This paper addresses the effects of globalisation on sub-Saharan Africa. It examines the place and role of sub-Saharan Africa in globalisation. It is a critical, personal reflection on the plight of sub-Saharan Africans.

The paper consists of four sections. In the first, I explain the concept of globalisation in its multi-faceted appearance. Second, I consider Africa vis-à-vis globalisation. Third, I discuss the reasons why Africa has not yet asserted her place in globalisation. And, fourth, I conclude with a discussion showing how sub-Saharan Africa can contribute to globalisation.

Etymologically, "globalisation" is derived from "global", which is the adjectival form of "globe", referring to our planet, earth. The planet earth is so-called because it has the shape of a globe. Today, many people refer to our natural habitat, earth, as a global village, because of the closeness between her (earth’s) different inhabitants, established through the modern technology utilised in information, communication and transport.

Literally, therefore, globalisation is the process of making our (man’s) world a globe. Man’s world is reduced in its size by communication and in extension by transport, so much so that it is like a village. Today, in terms of transport, one requires a good and efficient road network, plus a functional, well-maintained automobile to travel a distance of at least 70 km in an hour. On foot, the same distance can take no less than twelve hours, for a normal human adult. Where there is a good and efficient railway network, it takes no more than five hours to cover a distance of 400 kilometres. More drastic is air transport, by which one can cover a distance of up to 6,000 kilometres in no more than eight hours. Communication and information transfer have been drastically improved by electronic and digital technologies. To talk to a person in any part of the world that is well connected to the telephone network, one needs only to tap correctly at a functioning telephone apparatus. The communication is, in this case, almost instantaneous.

Globalisation can be ideological, lingual and religious, among other things. Ideologically, during the cold war era, the communist and capitalist ideologies competed in dominating the world. By so doing, they each wished to globalise their ideologies. In terms of language, English, French and Spanish have continued to compete in dominating the world. The three are global languages or, in technical parlance, Linguae Francae. Religiously, Christianity and Islam can be considered global religions.

Transcendentally, a world – what is also referred to as a globe or earth in ordinary language – is an a priori construct. A world is, transcendentally, a world-view, or Weltanschauung. It is a superstructure, which is the condition for religion, politics, economics, and all that can be referred to as culture. It is this superstructure that determines reality for man. I contend that each and every person, in order to be human, must adhere to an a priori construct, which is a necessary condition for his/her reality.¹ Globalisation, therefore, would mean here the [reification/realisation?] (concretisation) of the human superstructure. This, I contend, is equivalent to the hominisation of objects.

Man globalises nature or the given by externalising him/herself in objects. Thus, s/he creates a human world out of nature. Today, everything there is, so far as man is concerned, has an imprint of humanity. The imprint of humanity comes out in various ways: by the naming of objects, the use of objects, the transformation of one object into another, the consumption of objects, etc.

Globalisation in contemporary jargon is quite different from what I have stipulated above. It is almost entirely economic in its meaning. It has to do with the new economic order camouflaged in the slogan, ‘the new world order’. Raymond Torres defines globalisation thus:

First, globalisation in the above excerpt means harmonisation of markets, where the flow of goods and services is unhindered. These goods and services accrue from invested capital, which can afford technology for their production and sustenance. Secondly, it involves almost all workers of the world. But capital and what accrues from it, investment, spring from one part of the world, the so-called developed world: the G8 and others in the Occident. Therefore, only a part of the world is involved. One part of the world owns the capital necessary for investment and production. Economic globalisation is, therefore, controlled by one part of the globe.

Making globalisation entirely economic limits it terribly. Globalisation is more multidimensional, to use Helen O’Neill’s expression. According to her, apart from market globalisation, there are, for instance, culture and security globalisation (O’Neill, 1997, p. 21).

Globalisation has been effected economically, technologically, religiously and politically. All four forms of globalisation have been used in sub-Saharan Africa. But, unfortunately, she is involved only passively. She is an onlooker, a receiver, a market, and a fertile ground for ideology, religion, and politics.

