past, the mankind progress has enjoyed the accelerated deployments of the .... exploit earth sources to the benefit of man communities. The progress is forced to ...
Globalisation Scenarios: Changeful Knowledge Society vs. Growth Sustainability Rinaldo C. MICHELINI DIMEC, University of Genova, Via Opera Pia 15/A Genova, 16145, Italy and Roberto P. RAZZOLI DIMEC, University of Genova, Via Opera Pia 15/A Genova, 16145, Italy
ABSTRACT The millennium start deals with tangled globalisation scenarios, together showing that the industrialism cycle turns into a blind alley. The upcoming progress, requests drastic changeovers. The shortly recalled scenarios, to some extent, mention well assessed views, specifically, the economic and the ecologic ones; in addition, suggest changeful visions, i.e., the social and the cognitive ones, to allow devising possible growth continuance. Keywords: Social-Ecology-Economy-Cognitive Global Views, Sustainable Growth, Knowledge Society.
1. INTRODUCTION The global knowledge infrastructures are technologydriven achievements, which allow looking with hopeful prospects at the yet-to-be populations future. In the near past, the mankind progress has enjoyed the accelerated deployments of the industrial revolution. The paradigms are grounded on the extensive exploitation of artificial energy, to massively transform raw materials into useful goods, at rates exceeding the spontaneous recovery and reclamation processes. This brings to over-consumption and over-pollution, whether the quality of life should be preserved at the present levels. The trend is, doubtlessly, open to discussion. For sure, the progress is artificial construct, based on clever utilization of the earth resources by the ‹technical capital›, purposely developed by the scholars and broadly utilised in the processing of the ‹natural capital›. We are get used to trust the axiom “nothing destroys, all transforms”, maybe as if the entropy is nuisance to be confined to cosmic time scales, hardly perceived at man dimension. Indeed, the knowledge society develops patently proposing new paradigms, having the value added in intangibles [6]. The progress, up now, seems to
be fairly monotonic: when the impediments become critical, the humanity discovers the know-how to go ahead by ‹revolutions›. Thus, after the old ‹agricultural› and the recent ‹industrial›, we might be ready for the coming ‹cognitive› revolution. The ‹cognitive› revolution, whether it will take place, is closely linked with tricky globalisation changeovers towards anthropic events [17], which singularity turns around the earth two oddness: life and intelligence. Today, the evolutionism is currently accepted explanation of how the living beings flourish and adapt to the environment. The life is oddity with shadowy a priory probability, but real experimental meaning. The time span of the life evolution involves three or two billion years, period not simply to conceive. The intelligence has likewise obscure a priory probability; but factual a posteriori substantiation. Following current figures, the life changes follow the said span of the gene evolution. The intelligence build-up goes after the time scale of the human development, up to the (now recognized) civilisation. With resort to current standards, we look back less than one hundred thousand years to the homo sapiens, and about forty thousand years to start distinguishing marks of relational intelligence. The last time span is negligible compared to evolutionism (and, certainly, to the cosmologic progression). We might look at the meme evolution, promoting man civilisation on the basis of entailing the cultural up-grading towards advanced bond gatherings. The groups of pickers/hunters, the villages of farmers/breeders, the cities of craftsmen/ dealers, the nations of the bureaucrats/managers are example assemblies, which presume the public setting, after discovering and acceptation of the rational legality virtues (opposed to particular selfishness). The collective character distinguishes from the other living beings, so that the human progress aims at arranging the political cohesion of involved communities by lawfulness rules.
