This book demonstrates conclusively that the World Bank has done little more than shore up colonial economic structures. However, instead of stopping there, Brown goes on to demonstrate that African institutions and progressive NGOs provide an excellent alternative to the World Bank model -- an alternative that stresses development led by the people of Africa themselves.

The first part of this booklet is a re-publication of an article written by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair for Prospect magazine (March 2001). It is a curious article which appeals for an end to attacks on his "third way" on the basis of a bogus left unity: "for the left itself to join in is a curious form of self-mutilation. Constructive criticism is healthy: lazy negativism is not" (p.3). This implies that the "left" is a monolithic whole and that this whole identifies with the Blair project. Of course neither is true. The hurt tone of Blair's comments does indicate, however, that he has been stung by criticisms of his project...

His counterblast uses NuSpeak about NuLabour. He describes those who work for charities and the voluntary sector as "social entrepreneurs". Is this the way they see themselves? Isn't the analogy between society and the market just too stretched here? Blair also makes attempts to equate his "third way" with the term "progressive politics". The implication is that there is no other way forward. The misuse of language by Blair certainly jarred with me. I was pleased to see that others felt likewise. The two critics of Blair writing in part two of the pamphlet point out a number of his strange language habits including stating contradictions "as if they were combinations" (p19) Can anyone using language in this way ultimately avoid deluding themselves?

Tony Blair highlights six areas where we need "to grapple new issues" (p.6). These are harnessing new technologies; transforming education; inequality and social mobility; overhauling government and public service provision; renewing democracy and international engagement. I found the most amusing in the list "renewing democracy and overcoming the alienation and disconnection from politics that is a marked feature of our lives" (p.7). The last General Election saw one of the poorest turn-outs ever. Most of those questioned as to why they didn't vote stated they did not believe it would change anything. The constitutional changes brought in by NuLab have not heightened interest in politics significantly or raised the level of debate. More and more people are interested in issues which appear to remain unaddressed by any of the establishment parties. Many regard the rituals of a representative democracy - like the placing of a cross on a ballot paper every few years - as outdated and of little effect. The more intelligent view the establishment parties as simply the enabling mechanisms of big economic interests.

Blair nowhere suggests that a real transfer of power is needed to revitalise our democracy. Power relations are seldom discussed by Blair at all. Blair says that "Democracy needs to respond to people's demand that they have a right to be listened to even if decisions do not always go the way they want".(p.7) It seems that people are asking for the right to be listened to before they are ignored. A curious demand.

We in the real Third Way have argued for years that measures that transfer power are needed to build an active and responsible citizenry. We favour Swiss-style direct democracy, reform of the voting system and measures to ensure fair allocation of media time amongst others. Blair does not even consider these options.

In Part Two of the booklet, Ken Coates and Michael Barratt Brown reply to Blair. They are uncompromising in their criticism. They say Blair's "third way" has simply "afforded a media friendly cover for the extension of neo-liberal politics of de-regulation, the untrammelling of market forces, privitisation and the roll-back of welfare."(p.10) Elsewhere they say "the Third Way is the takeover of Labour by Capital"(p.14)

These critics are far from lazy. They ask pertinent and sensible questions. Quoting one of Blair's mantras on dynamic markets combining with strong communities they ask "how is that to be done when the jobs are gone on which the communities depended?"(p.16). They rightly point out that in the list of Blair's social innovations, the University for Industry, NHS Direct etc "Any transfer of power involved in these initiatives moves away from popular involvement."(p.18) The ethos of NuLab is really top-down, we know better than you.

Ken Coates and Michael Barratt Brown address the real issue -- power. This is something Blair never does. As they say "If fairness means social justice we need not what Blair keeps offering us which is 'a sense of social justice', but the reality. That means the actual redistribution of power and income, not only by a fundamental revision of our system of taxation and public spending, but by a genuine shift in the balance of wealth and power." (p.19).