Most sub-Saharan African countries are satellite economies. They are, on the whole, potential markets for the industrialised countries of the West and Japan. Almost no sub-Saharan African country has a sustainable production base for export. But foreign investment, which could help improve the situation, as necessary as it is, cannot help much, because her people do not have the monetary power to sustain it in the form of buying finished products. The GDP for different countries of sub-Saharan Africa vis-à-vis their populations is a good indicator of the non-sustainability of their economies. Table 1 gives the GDP of fifteen African countries in the year 2004. Table 2 gives the population trends of ten African countries in the year 2000. And, Table 3 gives the GNI, per capita income in US$ of nine African countries in 2000.

Table 3 demonstrates the fact that people in the countries indicated above have meagre money power. This is a stumbling block to any meaningful economic growth. The GDP vis-à-vis the demographic table clearly indicates the discrepancy between annual earnings and the populations.

None of the countries in the samples above can be said to have a healthy economy, which implies proper medical services for all, proper educational facilities for all school-going children, enough food for all, a good transport system and a good communication system. In Kenya, for instance, the best among the worst, the per capita income of US$ 360 (Ksh 28,800) is by all standards too meagre for a decent living.

Besides, sub-Saharan Africa is not even innovative enough. Whenever there is anything to be done in this sphere, Africans are quick to request expertise from the West. Though such expertise has been found wanting for decades, most African governments have tenaciously held to them conservatively. I contend that the South-East Asian countries have shown signs of success economically because of the innovative base they built over the decades. Japan is an economic giant in the Far East, with her own economic model. Others, such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, China and India, have managed to make strides economically, due to innovative tendencies.

Almost the whole of the human race is in some way or other affected by modern technology, be it in the information/communication, transport or industrial sector. However, all these technological pieces almost entirely originate from outside sub-Saharan Africa. No country in sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of South Africa, manufactures heavy machinery. Sub-Saharan Africa is, on the whole, only a buyer of foreign technology. It lacks even an evident aptitude of innovation, which is quite clear in Japan and other Asian countries, like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and China.

In the world today, there are two vibrant missionary religions: Christianity and Islam. These are the only two evidently globalising and globalised religions. Most Africans are either Christian or Muslim. These two religions are almost entirely controlled from outside Africa. Catholic Christianity is controlled from Rome, Italy. Anglican Christianity is controlled from London, United Kingdom. Mainstream Islam has its headquarters in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Africans are passive even in the globalised religious sphere. In spite of their large numbers, they hardly have a globally determining influence in religion.

Politically, democracy is the system par excellence. It is the most globalised and globalising political ideology. Everyone, including dictators, constantly espouse democracy as the archetype of all social, economic, and political systems. But, who are the champions of this ideology? From what I read and hear, America and the Western parts of Europe claim to be the main champions of democracy. They take it upon themselves to preach and implement democracy in other countries of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa is said to be embroiled in different forms of quagmire, because it is said to be lacking democratic forms of government.

Most countries in Africa today are deemed democratic in the Western sense of the term. Johnnie Carson writes:

The judge of how successful or unsuccessful African democracy has evolved is still an external examiner! One wonders whether Africa has her own benchmarks to gauge her own democratic processes!

It is obvious from the preceding section that sub-Saharan Africa has not featured very well in the globalisation arena. But, does it follow that she will never benefit from it? The question is difficult to answer, because no one can ever know the future with certainty. One can still ask whether there are any signs of hope for such benefits. The answer will depend upon whether the respondent is a pessimist or an optimist. I think a more valid answer should contain both pessimism and optimism.

The pessimist would be right in regarding Africa as a useless case, because of the negative things around. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to political chaos, economic instability, social upheavals, religious confusion, medical rot, and a host of other maladies. Africans know and understand all these problems very well. What, then, is the problem? Aren’t Africans humans like others? Don’t they inhabit the globe like others? Don’t they have traditional, indigenous cultures, religions, political systems, and technology like other peoples?

The optimist would also be right in answering that Africa has a bright future. He would note, for instance, that Africa has a great reserve of flora and fauna, and a large share of mineral resources. Besides, Africa has experts in a variety of areas. She has qualified engineers, technicians, technocrats, social scientists, medical practitioners, mathematicians, and professional philosophers, among others. The optimist would, therefore, argue that since we have all these, it is possible to participate actively in and benefit from globalisation, technologically, economically, religiously, and politically. I would venture to challenge the optimist on this. I would ask him to explain to me why some countries in the world, such as Israel, have hardly any flora and fauna, but are prosperous, at least economically. Some countries, such as Japan, Italy and others, are devoid of mineral resources, but happen to be among the most economically advanced.