2. THE SOCIAL GLOBALISATION The models of the human progress hypothesise that ethics and culture are primary features, based on the relational intelligence, and bringing to structured political cohesion. The intellectual enhancement of the human beings brings about several results, e.g.: legality, opposed to robbery, and fairness, opposed to brutality. The civilisation trend presumes the social capacity, as inborn character of the mankind. The positive issues are evident all along the history; they lead to the group selection benefits, to the chosen people allegory and the nation-state achievements. Up now, the collective ethical goals have fostered the competition, allowing distinguishing the fellow citizens, opposite to foreigners [7]. The usual interpretation suggests generalising the gene selfishness principle, to propagate blood relations, and to expand descents carrying the same characters. The cultural association is becoming stronger tie compared to the genetic codes. In lieu of the gene evolution, the civilisation is described progressing by meme evolution. The mankind all shares the averaged genome. The multi-ethnical societies merely distinguish due to shared cultural habits (not necessarily common ancestors). The extension of legality and fairness spheres is mostly cultural convention. The superimposed agreements do refer to (genetic) racial motivations; the patriotism is only factual construct to inspire the citizen loyalty. Whether the ecology threat is common to the whole mankind, the legality and fairness cannot distinguish aliens from relatives. The coming new step of the meme evolution is thought to replace the competition between individuals, districts or nations, by the commonality of the global village people, being this the only way towards the sustainable growth planning. The fact is devised to hypothesise the «rationality» of the altruism, namely, the most balanced and effective solution to safeguard, as long as possible, the human civilisation. The social globalisation is inherently tied to the culture parable, from the group selection, when the involved sphere was maximally confined to blood links, through the nation patriotism, in which the citizenship affiliation is prescribed pledge, to come free from the tangible restrictions, so that the philanthropy envelops the enhancement of the ‹human capital› totality. The commonality of the altruism aims at maximising the interconnection value added, by minimising the misuses, due to biasing efforts.
At civilisation opening, it is replaced by transformation provisioning: initially, by land farming and livestock breeding, by agricultural produces and, lastly, by artificial energy and work organisation, by industrial products. The provision owing to man-chosen shifts allows increasing productivity, and pouring out goods by amounts linked to the involved operators. The interactions among the actors do not go on due to older schemata. The meme evolution interplay becomes driving issue towards efficiency, to exploit earth sources to the benefit of man communities. The progress is forced to deal with the shortage of goods. The scarcity, in the mankind history, ensues due to the transformation processes (e.g., seasons’ and weather’s events) and ambience alteration (e.g., global pollution) [9], [14]. The success is relative figure: the effectiveness allows distinguishing developed from developing communities. The reference political aggregation moves from the group selection, to the wealth of nations ideas. The «economy» maintains in the etymon the transit of the Greek ‹oicos› from home to homeland, expanding the related-by-blood families, to the linked-by-citizenship persons. The success through competition enjoys particular evidence at the industrial revolution, permitting the achievements of the western style nation-states. The ecology globalisation stops the trend. The ‹oicos nemein› (homeland’s ruling) affects all the populations: over-consumption and over-pollution are not relative figures; the effects involve the global village. The shortage of resources is comprehensive emergency, not simply dealt with by biased allocation. The rivalry allows short span appropriation and hoarding; it does not help, face to world-wide recovery/reclamation requisites. The nation-state dimension is fully inconsistent, when the (industrial) transformation efficiency is, by itself, devastation, affecting all, present and yet-to-be, people. The restrictions of the ‹natural capital› are acknowledged: the earth has finite stocks of raw materials; these, when transformed, contribute to dumping and contamination. Indeed, the ‹natural capital› relays on agricultural produces and on industrial products. The formers exploit farming and breeding, i.e., they involve living beings. The latter ones resort to manufacturing, i.e., they impose using artificial energy. The entropy increasing totally fixes in the provision processes, with manifest biasing the survival chances. The biology inspired conversions, on the contrary, put forward newly ordered issues, rejecting outside the entropy decay. When the ‹natural capital› balances need to be accounted, the agricultural produces are mainly renewable resources; the industrial products are undoubtedly non-renewable ones.
3. THE ECOLOGY GLOBALISATION The life quality progression models can characterise by staples, each time, accessible to satisfy the man necessities. The occurrence provisioning limited the grouping to resources spawned by spontaneous processes.
