OVERALL OBJECTIVES:

Globalisation and deregulation are very often presented as if they implied each other. This vision does not seem correct. A great deal of examples show that the regulation of social and economic activities continue to play a very important role in the global economy and society. Regulation is not only required to deal adequately with environmental and social issues such as sustainable development or core social and labour standards. The globalisation of economic activity itself has created new needs for regulation. To give only four examples: it is now undisputed that the liberalisation of capital movements require an increased surveillance of domestic financial systems so as to avoid an internal crisis which could very easily propagate world-wide; a “knowledge economy” is not possible without an adequate protection of intellectual property rights; the protection of foreign investment requires adequate legislation to this effect and clear rules on the relations between government and enterprises; rules on competition are needed so as to guarantee an adequate functioning of markets.

Of course, new problems require new types of regulation. And the globalisation process demands an adequate equilibrium between domestic and global rules. This adaptation to new realities seems difficult. The failure of the negotiations of a Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the framework of the OECD proved that even industrialised countries are unable to find common ground on a question of such paramount importance as foreign investment. The failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference of Seattle is even more worrying because it proves that the whole multilateral system is not immune to a crisis that could be extremely dangerous for the whole world. These failures are well known, but not enough attention is given to the fact that they were failures of the regulatory systems, which simply prove the importance of regulation in our present world.

Experiencie seems to prove that the adoption of an overall view (vision d’ensemble) would help to avoid such failures and to advance towards an improved regulatory framework better adapted to the reality of globalisation. This approach should be d’ensemble in three senses. Firstly, it should be interdisciplinary and able to understand the different aspects of the reality to be studied: economic, political, legal... Secondly, it should address the problems both at the domestic and international levels without aprioristic assumptions as to which level is “the good one”. Thirdly, it should be able to correctly analyse a system of intermingled international agreements and organisations which tend to overlap ever more; here again, the objective would not be to try to identify “the good ones” but to develop criteria allowing for some rationalisation.

To develop such an approach requires a collective effort. Experts are normally specialists in one academic discipline (law, economics, sociology, political science...) but not in others, in either domestic or international aspects of the problems to be studied, or in some specific sector. It is very difficult to develop an overall view, even among people who believe that it is the correct approach. That is why the main objectives of this workshop are to set up the bases of this "vision d'ensemble".

THE RELEVANCE OF THIS INITIATIVE:

This initiative is important because of:

• the increasing challenges stemming, inter alia, from the globalisation of economies;
• the need to identify ways to manage and control changes and to involve more actively European citizens in shaping their own futures;
• the re-appraisal of participation mechanisms for collective action at all levels of governance;
• the need of enhancing the analytical capacity of social sciences to make them more able of supporting policy-making.

THE CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART ON THE SUBJECT:

The subjet of the economic globalisation and its social consequences has given rise to an enormous amount of literature in recent times. On the other hand, the specialists on International Politics and on International Law have dealt extensively with the new developments in their respective fields. But there is nearly no cross-fertilisation between the different approaches.

In the United States (and also in Latin America), the development in recent years of a new approach to International Political Economy has certainly helped to improve the understanding of the interrelation between economy and politics. But the new International Political Economy leaves completely aside, in general, any treatment of legal questions. Very often, it seems to adopt a kind of vulgar Marxist approach according to which the legal worls is nothing else than a "superstructure" manipulated by economic and political interests. But the practical experience of national and international polítics (for example, within the European Union) show the "autonomy" of the legal system and the influence it exerts on the management of the economy as well as a framework for policy-making.

In some sense, the situation is even worst in Europe, where the lack of dialogue between economists, jurists and political scientists is even greater than in America. As a matter of fact, the true European specialists on the regulatory framework of globalisation are the civil servants (from national administrations or from Community institutions) which participate in the work of groups and committees within the European Union, or within the WTO and the OECD. But they do not possess the ability or the time availability to translate their practical experience into public knowledge. On the other hand, in most cases, they are only specialists in some aspects of the regulatory framework of the economic activity and are completely absorbed by the day-to-day business, lacking, therefor, the necessary perspective and overall view.

This workshop proposed by the Observatory of Globalisation will be truly path-breaking. To give only a last example, no satisfactory account has been done yet of the history of the most important international economic negotiations after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round: the negotiations within the OECD of a Multilateral Agreeement on Invesment (not to talk of a satisfactory analysis of the reasons of their failure). But this is a subject the analysis of which is essential and should provide a lot of clews on the difficulties to be confronted in order to create an adequate regulatory framework for the globalisation process.

GENERAL CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY

In order to attain the objectives just explained, the emphasis must not be placed on the analysis of the main aspects of economic globalisation or of its main social repercussions as such. As a matter of fact, they are at present well identified as "problems", that is to say, leaving open the policy discussion related to their treatment.

The emphasis should not be placed on this discussion of policy, neither. The workshop accepts the premise that different policy choices for the management of the economy and related social questions are possible (and even desirable not to empty the democratic process of its very meaning).

These two considerations explain why the workshop does not rely on the participation of specialists in specific aspects of applied economics, sociology or political science nor on that of acting polititians. The workshop relies, on the one side, on high level practitioners (civil servants, in particular) who, with a sound formation in different social disciplines, know by experience that issues related to the globalisation process (and recognised by everyone as "true issues") can be extremely resilient to an adequate regulatory treatment. On the other side, it relies on academics who have been keen in studying the real functioning of political and legal institutions.

As the goal of the workshop is not that of providing final results but that of identifying areas and activities for further research, the discussion to be conducted in it should be quite open-ended, leaving the door open to any useful idea that could be put forward. For the same reason, the drafting of the final report, recollecting and organising all these ideas, will be nearly as important as the publication of the workshop proceedings and the papers submitted.

Nevertheless, the workshop will be organised in a standard fashion, diferentiating two levels of participation: the experts who will prepare writen papers and the rest. The written papers will be of variable length, content or form. Short contributions in non academic form from experienced civil servants can very usefully complement more standard academic literature.

• Ana Palacio (Member of the European Parliament): Effectiveness and legal certainty: Rethinking traditional regulatory instruments
  

• Myoung-Ho Shin (Vicepresident; Asian Development Bank): Monetary and Financial Cooperation in East Asia: Recent initiatives and future challenges