21st Century citadel

Citadel for 21st Century aristocrats?

One thing absent from this blog is a ‘Theory of Everything’, reducing everything back to one fundamental explanation. The closest I’ve come may be a recurring line that humans tend to make decisions in a reactive way, a.k.a. short-termism. Locke and Spender’s book Confronting Managerialism: How the Business Elite and Their Schools Threw Our Lives Out of Balance certainly provides a grand unified theory of everything wrong with the world of commerce, including the issues with globalisation that I highlight on this blog and a lot more besides.

The idea can be summed up very briefly: “managerialism” (as distinct from management) is the belief that membership of the management caste and its codified knowledge gives one an entitlement to govern, and not just to govern companies but governments and nonprofit institutions as well. This knowledge is acquired in business school. Yet, the authors argue, business school education is disconnected from real life. It describes the world in quantitative terms that assume perfect, closed systems and ignores tacit knowledge. It mistakes the balance sheet for reality. Despite its hubris, Business education had no role in instigating the biggest revolutions in business in the last 40 years: the quality revolution and the tech start-up phenomenon, both of which happened in spite of rather than because of what people learn in business school.

That wouldn’t be so bad if managerialism was a purely theoretical belief but business schools are not fringe organisations; people instilled with these notions do become real-world managers. The result is managers who, with their excessive emphasis on financialisation, believe their main task is to drive up the stock price, not to make products well. Products are of secondary importance only. The results speak for themselves: tottering companies in the Anglophonic world that lurch from one stock price boosting initiative to the next, undermining their own long-term value before being bought out or collapsing under their own weight (not that the responsible executives care, having long since departed for new pastures). Locke and Spender contrast this with German and Japanese firms where managers do not think of themselves as a caste apart and adopt more collaborative governance styles aimed at the long-term prospering of the enterprise for the benefit of all involved including, not least, customers.

Locke and Spender also comment on the failure of Christian Churches in the English-speaking world to provide a moral counterbalance to the amorality of Business School education (something I too noticed last year in this post). In both the Chinese and Islamic worlds, economics is paired with ethical imperatives. By contrast, ethics as taught in Business school is subservient to economic values and therefore ultimately futile:

self-interest in financial firms cannot be a “good” unless their market trades are involved in wealth creation. Since they are not, and business schools are doing nothing institutionally to promote financial markets as wealth-creating entities, business school talk about ethics is a concoction of fantasy (p. 173).

Ouch.

My only criticism of the book is that it spends lots of time talking about cultural differences which is all very illuminating but I expected more space would have been allocated to business education specifically. I’d suggest William Deresiewicz’s Excellent Sheep might make a better starting point for anyone interested.

Postscript

Right on the second page, there is an acknowledgment of former Christian Brother Godfrey Regio’s film Koyaanisqatsi as the source of the book’s subtitle “How the Business Elite and Their Schools Threw Our Life Out of Balance”. In a pleasing circularity, the end credits of Koyaanisqatsi acknowledge the work of former Jesuit Ivan Illich for ‘inspiration and ideas’ and Illich, fittingly, is best known for a book titled Deschooling Society.

I wrote about Illich’s ideas in this post.

Also related:

Originally posted on Centre For Workers Education:

International Capital Mobility, Global value chains and the Emerging Labour Movement in Asia

Download PDF

Book on Emerging Trends in Factory Asia

In the last three decades, there has been a sea change in the global political economy and the socio-economic and cultural environment of the society as well as the physical environment. The world of labour has been decisively changed, not for the better, but for the worse. This was accompanied by the downfall of many labour movements as well as social, cultural and political movements. As the socio-political and economic structures that existed up to the late 1970s and early 1980s gradually changed and were then decisively transformed in 1990s, the socio-cultural and political movements of that period were also marginalised and later were largely made irrelevant. With the restructuring of economies and industries and in this overall anti-labour environment, trade unions were by and large paralysed and…

View original 991 more words

The past few days saw the coincidence of two events relating to Bangladesh factory safety, the latest developments since the April 2013 Rana Plaza disaster that resulted in the death of over 1,000 workers who were making clothes destined for the shelves of American and European retailers.

The first is the 2000-person World Congress of UNI Global Union, one of the global union federations (GUFs) behind the Bangladesh Accord, which is still underway in Cape Town. The second was the 3700-person Dhaka Apparel Summit and associated International Trade Expo for Building and Fire Safety, held in Dhaka. The latter were held with the involvement of the Bangladesh Alliance, the rival, employer-led response to Bangladesh factory safety.

The two events illustrate the difference in the two approaches, which could be characterised as bottom-up versus top-down. The GUF-backed Accord regards independent trade unions as the optimum solution. However there is a catch: unionisation in Bangladesh’s garment sector is almost negligible and neither the government nor employers encourage their formation. The Accord’s backers are of the view that the workers of Bangladesh may be waiting around forever if fully-fledged unions were seen as the ‘only’ solution and have accepted the proximate goal of establishing work health and safety councils in the various factories who sign up to it. Such councils are not the same as independent unions but at least, it is hoped, they don’t displace unions.

Other than completing many safety inspections it is difficult to measure what the Accord has accomplished. At least there has not been another Rana Plaza so that is something.

What bothers me about it is that there is a garment workers’ union in Bangladesh, the National Garment Workers Federation (NGWF). This is them:

Hameem 3

Hameem PM pic 3

Curious what the guy with the microphone is saying? Yeah, me too. Something tells me he isn’t talking about how great the factory conditions are but rather voicing grievances about wages that are too low to live on, wage theft and recalcitrant employers. Unfortunately we aren’t hearing his voice, we are hearing from the Global North staff doing the much narrower work of the Accord, telling us how much progress has been made.