4. THE ECONOMY GLOBALISATION The economy globalisation is most evident feature of trans-national networking [8], permitting the enhanced
productivity of cross-border corporations [5]. The relational market gets free from local ineptitude. The value added in intangibles raises, by-passing nation-state bureaucracies. It results in conflict issues (e.g., the tax haven biases). It recently leads to serious crises, merging local and global bubbles, and combining coupled effects: the moral hazard favours unscrupulous bankers (protected by governmental measures); the international speculation benefits of precarious national administrations (e.g., Greece case within the ‹Euro› interstate agreements). The all troubles are well known facts; their account has, still, rather questionable acknowledgement. The models in economics modify because of the shakes about the rational equilibrium stability, shown by the recent crisis. In the debt/credit weighing, e.g., the balance-sheets are said having value compensation, so that the world financial wealth is zero, with, merely, demand and supply current re-sets. The convenient fiction of models with single interest rate is defensible as long as different rates move in concert; not when the agreements involve different sovereign countries; not when the securitisation resort to structured products. Albert Einstein is quoted having said: “the economists need to remember that things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”. The leveraging allows profits, making investments with virtual wealth, only when the GDP is (fast) rising [1], [2], [11]. It transforms into losses with steady trends, and it exposes to riches evaporation with recession. Yet, if autonomous decision-keeping processes operate, the models need to be made anticipatory, conceivably, based on plausible heuristics, or sometimes grounded on players’ rivalry. The rational market theories cannot extrapolate market equilibrium trends, since the instant values depend on the continuously voluntarily modified recent past. Anyway, the financial instruments are necessary enabler of all the economic processes. At the synergy stage, they are the necessary complement making the entrepreneurial achievement possible. The fact to need four co-operating capitals is hypothesis with clear implications. The resort to the virtual financial capital allows extended flexibility and versatility; of course, also, risk (liquidity traps, etc.), because the interplay with real assets can vanish [3], [4]. The ‹financial capital› description, anyway, keeps the ambiguity because its issuing, worth and control relays on (sovereign) nation-state authorities, and the economy globalisation interferes by foggy opportunities [10], [12]. 5. THE COGNITIVE GLOBALISATION The information and communication advances usefully contribute to intangible value added. The instrumental issues link with the «to de-materialise» option: the staple turns to relational items, after the industrial products (and
the land produces). The change of course allows wealth increase with limited entropy build-up [13]. The hesitations concern: ‘how far the material needs are satisfied?’ and ‘how deeply the contamination is removed?’. The safe progress requires quality checks on the allocated resources and on the overall side-effects. The «to de-materialise» option offers selective outcomes only, with (basically) neutral offshoots. Most of existing revival and remediation queries are unaffected. In view of the ecology globalisation, the progress reliability shall look at the pretty different «to re-materialise» option. The ‹natural capital› out-of-balance is, today, critical obstruction. The revolutionary know-how to go ahead is forced to deal with the over-pollution/over-consumption at the global village range. It is unsafe to devise sectional successes; the competition is blunted virtue; the stigma inexorably gets to affect the world over. The trust in the meme evolution suggests looking at past steps of the man changeovers. The agricultural and industrial revolutions discovered the «culture» (artificial rising of living beings; or: trained and refined state, induced in people) and the «industry» (business establishment, exploiting ordered work-organisation; or: diligence, i.e., personal zeal). The two link up tangible processes and human characters. Nonetheless, only the projections on the external world bring to the known ‹revolutions›; the internal qualities belong to «knowledge» domains. The oldest agricultural revolution dates back to prehistory (around ten thousand years ago). It was made possible, because preceded by ‹social breakthroughs›, permitting the political cohesion of the evolved communities. The relational intelligence brings to assess the superiority of the rational legality (over the brutish robbery). The dissimilar roles of competition and commonality have been considered, to devise the trend towards social globalisation on, primarily, ethics and culture drivers. The ‹invention› of the languages (to communicate and to distinguish natives from foreigners) and the writing (to hand down rules and commandments) is not less amazing than the ‹discovery› of the fire. Prometheus is acknowledged myth, dealing with the external world projection. Quite another way, the tower of Babel allegory imagines the native communication presetting, destroyed by man arrogance. The recent industrial revolution brings to the blind alley, depicted by the ecology globalisation. The ‹discovery› of safe technologies cannot neglect the entropy projections. The «to de-materialise» option is partial aid. The «to rematerialise» option is, then, nice help, if the life peculiar abilities are explored to build local orders with stocks’ regeneration and pollution removal scopes. The cognitive revolution follows, with the artificial exploitation of genetic codes for regenerative processes. The talent «intelligence» belongs to the tangible world, with outcome in «knowledge» increase, through self-sufficient processing. The cognitive faculty aims at self-sufficient