The two respondents represent a dialectic, which we cannot escape. What would be the synthesis of these two opposed positions – the anti-thesis (pessimism) and the thesis (optimism)? My synthesis would consist in harnessing the will to do and the building of institutions. I contend that sub-Saharan Africa is in all sorts of quagmires, due to lack of the will to do and lack of institutions. The will to do and institutions are like two sides of the same coin. Thus, the will to do operates only within institutions.

The will to do consists in making decisions with the intention of implementing them. The intention is the driving force behind the implementation. It does not follow that all decisions made are implemented. Implementation changes with circumstances. I may plan to buy two shirts at the end of the month but, due to other financial constraints, which were unforeseen when I was making the decision, I adjust to buy one or none. Not buying two shirts at that particular time does not hinder my doing so at another time.

If a certain government decides to implement universal primary education in ten years, but cannot by the end of those years due to unpredictable reasons, it does not mean that it is a non-functional government. But, if by that time it has not implemented at least 70% of such a decision, then there is something wrong. At independence, most sub-Saharan African countries pledged to eradicate poverty, disease and ignorance, among other evils. Has any of these countries come anywhere near fulfilling any one of these pledges? Things have only become worse in all these sectors.

Every country in Africa is supposed to have a constitution. Each and every African country has a parliament (the legislature), which makes laws consistent with her respective constitution. These are supposed to regulate all sectors of the state: family policy, commercial policy, business policy, economic policy, export policy, housing policy, religious policy, political policy, technological policy, educational policy, traffic policy, mass-media policy, foreign policy, internal-security policy, environmental policy, and so forth. It is the prerogative of a government (the executive), through its different arms, i.e. ministries, to see to it that these policies are implemented. Besides, there is the judiciary, to protect and interpret the laws, so that they remain relevant and effective in a state.

The will to do would consist in making and implementing decisions according to the laws of a given state, guided by its constitution. Almost the whole of sub-Saharan Africa is dogged by lack of implementation in a myriad of sectors. Poor infrastructures and outdated technological apparatus, among others, catalyse food insufficiency. These are mere symptoms of the lack of the implementation of alimentation policies. Misallocation of funds in the annual budget meant for agriculture leads to poor outcomes in food production. Misallocation of funds in the annual budget, meant for setting up and maintaining the infrastructure leads to the poor state of roads, railways, and telephone lines. Actually, all sub-Saharan African states make annual budgets. These budgets are supposed to cater for each and every sector in the society. But, why is there no improvement in these different sectors? My answer is, non-implementation, which is caused by the lack of the will to do.

Lack of the will to do is only a symptom of something else. It could be due to infantilism and/or perversion. I am sorry to say that there is some exhibition of infantilism among Africans in being indecisive. They are not rigorous enough in thinking about their problems. A mature person is supposed to take charge of his/her affairs, intelligently, wisely, and conscientiously, within given contexts. Infantilism is expressed in seeking solutions to most of the major social, political, technological, and religious problems from without. Many Africans behave as though they are infants in need of constant tutelage from elsewhere. It is not uncommon for Africans to solicit personnel and/or funds from without to discuss their own problems. The Konrad Adenauer Foundation is very instrumental in providing both personnel and funds in the socio-political arena, at least within the East African Region.

I think Africans also exhibit perversion in their attitudes. Perversion is exhibited in their behaviour. I argue that a person who is grossly corrupt is perverted. Gross corruption, for me, consists in misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds. An individual who appropriates funds set aside for the improvement of society cannot be normal in my rating. All sub-Saharan functional states, as I have already indicated, make annual budgets, which allocate funds to all sectors. But, these funds are more often than not misappropriated by a few close to the powers that be. Some members have no qualms about appropriating colossal sums for their own use. These people continue to wallow in riches that they did not earn with impunity. I conclude, therefore, that the misappropriation of public funds is an exhibition of perversion in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sub-Saharan Africa, I venture to say, has semblances of institutions. I contend that politics, economies, religions, and others are not properly empowered institutions. Political parties are, more often than not, personal cults. In Uganda, UPC is centred on the person of Dr. Milton Obote, DP on the person of Dr. Paul Ssemwogerere, the NRM on Mr. Yoweri Museveni. All these parties will most likely fragment with the demise of their heads.

