task because firms may exert control over other firms via a web of direct and indirect ownership relations which extends over many countries. Therefore, a complex network analysis is needed in order to uncover the structure of control and its implications. “
To start their analysis, the researchers began with a list of 43,060 TNCs which were taken from a sample of 30 million “economic actors” contained in the Orbis 2007 database [see end note]. TNCs were identified according to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition of a transnational corporation [see end note]. They next applied a recursive search algorithm which singled out the “network of all the ownership pathways originating from and pointing to these TNCs.”
The resulting TNC network includes 600,508 nodes and 1,006,987 ownership ties.
In terms of the connectivity of the network, the researchers found that it consists of many small connected components, but the largest one (encompassing 3/4 of all nodes) “contains all the top TNCs by economic value, accounting for 94.2% of the total TNC operating revenue.”
Two generalized characteristics were identified:
1] A strongly connected component (SCC), that is, a set of firms in which every member owns directly and/or indirectly shares in every other member. The emergence of such a structure can be explained as a means of preventing take-overs, reducing transaction costs, risk sharing and increasing trust between “groups of interest.”
and
2] The largest connect[ed] component contains only one dominant, strongly connected component (comprised of 1347 nodes). This network, like the WWW, has a bow tie structure. What’s more, they found that this component, or core, is also very densely connected; on average, members of this core have ties to 20 other members. “Top actors” occupy the center of the bow tie. In fact, a randomly chosen TNC in the core has about 50% chance of also being among the top holders, as compared to, for example, 6% for the “in” section. [emphasis added]
“As a result, about 3/4 of the ownership of firms in the core remains in the hands of firms of the core itself. In other words, this is a tightly-knit group of corporations that cumulatively hold the majority share of each other.”
In examining the details of this core, the analysis also showed that only 737 top holders accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all TNCs (in the analyzed network). Further,
“…despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations.” [emphasis added]
Concerning the implications of this super entity, the researchers asked two fundamental questions: First, what are the implications for market competition, and, second, what are the implications for economic stability?
Regarding the first question, the authors assert that no matter the origin of the SCC, due to its high degree of TNC network control, “it weakens market competition”.
It is clear just from the history of anti-trust laws in this country (the U.S.) that concentrated ownership stifles free market competition and innovation, reduces over-all employment, and leads to excessive pricing.
In regards to the second question, the researchers note that “the existence of such a core in the global market was never documented before and thus, so far, no scientific study demonstrates or excludes that this international ‘super-entity’ has ever acted as a bloc.“
However, there is historical data — such as within the airline, auto and steel industries — supporting this possibility.
“…top holders are at least in the position to exert considerable control, either formally (e.g., voting in shareholder and board meetings) or via informal negotiations.”
Additionally, recent studies (Stiglitz J.E., 2010, Battiston S. et al, 2009) have shown that densely connected financial networks are highly susceptible to systemic risk. Despite the fact that such networks may seem robust in good economic times, in times of crisis however, member firms tend to enter ‘distress mode’ simultaneously. This was seen recently in the 2008 (“near”) financial collapse (note: 3/4 of the network core in this analysis are financial intermediaries).
Calling their findings “remarkable”, they suggest that because “international data sets as well as methods to handle large networks became available only very recently, [this] may explain how this finding could go unnoticed for so long.”
While the researchers acknowledge that verifying whether the implications of their findings “hold true for the global economy” is beyond the scope of their current research, they assert that their unprecedented attempt to uncover the structure of corporate control is “a necessary precondition for future investigations.”
The paper, The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) was published July 26, 2011, on arXiv.org
End Notes:
The Orbis 2007 marketing database comprises about 37 million economic actors, both physical persons and firms located in 194 countries, and roughly 13 million directed and weighted ownership links (equity relations). This data set is intended to track control relationships rather than patrimonial relationships. Whenever available, the percentage of ownership refers to shares associated with voting rights. Accordingly, we select those companies which hold at least 10% of shares in companies located in more than one country. Overall we obtain a list of 43,060 TNCs located in 116 different countries, with 5675 TNCs quoted in stock markets.
The definition of TNCs given by the OECD states that they “…comprise companies and other entities established in more than one country and so linked that they may coordinate their operations in various ways…”
Diagrams: (source) The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Top 50 Control-Holders Ranking:
{source: the following is quoted directly from the research paper]
This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that many actors belong to the financial sector (NACE codes starting with 65,66,67) and many of the names are well-known global players.
The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.
Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the threshold model, TM). Columns indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE codes starting with 65,66, or 67 belong to the financial sector.
Rank , Economic actor name, Country, NACE code, Network Cumul. Network position, control (TM, %)
1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66
3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94
4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02
6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25
9 UBS AG CH 6512 SCC 18.46
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712 SCC 19.45
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713 IN 20.33
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512 SCC 21.17
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512 SCC 21.99
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH 6512 SCC 22.81
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56
16 BANK OF NEWYORK MELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28
17 NATIXIS FR 6512 SCC 24.98
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64
19 T. ROWEPRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92
21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUP PLC GB 6512 SCC 30.30
27 INVESCO PLC GB 6523 SCC 30.82
28 ALLIANZSE DE 7415 SCC 31.32
29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69
31 AVIVA PLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14
32 SCHRODERS PLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57
33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82
36 STANDARD LIFE PLC GB 6601 SCC 35.2
37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63
41 INGGROEP N.V. NL 6603 SCC 36.96
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93
45 VERENIGING AEGON NL 6512 IN 38.25
46 BNPPARIBAS FR 6512 SCC 38.56
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 38.88
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 39.18
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414 IN 39.48
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CN 6511 T&T 39.78
If one would or could do a more in depth investigation of the personnel, especially upper level, one would find that many of these people are Jesuit infiltrators. The Jesuits have infiltrated every institution on earth. Subterfuge is their best feature. You don’t need to be an ordained priest to be a Jesuit. Don’t believe me but do the research yourself.
Der Muslimen, der Juden, und der Schwulen, alle antichrist.
I agree. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” — 1 John 2:22
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” — 1 John 4:3
Gays might profess Christianity but unless they repent and halt the twisted sexual behavior, they are antichrist. Refusing to follow the commands of God/Jesus, is antichrist.
Black money is dark but so is a massive world population of angry people that don’t like pain and watching their families suffer.
I have been saying and will continue to say that if we stop borrowing money from these sort of people and lived a nurturing and yet independent life form the aforementioned parasites the environment biodiversity etc.will be restored etc. But many need to learn many things. A life style change is needed. Grow and make your own share knowledge and labor and the list goes on.
Most important to remember and tell other people that we the majority have the power, we don’t need them, they need us. Without us they could not exist, so find out who you are dealing with, who their friends are what religion they subscribe to, which politicians they are controlling etc.
Birds of a feather flock together and they are sihtting on us; it is time to stop them thieving of us and sending us to needless wars,and make them pay their taxes.
Moderated, censored
not going to post here again
Fine, but how does all this get Laundered at various Treasure Islands, numbered accounts, Law Firms, eventually leading to a Person or Estate — The information is there, but Black Money is Dark.
Black money is dark but so is a massive world population of angry people that don’t like pain and watching their families suffer.
“This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.”
Bilderburg anyone? compare the top 50 list, see their major players (top ceos and all) and compare it to the oficial and unofficial lists of bilderburg attendees…
Tim, i appreciate your effort at insightful comments here.
I’m not sure about the actual importance of the first part…
On the second part on global warming, though, i’m sorry to say that you are way off. The Sun has been examined in great detail and is just a small piece of the pie at this time:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
The idea that we are entering global cooling would be hilarious if you weren’t being serious:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm
Sorry, if only solving the climate crisis were so convenient as conducting shoddy science
Hi Peggy
Try not to get too down about it; there are limits to control, as there are to growth.
Some of this may be a natural emergence of a distribution principle.
Check our some of my earlier comments regarding the nature of the “entity’.
and thanks for reading!
Liz
thanks for your comment:
Your story is intriguing.
No doubt millions of others will find a similar situation when they look into things.
I think the most important thing the this research points out is that such entities (and constituent members) frequently do not act in isolation from each other…but rather, often in a coordinated way.
As to Enron and GC, I suspect that they were corporations set up by bigger players in the game; they were designed to fail (but enable massive capital outlays before doing so).
Could you provide us a link to the Scribd.com document (for ease of locating)
Peter
Yes, it can get that way, at times (often these days).
As to your point about my application of Criticality Theory…this is a good point, and emphasizes one of the differences between human culture and wild Nature.
What the theorists may have missed (what you indicate) is the role of external forces on said complex systems (which are not isolated, but linked to other systems).
So, in your view (I interpret here), The State acts as one of these external forces that can act to prevent a ‘major critical event” (a collapse, via a bail out). This I can well grok.
Thus also, we “prove” that the Government HAD to step in and bail out the banks to prevent a world-wide crisis.
So, perhaps the questions now becomes: how much criticality (and how do we define this) do we allow in economic systems before externally intervening? Will we always be able to do it in time?
The questions may be moot if we have a wise regulatory framework in place….ah, there’s the rub…
Mr Lowe
thanks for your comment.
I don’t believe, however, that any of the core TNCs have the power or authority to print money (US dollars).
That right goes to the US Treasury. But the treasury can only print money that it has (or has borrowed in the form of credit).
Now, one could argue that this credit lending on behalf of financials to government treasuries (buying of US Treasury securities) is in fact an order (indirectly) to print money….
As to your “30 dollars for every one dollar made”, claim, I believe you are referring to the highest leverage ratio prior to the 2008 collapse (amount borrowed against actual held capital), which was as high as 30 to 1.
Michael:
When was the last time you saw a printed note that didn’t say “federal reserve note” on it. The congress abdicated (in a criminal way) it’s RESPONSIBILITY to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”. It’s the fact that a private bank now controls “our money”. The use T bills and Bonds as ‘evidence of a deposit’ and print money with those bills and bonds as ,evidence of a deposit’. Then they lend us back our own money at INTEREST. This is what has allowed all of the financial institutions mentioned to accumulate the cash necessary for them to have developed the “web of influence” that this article exposes. So, you see, BANKS (regardless of the nationality of who owns them) are at the CORE of today’s problems. Namely Peak Oil and Peak Natural Non Renewable Resources and what they are leading to.
Mr Kerr
Thanks for your comment.
I do not disagree with the postulate that “banks are at the core of today’s problems”…In regards to the economy in general, others have made the point that it is a matter of credit, or lending…and so, clearly banks play a central role in this…however, what are today’s problems exactly? Are they all or mostly financial? Certainly, there is a wealth imbalance in the world (some of this may be “organically evolved” via the original centers of wealth); our problems are more than monetary. But I wax philosophic.
Sadly, we are not at peak oil, really. Large oil deposits (though deep under the sea often) are still being discovered (e.g., 400 miles off the coast of Brazil, and about 4 miles down). In any event, I’m not sure how you are relating ‘Peak anything’ to banks being the “core of today’s problems”; you’ll have to explain that more.
Perhaps you mean in terms of directing capital toward industries that exploit these resources…banks are at the core of the problem (e.g., the IMF using carbon credit moneys to invest in carbon intensive industries).
But to your other claims: The simple fact of the matter is, we are a debtor nation (have been since Reagan); we borrow more than we loan out in credit. The T bills and bonds we both sell and buy back represent future value; when someone buys a bond or treasury note, that “evidence of deposit” is treated as money in the bank, as it were. Only then is money printed. Sometimes, money is printed based on an estimate of future yields, revenues, etc., but that is still viewed as “real money”.
Not all the money in our treasury is “ours”. Much of it these days belongs to the Chinese. That is the result of being a debtor nation. WE want more than we can afford. We want to be the only super power, right? Well, that costs us massively, and helps put us massively into debt.
Thank you for your article about the TNCs that run the world. To me this is more compelling evidence that the USA has been a corporate dictatorship since at least the coup d’etat of Nov. 22, 1963. Since then faces at the top of government change every four or eight years to maintain the illusion of democracy in the USA. The corporate media is the heart and/or soul of the corporate dictatorship. Edward Bernays, called the “father of public relations,” refers to journalism as the “invisible government.” And he is correct in my view.
Yes, I’m a “conspiracy nut” and with very good reason. I have long believed conspiracy is synonymous with politics and economics.
Mr. Cahill
Thanks for your comment.
Although I do not subscribe to many conspiracy theories (I see these theories as meta-level tokens for complex web phenomena, but I digress…)….
I can understand where you are coming from.
But, one need not subscribe to such theories anymore (which tend to over-simplify things), when we have ownership network architecture laid bare before us to gaze upon and ponder.
One thing that this study points out is indeed how much more complicated things are “in reality” than our theories.
In the film Roller Ball, in the Book 1984, and many other works of fiction, there is never a number of world dominating corporations as high as 147 (never mind 737)…this number cited as comprising “the entity” is far higher than any previous conspiracy theory; though small compared to the sample size, it is still large.
Consider the degree of complexity that can arise from just a classical three-body system — so much so that its complete behavior is nearly impossible to calculate.
How much more so from a super entity of 147?
addendum: Nature acts upon such entities, as surely as it does upon us. Perhaps the ultimate entity here is the biosphere (or the emerging noosphere) whose principles of complexity invisibly guide (or “attract”) the super entity to its natural state of criticality.
So, you’re saying your results fall right in line with Pareto’s Law… who could’ve imagined?
Charlie
Thanks for your comment.
Do yo mean the Pareto Principle?
Yes, it is interesting that an almost perfect 80 – 20 ratio exists in the members of the super entity (147) to the members of the SCC (737).
Pareto, btw, was a horticulturist too, and got his inspiration for this ratio of imbalance of distribution from his pea plants (20% of whose pods contained 80% of the peas, which he then applied to land wealth distribution in his native Italy).
Paul Krugman, however, dismisses this 80/20 rule as a fallacy (it’s “comforting”), when in fact, wealth accrues mostly to the top 1% (in the US).
Ms Muhrrteyn
Gosh< i wish you hadn't brought up the damned UFO and Masonic fringe conspiracy stuff….you points about peak oil and NNR are otherwise worthwhile.
Thank you Virginia!
This was/is unknown to me; an important bit of information to be aware of…I can only wonder how many other “legislative councils” there are out there, or underway.
This full-on attack of the EPA is amazing to behold (and considering how impotent the EPA was under the former admin).
The attack seems to be based upon an old, but unproven/disputed notion that environmental laws hurt or “kill” jobs (which of course, are being “provided” by the most polluting corporate players).
I will be researching the actual cost-benefit impact of enviro regs on business (in general) in an up-coming article.
The large number of banks and mutual funds raises the question of whether the underlying entity database distinguishes beneficial from agentive ownership. For example, Vanguard is #8 on the list but is a mutual fund organization, and one that focuses largely on index funds at that. If anything, they avoid active involvement in the direction and management of companies whose stock they hold. While this mostly passive arrangement can work to the benefit of management (taking large blocks of shares out of active involvement in corporate governance), it also tends to suggest that Vanguard’s role in the strongly connected core is also passive. Similarly, large banker/trader organizations frequently have large holdings in street names – they don’t actually own the stocks, they’re on the paperwork as a convenience to facilitate trading.
Bob
Thanks for your detailed comment.
These are interesting, if more nuanced points.
From my reading of the paper, no distinction (qualitative) was made between “beneficial” and “agentive” ownership.
For sure, there are different types of ownership (stakes) between the analyzed TNCs. The authors state that they defined “ownership” as having 10% or more “controlling interest” in one or more TNC’s doing business in at least two countries, etc. Later, they acknowledge that their analysis does not “prove” any controlling activity, per se, but rather, that said control holders have the power to exert control (through several means), if they chose to…so, there’s a potential, if not actual, controlling force in the activity of other TNC’s in the SCC, and beyond.
Your point about Vanguard is well-taken…but I would note that, such a large proportion of capital investment (in index funds, e.g.), if it were pulled from said funds, can have a major consequence in that (index fund) market, and thus potentially produce a wave of “pull outs” from other like or related indexes, etc. That said, it is clear that capital always wants more capital, and any single pull out in a given fund, could simply mean a transfer of said capital to other funds…winners and losers, as it were…Still a control move, or power play.
So, while I would concur with your “passive role” observation, to a degree, I would suggest that this passive role is only by choice (motivated by other factors), and can be changed if market forces, or TNC activity/moves, were to somehow change and motivate some exercise in TNC control, however indirect.
As to your last point, I am not entirely clear on this. What are the “large holdings” that these putative large banker/trader organizations possess? If not stocks (equity shares, etc.)…then what are they — properties, equipment, natural resources (private)?
It would be interesting to pick one of these non-stock holding entities and trace just what exactly they do own, that gives them a “place at the table”, or a central position in the bow tie. (i.e., the SCC)
haha
you opened our eyes
suggest a better way. In details please like if it could work.
Vassily K.
Thanks for your comment.
I really don’t know, at this point, what “a better way” might be…the first step to a more equitable power distribution in the world (which in theory would make the global economy more stable) is to analyze said power networks/concentrations (as done in this analysis).