The problem is, the NGWF has only a very small number of members in an industry with 4 million workers. Yes it’s legitimate and democratic but it does not have the reach to make a significant impact. What does one do, stand by and wait for it to scale up, which may never happen? Essentially the GUFs are doing nothing different to what many NGOs and UN bodies do: intervening to prevent disaster rather than waiting for local organisations to develop the capacity to do it themselves. That’s fine as long as there is a real plan to hand over but I’ve not heard that there is one, only a hope that it will be possible at some point in the future.

In fact there is no guarantee that unions in the developing world will ever “grow up” into mass-membership organisations that practice a congenial form of tripartism (co-operation between workers, employers and the state), as the affiliates of the GUFs do. I am not convinced that the twenty-first century economy will be structured in a way that will allow that to happen. Rather than looking at developing world labour movements through the lens of the twentieth century we should accept that the developing world of today is not going through the comparatively gently staged process of modernisation that happened in Europe and the United States. People are moving directly from their parents’ farms to a first job in workplaces with inscrutably complex ownership structures (see related post). Perhaps those of us in the Global North should spend more time learning how people are grappling with this reality on the ground and ask how we might assist them to win power in their workplaces before rushing at short-term but possibly unsustainable fixes.

Still … it’s better to get most of what you want than hardly any of what you want

The limitations of the Accord’s approach should be kept in context. Total inaction was a real possibility, which would have resulted in no improvement at all. However we also have an example of how not to do it; the Bangladesh Alliance who are behind the Dhaka Apparel Summit who obligingly drew attention to the difference this past weekend.

The industry groups backing the Alliance make themselves the subject rather than the object of the process. They proactively ‘sell’ safety and training products to businesses operating in Bangladesh. One has to wonder just how beneficial this really is to Bangladeshi workers. A bunch of white expat workers fly in and sell products to other white expat workers. The money probably doesn’t even change hands in Bangladesh. I smell opportunism. Meanwhile the Bangladesh government, rather than actively directing what is going on, stands back and watches.

As I learned earlier in the year,

What would have been really good for Bangladesh as a country would be to establish an internal market for higher-end manufacturing of this sort, creating higher-paying employment for Bangladeshis. Alas it appears the opportunity has been missed and the Alliance’s net contribution to the situation is to make people in the Global North even richer. Meanwhile, street demonstrations over wages will continue in the streets of Dhaka.

Also related:

Originally posted on Talking Union:

 by Paul Garver

Insuregency Trap cover image

Eli Friedman’s Insurgency Trap: Labor Politics in Postsocialist China is indispensable for anyone trying to understand what is happening with hundreds of millions of internal migrant workers in China today. Postsocialist China has become the world’s largest manufacturing center and exporter to the rest of the world, and the future of Chinese society and of the global economy hinges on whether the new Chinese working class remains excluded from its social and political system.

View original 283 more words

Originally posted on the followthethings.com blog:

View original

Originally posted on Listen Girlfriends!:

Designer Kahindo Mateene is producing a line of clutches using scraps from her line of apparel, Modahnik. Designer Kahindo Mateene is producing a line of clutches upcycling scraps from her line of apparel, Modahnik.

When designer Kahindo Mateene came to the United States at the tender age of seventeen to attend college, her classmates couldn’t stop asking where she got her clothes. A native of the Democratic Republic of Congo who had also lived and traveled extensively in Africa, Europe, and North America, the global nomad was a little taken aback by the attention she received for her vibrant, multi-cultural hand-made designs. After studying fashion at the Illinois Institute of Art in Chicago, Kahindo was finally able to pursue her dream of creating a line that would fuse her African heritage with western design sensibilities. In 2009 she launched Modahnik, a sophisticated, sexy couture collection that features bright colors and bold prints for the every-day, modern woman. Besides earning her respect in the fashion industry…

View original 1,098 more words

CompendiumOfSocialDoctrineThe last week saw a watershed moment for Catholicism in the Anglosphere: the Catholic Bishops Conference for the U.S. state of Maryland endorsed the political objective of raising the minimum wage.

Why is this a big deal? For decades the Church’s hierarchy in the USA have been more inclined to speak out on personal morality issues. Pundits might attribute the shift to the Pope Francis effect but really it’s a moment that had to come sooner or later as the American Dream is manifestly not working out and the majority of the country is seeing their living standards go backwards.

What it draws attention to is just how anemic English-speaking Catholicism is on economic matters. Other than the Maryland bishops, who is seeking to apply the clear words of the Gospels or of papal and conciliar documents into specific, present-day proposals?

I was pleased to learn that a French author Antoine R. Cuny, a layman, has written a book called Finance Catholique; a wholesale critique of the existing system of global finance in the light of Christian values (alas it has not as yet been translated into English). He sets out in pretty direct language what financial practices are and aren’t acceptable to Christian morality. What a refreshing change from the timid, oblique suggestions English speakers have become accustomed to. This is his list of eleven ‘financial sins':

  1. Price volatility due to speculation
  2. Wage inequality
  3. Excessive use of leverage
  4. Commodification of workers
  5. Short-termism
  6. Losing sight of non-economic values such as scarcity & productivity
  7. Failure to share the profits from an enterprise
  8. Anonymity and disempowerment of investors
  9. Tax havens and tax avoidance generally
  10. Adverse effects on the environment
  11. Lack of transparency

In the employment relations field, there used to be an entire confederation of trade unions active in Latin America and Continental Europe which promoted Christian social doctrine in economic matters, the World Confederation of Labour. It merged with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (now ITUC) in 2006 and its voice disappeared into the secular arguments used by the larger organisation. Nothing against secular arguments, but there is definitely a loss of synergy with the pulpit, the result being that churchgoers waste time fretting about cultural trends that they can’t influence while not looking too closely in the mirror when they go to work.

Related post: