Page 137 - Culture Society and Economy

Robotham-07.qxd 1/31/2005 6:24 PM Page 130

CULTURE, SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

number of reasons. First of all, in the interest of many developing
countries that produce, say, bananas, and who depend on the world
market production and consumption of bananas for their livelihood.
The IFG group is strongly in solidarity with the plight of developing
countries and an aggressive advocate of debt cancellation. They recog-
nize that banning such trade would be extremely harmful for the stan-
dard of living of millions of people in the developing world and so this
is one of the cases of long-distance trade that will be allowed to persist
for a considerable period of time. They are also well aware that some
goods and raw materials cannot be produced locally, either because
they are simply not available or because of the obvious benefits of the
economies of scale in the provision of certain goods and services – for
example, energy and rail services. The trading of these on a long-
distance basis too would be permitted as exceptions. Third, it may be
the case that better off groups that have the money may be permitted
to purchase luxuries but this would not be common. The point to note
in all of this is that the aim is not an absolute ban on long-distance trade
now or in the future. The aim is to reduce and limit this trade to the
absolutely minimally possible level, taking the above factors into con-
sideration. Thus what is being aimed at is what one might call ‘relative’
rather than ‘absolute’ autarky.
This proposal for local production, consumption and trade is also
accompanied with a proposal for a generous sharing of information and
culture on a voluntary international basis. IFG is not putting forward a
purely inward looking not-in-my-backyard approach. What it is seeking
to do is to combine a core localism with a voluntarily expansive and inter-
nationalist inter-relationship of sharing between communities. Thus, the
proposal contains major measures to transfer technology from the devel-
oped to developing countries, but this must be appropriate technology
which minimizes consumerism and environmental damage.
A critical aspect of the proposals for localization of the economy is
that these do not envisage any major changes in property relations. The
vision is very much of a dominant private sector made up of locally
owned businesspersons and supported where necessary by large-scale
trans-local institutions carefully controlled by democratic procedures.
The IFG group is clearly aware that this will mean the persistence of
some social and economic inequalities at the local level.
This does not mean that no intrusions on private property relations are
contemplated, for there is some room left for maneuver. The most explicit
statement I was able to find on this ticklish issue was the following:

130