I think that state institutionalisation can only occur on the model of institutionalised politics, be they multi-party, monarchic, or whatever type of politics there may be. The state is, in fact, a political entity. Sub-Saharan African states are, to a large extent, actually built on personality cults. This goes a long way to explain why, when the president is adversely affected, the entire state goes into disarray.

Sub-Saharan economies, too, are non-institutional. It is hard to say what kind of economy is followed. It is neither capitalist, socialist, communist, nor whatever else that is known. Of course, it does not have to be any of the mentioned; but then what is it? It must be defined as such and such a type. Julius Nyerere, the late former President of Tanzania, took pains to establish a social, political, and economic institution in the form of Ujamaa. He recorded some success on the social level. But, when he disappeared from the scene, Ujamaa also started weakening. If some charismatic person had taken it up and strengthened it, things might be different today.

In terms of religions, things are apparently different. Most sub-Saharan Africans, as I have already indicated, are either Christians or Muslims. It happens that these religions are mostly controlled from without. Africans tend, except for a few denominations, to fit into foreign religious institutions. Roman Catholics are well accommodated within the Vatican-run institution. Anglicans are well accommodated within the Canterbury-run institution. Sunni Muslims are accommodated into the Mecca-run institution. I suspect that if Africans were left on their own, things would different.

Viable, credible and stable institutions must be developed. An institution is a paradigmatic superstructure. This begins with regulations, rules and laws. When these regulations, rules, and laws are promulgated, enforced, and practiced over a long time, they become customs. An institution is, therefore, a form of tradition or way of doing things, with a more or less fixed superstructure.

Pre-colonial, sub-Saharan Africa did not lack institutions. It was more stable politically, economically, and religiously, because it had such institutions.

I argue that sub-Saharan Africans need to reinvent themselves in the spirit of their ancestors, in order to regain the confidence that can enable them to reacquire the will to do. This is a form of renaissance, which the current President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, suggests (Mbeki, 1998). This should go a long way in stimulating African self-esteem and strengthening her will power. Sub-Saharan constitutions should reflect Africa’s historical, traditional, physical, and cultural realties. The laws of African states should tie in with African cultures. I strongly believe that laws in African States do not bind, because they do not really touch their subjects.

In pre-colonial Africa, laws were more effective, because they were based upon the beliefs and customs of the people. Today, laws in sub-Saharan Africa do not bind, because they are not based on the customs and practices of the people. During the pre-colonial era, nobody was exempt from the law. Justice was seen to be done. Today, to the contrary, one can buy and muzzle justice. During that time, justice was societal. One broke a law against society and not just individuals. Modern law in Africa is based on individuals; it is meant to protect the rights of individuals and not societies. Modern courts do not seem to protect society, but rather powerful and influential individuals. This explains why corruption in its different forms cannot be eliminated easily. Some people are able to embezzle and misappropriate public funds with impunity.

It is necessary for sub-Saharan African states to reconsider their pre-colonial institutions in the establishment of modern and contextual ones. It is surprising to learn that whenever there is constitution-making in Africa, nobody mentions the local, traditional alternatives. A country like Kenya has no less than 42 so-called ethnic groups, each with its own customs and practices. Why can’t constitution makers borrow a leaf from this rich variety?

In order to benefit from globalisation, Africa must, first of all, become mature and sane. Maturity here will consist in eliminating the rampant infantile attitudes that have encapsulated her for such a long time. She has to become sane by healing herself from the rampant perversion I have talked about above. Both infantilism and perversion are the result of the conquest that sub-Saharan Africa underwent some 150 or so years ago. Sub-Saharan Africa was conquered culturally (which includes laws, politics, economics, morality, and religion) and philosophically. I argue that culture is like a tree, religion like its nutrients, morality like its oxygen, economics like its trunk, politics like its branches, and laws like its leaves. In all these, philosophy is comparable to the ground on which it stands. In order to destroy the tree, one can start by impoverishing the soil in which it is planted. One can also cut it from the base of its trunk. If a tree is denied oxygen, it dies. Removing its leaves and/or branches does not necessarily kill it. But, if you remove the ground in which it is planted, deny it oxygen and other atmospheric requirements, the tree certainly ceases to live.