processes, to enable visible restoration and reclamation. The intelligence ability is required for process diagnosis and control. The joint artificial life-and-intelligence adds computer engineering to bio-sciences/technologies, moving the changeover towards «knowledge» domains. 6. STRATEGIC ORGANISATION MODES The all social-ecology-economy-cognitive globalisations link to the four human-natural-financial-technical capital assets. The knowledge society is technology-driven issue, by now highly appreciated, because of enabled «to dematerialise» options. The social globalisation might reliably converge towards altruism, if consciousness of partial solutions does not match viable rational legality. The ecology globalisation clearly explains global village shared destiny. The economy globalisation shows weird progression, merging sovereign nation-state self-interest and cross-border corporations self-centredness. The lack consistency is currently evident (e.g., tax havens), and becomes decisive at emergencies (e.g., debt threats and credit crunches). The cognitive globalisation is guess showing the knowledge society desirable breakthrough. The four globalisations have different motivations and implications. The social globalisation is opposed by the no-global groups, when castled in the autarchy; but also by the international bankers when use nation-state selfishness for moral hazard. Roughly, the ecologyeconomy dilemma brings to distinguish the global vs. noglobal preferences, when the other two globalisations are neglected. The hints previously sketched extend to consider links with four capital assets. The ‹human capital› is well valued entity, and its productivity is leading fact of industrialism. The ‹natural capital› is odd oversight by most analyses, as if the raw materials cycle can repeat eternally. The ‹financial capital› is prised entrepreneurial enabler, with synergy in association of the three other ones. It gives chance of virtual enhancements, especially, with resort to derivatives or structured instruments. At last, the ‹technical capital› permits describing technology and know-how, needed to manage and control all artificial transformations. The evaluation is tricky question, involving intangible quantities. The use of four capital assets permits distinguishing the particularities of the man actions in the civilisation deployment. Since the (hypothesised) archaic social breakthrough, the intangible value added exists whether transmissible. The ‹discovery› or ‹invention› makes sense, whether coded into know-how, handed on to support the ‹innovation›. The primarily relational (e.g., the writing) or the typical scientific (e.g., the chemistry) knowledge is forcedly linked with human actors (the scribe or the chemist), but since the very beginning the abstract development and educational activity is listed with autonomous worth.
The globalisation phenomena have curious character. The man, only, acknowledges the relational frames (discerned physical laws, promoted transformations and tied results). Yet, the separation spontaneous either civilisation frames is wholly meaningless. In fact, every man-established category has factual evidence, only whether linked to apt cognitive models. Thus, the singling out of the four globalisation modes is exercise showing the critical spirit of restricted views. 7. INNOVATION ETHICAL QUESTIONING The use of four capital assets permits distinguishing the native components, human and natural, from the artificial ones, financial and technical. The division brings apart the tangible world from the intangible constructs. The latter do not autonomously exist, because the related issues are totally dependent on the man activity. The ethical dimension of the artificial deployments is truth to be decided by accepting transcendental rules (which establish a priori stakes), or by acknowledging their actual usefulness (with resort to a posteriori checks). In any case, the ethical questioning relates to the use of the technical (and financial) capital, not on the quality of the artificial component. The quibble is recurrent along the man progress, from the myth of Prometheus, up to the Galileo or Darwin diatribes. The technology convergence of the «robot age» between computer engineering and bio-sciences/life-processes is not absolutely or strictly positive (or negative). The knowledge and know-how provide hypotheses and theories, to be tested, accepted, modified or rejected. Their application might prove to be helpful or harmful. For sure, we move from the existing scientific baggage, to devise new advances. The responsibility has human originators and controllers. Today, the entropy has clear evidence. The industrialism wealth is based on consumption and pollution, at rates exceeding the spontaneous recovery and reclamation. The life processes permit revival and remediation, with local entropy management. The life-technology deserves first choice, and the robot operation and govern effectiveness merits full attention. The innovation ethical questioning implies reconsidering the civilisation lawfulness (from cavemen on) and distinguishing absolute stakes not to be exceeded. Both operations are difficult, moving with an engineer’s mind. Thus, the «robot age» changeover is addressed as desirable choice (a priori authorised, only requiring a posteriori checks). All in all, the artificially-driven achievements of the global knowledge infrastructures permit to take into account the ecology globalisation threats (because: forewarned, forearmed). Next, by the social globalisation, the commonality is suited rational choice, and the rivalry is mostly inefficient. On such premises, the convergent
developments computer engineering and bio-technologies are possible bet. 8. WORLD GROWTH SHAPING To conclude the survey on linking the globalisation in its possible deployments [15], with the man civilisation progress [14], we need looking at the falls-off into actual and reliable improvements. The socio-political trends, the ecology vs. economy dilemmas, etc., show representative factors, at aggregate view-points. The knowledge society is new bet involving individual factors: the competitive advantages deploy at level of the personal engagement and education. The start of the new millennium deals with entangled globalisation scenarios, together showing that the end of a cycle, namely, the industrialism turns into a blind alley, and the upcoming progress, if likely, requests drastic changeovers. The above recalled scenarios mention well assessed facts (specially, in economy and ecology), and suggest new visions, i.e., the social and cognitive fields, to allow devising possible growth continuance. The global depictions are issues of mostly economydriven prospects. During the XIX century, the UK, once Napoleon defeated, rules the world over, by the longglobal assent, ended by world-war I. More recently, at the URSS disintegration, the USA runs the short-global assent, ending Sept. 11, 2001, with Twin Towers disaster. The single country hegemony is not sufficient to keep ordered ruling. Indeed, the final dates are conventional. The two global assents become wobbling, when the military leadership meets along multi-polar politicoeconomic distributions: sets of European nation-states, at the XX century beginning; sets of sub-continent size powers (China, India, etc.), now. The today economy globalisation is, however, the intricate upshot of technology (internet, world-wide-web) and trans-border corporations optimising their business, sheltered by national governments (and moral hazard) and exploring tax haven opportunities. The economy-ecology dilemma is made apparent by the no-global movements. The over-pollution and overconsumption (compared to spontaneous reclamation and recovery) show the inconsistency of industrialism. The quality of life, nonetheless, is highly linked with the availability of resources; it is not sufficient to show the contradictions; it is necessary to outline factual alternatives. From the ecology standpoints, the globalisation means looking at worldwide balances, because the pollution and the consumption refer to the common delimited earth. The end results affect the global village, and the eco-restrictions forcedly concern the totality of the world citizens. The social globalisation is hypothesis suggested by the man civilisation trends [16]. Ethics and culture are
peculiar of the humanity, proving relational intelligence options. The progress beginning moves from social breakthroughs, occurred more than ten thousands years ago, through group selection. The organised communities are more effective, and start handing down experiences and crafts, with hierarchic settlements. Later, the agricultural revolution allowed feeding bigger villages and cities; the differences between the fellow citizens and the strangers are fixed by habits and languages, so to define legality rules for co-operation and competition. The chosen people paradigm helps, fostering loyalty and patriotism, to consolidate the political cohesion (right or wrong, my country). Currently, the industrial revolution greatly profits of the nation-state settling, to expand the relative efficiency; in like time, the macro-economy measures operate strictly distinguishing the internal solidarity, as opposed to the external rivalry. The group selection, up now, promotes competition, due to selective commonality. The force of the law (Kant’s rule) favours the rational legality, as egalitarian virtue. The law of the force (Hobbes’ rule) allows imperialistic advantages, promoting the governmental interests of the highest cohesive countries. With the global village ecorestrictions, the commonality concerns the all humanity, yet-to-be generations included. The rational legality of the desired globalisation requires looking at the altruism, if the intent aims at preserving sustainable growth of the people to come. The analysis on the tangled four globalisations shows that the world growth conflicts against the sovereign nationstate self-interest and the cross-border corporations selfcentredness. At the level of the personal engagement and learning, the global universities are new options, since promoting world-wide meritocracy standards [18]. The higher education is further globalisation, which permits creating new elites, not tied to narrow border minds. The effects are difficult to guess, if based on hackneyed competition scales. They might move towards the changeful world reshaping, if grounded on coherent commonality ideas. The prospected analysis, at least, poses the discussion, if the world growth in its totality is main concern. 9. CONCLUSION In such spirit, we can suggest some conclusions. The economy globalisation is occurrence with more shadows than lights. The ecology globalisation shows the nonsense of transforming raw materials into waste and contamination, at rates exceeding the current healing and remediation. The social globalisation demonstrates that the sectional success is incompatible with preserving safe worldwide progress. The induced damages are shared threat, so that the rational behaviour can only promote altruism, whether constructive alternatives exist, with reliable consolidation of the mankind safeguard. The