After that, it remains for observers to responsibly bring this information to the public…then, it is up to the people and the leadership (assuming they are not corrupted) to advocate, develop and enforce a more equitable, sane, balanced network of ownership…or, failing this, to develop a network wholly apart (globally, publicly owned) from this other, private one…such that the private network’s activities can be off-set (counter-balanced) in times of financial/economic trouble or crisis…
Doug
Thanks for your comment.
Although I make little if any political commentary in my post, I do agree on some of your points. To wit:
Over the past 2 years or so, I began wondering why the U.S. private sector (the corporate sphere in general) seems so indifferent to the exporting of manufacturing jobs, the decline in wages/employment, the decline of the middle class (and the union membership that built this class, post WW II)…when these US workers are responsible (largely) for the amassed wealth of these companies and corporations…are they not shooting themselves in their own feet (in a profit-making sense)?
After some thought, I began to realize that what is permitting this indifference to US workers’ declining worth and purchasing power, is the rise of new markets elsewhere (China, Southeast Asia, India, Brazil [South America in general), Eastern Europe)…each of which, although less wealthy, comparatively, than the US middle class (formerly the main consumer engine of the world), are also larger in population (total numbers and growth rates) with rising standards of living.
These markets represent a new, global consumer-driven market just waiting to be exploited.
Thus, a “volume model” is at work here…aided by the increasingly global (transnational) nature of corporate business. How long can this be sustained? How long will these new markets last before they reach an economic threshold?
…this is a guessing game…but, one can be sure that eventually, new markets will dry up (unless they can figure out a way to lift the standard of living of the entire African continent, which is not a bad thing, per se). But even that market (if it were to emerge) would top off eventually.
The main problem is, of course, that said “standard of living” is largely based on an American-European standard, which is carbon-heavy, wasteful and unsustainable.
Global business practice buys itself a bit more time, a few more decades perhaps…but the long-term sustainability of the current economic model (expansion into new markets to off-set declines in traditional markets) is untenable.
Do we want the world to enjoy better lives? Yes, of course. But we also don’t want the rest of the world to repeat the mistakes we have made (which they seem to be doing, more or less). There is a global climate crisis afoot (and a pending economic one) that will require global cooperation to solve.
This is THE challenge of the 21st century.
I think the point is missed… look deeper and you will see ‘green’ investment by the energy companies… financially they are crashing the system and the same people will prop it back up with a green resource based market… the threads are already in place, they just need a global crash and crisis to get us all on board… nice little bait and switch-
Here is a related issue:
The IMF controls much of the global carbon cap and trade market; money from this trading (about 1/3) is then invested in carbon-intensive industries…counter-productive (for climate control) to say the least.
Point being that even if said green investments are being made, if, simultaneously, investments are being made in (thus supporting) the same carbon-heavy industries (like mining), then this would seem to cancel out (or render neutral) much of the benefit of green investing.
Which is not to say that said green investing should be stopped!
Granted, from a capital point of view, it make sense to invest in some emerging/promising technologies/industries (green), while still maintaining capital investment in old, profitable ones (however heavily polluting).
But from the public good perspective, this is hypocritical and corrupt…and harmful in the long-term.
To the reader:
The above-listed link (‘A network centric counter-hegemonic strategy’) is for a a French-English (academic/political science) blog, offering a paper entitled: ‘Tracing and reconfiguring networks to build a political alternative’
The published abstract reads (in part):
“…this paper aims to highlight the potentially political dimension of network analysis, namely as defined in the social sciences, and of the notion of networks itself. It will be shown that a political project could, in this case, be built on the desire to know this reticular world better, but also to be able to act appropriately towards it.”
…and offers three steps for achieving this result.
I’d like to see the entire list and compare it to the ALEC list of 300 corporations ..
FYI to the reader:
ALEC (according to wikipedia.org):
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a conservative, non-profit 501(c)(3), lobbying organization, the membership of which consists of both state legislators and private sector policy advocates. Among other activities, the group provides a venue for its private sector members to assist its legislative members in developing model laws for state legislatures; it also serves as a networking tool among legislators, allowing them to research the handling of policy in other states.
Ms Simson:
Thanks for your comment.
As to your wonder, since this is a national network, I suspect that only a relative few members (of ALEC) will show up in this global network ‘core’ (as noted in the post; previous analyses of networks: national verses international/transnational, etc.)…
…but yes, it would still be interesting to see how these “smaller” national players connect up with the global TNC control holder network.