I contend that Africa south of the Sahara is in the present state because of the deterioration, especially of her morality and religions. Hankering for foreign cultures and sub-cultures and values is quite obvious in many African countries. This is a sign of lacunae in these areas. Cultural and moral crises in Africa are no secret to any thinking person.

It is high time sub-Saharan Africa re-established her morality, culture, and philosophy. Only with her own morality, culture, and philosophy will she be an equal in the global village. At the moment, she cannot be an equal partner in any competition, because she has no standard of her own to use. She is on the receiving end. This means that she is not an active participant in the whole scenario.

I contend that sub-Saharan Africa contributes much to the world, and yet not as an equal partner, because she has no standards of her own. Industrialised countries like Japan, Germany, and France depend a lot on sub-Saharan African countries like Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, and others for their automobile and electronic markets. These industrialised countries manufacture, package, and export according to their own stipulated policies. But the countries of destiny have no constant stipulated and functioning policies of their own to regulate the inflow of these machines. They rely, instead, on the policies of the exporting countries. In fact, each exporting country has its own policy. That means the importing countries have to accommodate a myriad of policies. The result is chaos for the importing countries. This is a major contributory factor to the economic chaos experienced in sub-Saharan Africa. This is because such goods do not rhyme with the current economic situations of these countries.

Automobile products and electronics are only a few of the imports into the sub-Saharan African region. There are also garments (footwear, clothes, hats), foodstuffs and beverages, furniture, and communication gadgets. All of these are imported without any local, constant, and functioning policies. Even here, Africa is the loser, because she does not have a clear say in the way these goods come into the country.

I am convinced that if sub-Saharan countries made economic policies of their own and followed them, they would have fewer economic upheavals. Such economic policies should encourage production, exportation, and importation according to priority. Africa should make policies to produce, first, for the local market. Export should be the surplus of what is consumed within the country. And, it should be for the producing country to determine the prices of such products. What happens when it comes to African products is that the buyers from without determine disposable quantities and their prices. I find it not only sad, but also perverted, on the part of Africans to allow such a scenario. It makes no sense to produce things whose disposable quantity and price you cannot determine. Why produce coffee and yet not know how much and at what price you will dispose of it?

With proper functioning economic policies, Africa has much to give and gain from the global market. Africa has mineral resources, flora and fauna peculiar to her, which can be the base for economic advancement. No continent in the world is endowed with greater amounts of gold, diamonds, copper, silver, oil, and a host of other minerals than Africa. But, Africans hardly benefit from these resources. Again, the outsider is in charge. The outsider determines the quantities and the prices of these products. It is a well-known fact that the major wars fought today in the name of elimination of terrorism and dictatorship are really, to a large extent, instigated by the desire to control the mineral resources of those countries. Economic-political quagmires in Angola, the Sudan, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo belong to this category.

Africa has much to offer and benefit from the cultural industry. Africans are, like other peoples of the world, rich in the arts, cultural heritage, and natural heritage. With proper functioning policies in place, it is possible to tap funds from the global market through different types of art. African music, drama, and film, for instance, are very fertile grounds for the attraction of clients. With proper policies, it is possible to harness, tap, and package these forms of art for sale, both locally and abroad. Unfortunately, many African artists relocate to Europe and the USA for greener pastures. Locally, there is hardly sufficient facility for promoting art, politically, socially, and technologically. Many countries do not have modern gadgets for recording and printing music and films. Africa can also acculturate her flora and fauna within the sub-cultural industry of tourism. Africa has peculiar flora and fauna, which can be harnessed and packaged for consumption locally and internationally.