The critics neatly summarise where we are heading: "Effective markets mean the domination of the largest accumulations of capital and globalisation means that these will be primarily American".(p.19)

 

THIS BOOK by Michael Barratt Brown sheds some light on the origins of the war in Yugoslavia. Like all serious studies, it shows that the wars were not the result of ethnic differences. There are no ethnic differences among the Slavs who make up Yugoslavia. Serbs, Croats and Muslims are not separate nations: they are all Slavs.

But why then did this ghastly conflict suddenly erupt when it did? To answer this question, we have to look at Yugoslavia's economic record. In the late 1980s, Yugoslavia suffered a massive economic crisis.

From its inception in 1945, Tito's Government had tried to integrate Yugoslavia into the capitalist system, receiving credits from the US Government. In 1960, the Yugoslav Government gave up the state monopoly of foreign trade; this meant that it could not protect the country's infant industries. It borrowed heavily from Western banks: the resulting debt payments absorbed 30 per cent of export earnings.

By the 1980s, Yugoslavia had the highest level of debt to national income of any country in Europe. The EC and the banks rejected the Yugoslav Government's requests for help with rescheduling their debts. They demanded that the debts be paid, whatever the cost. The ever-increasing debt burden caused economic disaster. Yugoslavia's economy suffered a catastrophic collapse, which led to a social breakdown.

Barratt Brown quotes Susan Woodward's book, The Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and dissolution after the Cold War, (Brookings Institution, 1995), "The conflict ... is the result of the politics of transforming a socialist society to a market economy and democracy. A critical element of this failure was economic decline, caused largely by a program intended to resolve a foreign debt crisis. More than a decade of austerity and declining living standards corroded the social fabric and the rights and securities that individuals and families had come to rely on." The Guardian/Channel 4 book, Bloody Bosnia, ignores this economic disaster.

In 1983, Yugoslavia placed itself in the International Monetary Fund's hands. The IMF imposed economic measures that as usual worsened the problems. It insisted on cuts in the universal social services and in the programmes which to some extent redistributed wealth to the less developed regions. Devolution of power to the regions also undercut the economic integration so vital to building a united nation.

Yugoslavia stopped being a single market: the South of Yugoslavia lost its Northern markets for primary products. Only a third of its national output and 20 per cent of its capital movements circulated between the regions. This, incidentally, shows how important it is that Britain's workers reintegrate England, Scotland and Wales economically, even under capitalism, to prevent further economic decline.

Between 1980 and 1984, Yugoslavia's standard of living fell by 30 per cent, and unemployment rose to 15 per cent. By 1989, Kosovo's unemployment rate was 50 per cent; in the southern regions, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia, it was between 20 and 30 per cent.

This book shed light on the origins of the war in Yugoslavia. It shows that it is wrong to blame the whole disaster on Serbian aggression, or indeed on Croat fascism or on Bosnian fundamentalism. But if nationalism is not to blame for the war, why does Barratt-Brown maintain that his book's central theme is to 'condemn all forms of nationalism'? Surely, his economic analysis has shown that capitalism, not nationalism, is to blame for the war.

From a 'Left' perspective, he argues, wrongly, that any attempt to build a self-reliant economy must end in disaster, and that only a federal, capitalist, Europe can prevent wars. But the Yugoslav government, as we have seen, relied increasingly on capitalism, creating rivalry between regions and enterprises. This deepened regional inequalities, and increased the pressures towards devolution and breakup. The government imported goods that Yugoslavs could have produced themselves; this created huge debts and increased unemployment.

The people of Yugoslavia, like those of other countries, will have to take responsibility for rebuilding their country. This is a process in which outside forces will have no part.

I was deeply disappointed with this book. It should be entitled A LABOUR SLANT on Models of Political Economy. Don't come to this book looking for a relatively impartial look at Keynesianism or Monetarism or any other model. All Monetarists have horns. If you don't mind the 'Labour Party good, everybody else immoral' slant of this book then this might be the book for you. Finally, here is the kicker. I have always voted for left wing candidates. But I didn't know that I was buying a Labour tract.