devised deployments look at cognitive tracks, combining peculiarities of the ‹to de-materialise› and of the ‹to rematerialise› opportunities. The human wealth expands by artificial transformations, with value added incorporated to the natural resources: e.g., animated things, gaining the land produces, either, inanimate stuffs, getting the manufacture products. Roughly, the former lead to renewable, the latter to nonrenewable supplies. The revival/remediation chances give consistent issues in the first, not in the second situation. The chemistry spells out that materials transform and do not destroy, but entropy increases, so that the universe aims at undifferentiated chaos. The life is, nonetheless, oddity, which allows creating confined orders, even if in the all surroundings the entropy does not stop increasing. This explains how the artificial transformations based on animated things lead to mostly renewable resources. Now, the man progress on the earth is grounded on two oddities: life and intelligence. The latter one shows the way to ethics/legality and to knowledge/technology, that is, to the completion of political cohesion at different ranges, and to the development of technical know-how at apt sophistication. The former one permits exploiting (since agricultural revolution) man driven and controlled farming and breeding, as sources of useful riches. The industrial revolution brings about the resort to artificial energy, to improve effectiveness and productivity beyond the rhythms of bare inborn spontaneity. The benefits are, however, deceptive, because of pollution. Thus, the progress is stopped, unless the value added avoids (or counterbalances) all downgrading. The intelligence gives the way towards the knowledge build-up. The cognitive processes are based on intangibles, chiefly promoting the ‹to de-materialise› tracks, even if expanded to explore artificial intelligence means. The life consents to enable regenerative processes, by gene self-propagation. Surely, the track is bounded (if the entropy law is true). Yet, the sustainable growth can barely be planned according and within such framework, suitably exploring apt artificial life means. Now, the cognitive faculty is roughly equivalent to intelligence, understanding by that the capability of recognising sensorial data and classifying them into ordered bases, to extract regularities, cross-relations, inconsistencies, and the likes. Thus, the human intelligence is the singular ability, having the original side-effect of building-up the ‹knowledge›. The cognitive revolution aims at artificial exploitation of the genetic codes for locally regenerative processes. The talent «intelligence» belongs to the tangible world, with outcome in «knowledge» development, by self-sufficient processing. The cognitive faculty enables self-sufficient processes, to perform transparent restoration and reclamation outcomes, as standard business. The cognitive globalisation is end-result of converging
technologies: computer engineering and bio-sciences. The knowledge, which cannot exist without the man, turns up to be intangible extension of the tangible world, through the cognitive process. Similarly, the life provides tangible extension by copying the genetic codes, through self-reproduction. The knowledge is standard store-up, bringing to inexhaustible growth, on condition of environmentally right conditions. The combined artificial life and intelligence are leading means of the «robot age», permitting the ‹to re-materialise› issues; they, namely, aim at reliable consolidation of the mankind safeguard, assuring suited recovery and revamping targets. 10. REFERENCES [1] M. El-Elran, When markets collide: investments strategies for the age of global economic change, New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. [2] N. Ferguson, The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power, New York: Basic Books, 2004. [3] G. Gereffi, M. Korzenievicz, Eds., Commodities chains and global capitalism, Westport: Praeger, 1994. [4] W. Greider, One world, ready or not: the manic logic of global capitalism, New York: Simon & Shuster, 1997. [5] J. Kleinert, The role of multinational enterprises in globalisation, Berlin: Springer, Kieler Studien, 2004 [6] R.C. Michelini, Knowledge society engineering: a sustainable growth pledge, New York: Nova Sci. Pub., 2010. [7] M. Mullard, Ed., Democracy citizenship and globalisation, New York: Nova Sci. Pub., 2003. [8] L.B. Rasmussen, C. Beardon, S. Munari, Eds., Computers and networks in the age of globalisation, New York: Kluwer Academic, 2000. [9] K.H. O’Rourke, J. Williamson, Globalisation and history: the evolution of the nineteenth century Atlantic economy, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. [10] H. Paulson, On the brink: inside the race to stop the collapse of the global financial system, New York: Business Plus, 2010. [11] A. Sapir, Fragmented power: Europe and global economy, Amsterdam: Bruegel Books, 2008. [12] P. Stearns, Globalisation in world history, New York: Routledge, 2009. [13] G. Steingart, The war for wealth: why globalisation is bleeding the west of its prosperity, New York: McGrawHill, 2008. [14] N. Stern, The global deal: climate change and the creation of a new era of progress and prosperity, London: The Bodley Head, 2009. [15] J.E. Stiglitz, Making globalisation work, New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. [16] M. Walzer, Ed., Towards a global civil society, Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995. [17] M. Waters, Globalisation, London: Routledge, 1993. [18] B. Wildavky, The great brain race: how global universities are reshaping the world, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2010.