A Kenyan scholar, John S. Mbiti, is renowned for attributing religious notoriety to Africans. I do not know why being religious is notorious. I would not like to dwell on the derogatory implication of Mbiti’s expression. I think this expression is worthwhile for its emphasis. Positively, he meant that Africans are religious through and through. I contend that normal religion is supposed to permeate the whole of human existence. I am sorry, but Africans have become more and more irreligious by departmentalising religion through the Western pattern of Christianity. Africans have, through Western religious tutelage, learned to reserve particular localities, days, articles, and persons for religious purposes. This has gone a long way in reducing the sense of naturalness in Africa, thus increasing artificiality and mechanicalness. Religion has become artificial, mechanical, and detached from would be practitioners. The sense of worship, which is very traditional to Africans, has been diluted. I argue that this sense of worship, if revived and harnessed, can be of great use to Africans and other peoples on the globe.

To compound the gravity of the matter, Africans have been made, through Western academic paradigms, to speculate about the Supreme. In Western Christianity, one defines or at least attempts to define the Supreme, which is very foreign to African religious thinking. Discourses on the Supreme end up, more often than not, in contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies. Many of those who sustain these discourses do not even notice these anomalies. Some of the few who notice the anomalies accept them without qualms. They hardly notice that their discourses are based on a priori conditions for empirical knowledge.

Pre-colonial, sub-Saharan Africans knew very well that one could not meaningfully put up an argument, on the cognitional level, about the Supreme. This is something they can globalise in the religious sphere. Today, religion, especially as promoted and propagated by the mainstream missionaries of the West, lays too much emphasis on articles of doctrine. Africa has the duty to assert itself in this area, emphasising encounter and communion with the Supreme and the ancestors. There is something that the world can learn from Africa religiosity.

Africa is, within the global community, still virgin, i.e. unexploited in various ways. For it to be exploited meaningfully, Africans must take the lead. Things have gone haywire since non-Africans took charge of Africa. It is obligatory for Africans to get involved in their own affairs, to improve their plight and contribute to the rest of humanity through their peculiarity. Liberating education and home-baked innovation will restore the originality and authentic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa to the theatre of the global village.

Endnotes

[1]In order to understand this, it is necessary to make reference to Kant’s transcendental idealism. In his Critique of Pure Reason, in the section “Transcendental Doctrine of Elements”, he talks about the human presuppositions of knowledge. These presuppositions – space and time, for sensibility, and categories, for the possibility of understanding – are conditions of what human beings call reality this or that.

[2]Johnnie Carson, “Shaping U.S. Policy on Africa: Pillars of a New Strategy”, Strategic Forum, No. 210 (September 2004), p. 4.

[3] P. Robbins and R. S. B Ferris, “The Impact of Globalisation on the Agricultural Sectors of East and Central African Countries”, 2002, p. 112,
http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/market/Globalisation/IITAGLOBAL%20Final%206.htm.

[4] Glimpses Bulletin Inserts, Issue # 151, “The Explosion of Christianity in Africa, http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps151.shtml.

[5] Iqbal Jhazbhay, “Islam in Africa” (30 August 2003), http://www.nuradeen.com/currentissues/IslamInAfrica.htm.

Beams, Nick. "The Significance and Implications of Globalisation: A Marxist Assessment". 4 January 1998. http://www.wsw.org/exhibit/iss/98.

Carson, Johnnie. "Shaping U.S. Policy on Africa: Pillars of a New Strategy". Strategic Forum, No. 210 (September 2004).

"Globalisation, Europe and Africa: Towards a Solidarity Agenda", Declaration adopted at the International Experts’ Meeting on Globalisation and Africa, European Parliament, Brussels, 15-17 April 2004, http://www.tni.org/acts/globafrica-declaration.htm.

Mbeki, Thabo (while Deputy President of South Africa). "The African Renaissance, South Africa and the World", Address delivered at the United Nations University. 9 April 1998. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/mbeki.html.

O’Neill, Helen. "Globalisation, Competitiveness and Human Security: Challenges for Development Policy and Institutional Change", in Kay, Cristobal, ed., Globalisation, Competitiveness and Human Security. London: Frank Cass, 1997.

Robbins, P. and Ferris, R. S. B. 2002. "The Impact of Globalisation on the Agricultural Sectors of East and Central African Countries", http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/market/Globalisation/IITAGLOBAL%20Final%206.htm.

Torres, Raymond. Studies on the Social Dimensions of Globalization: Towards a Socially Sustainable World Economy: An Analysis of the Social Pillars of Globalization. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2001.