The second scenario. Many of our sources and research (this, and this TED-talk give a good introduction) show that a very good way towards reaching a goal is by collaboration and a bottom up approach. We don’t need big institutions, a lot of rules and bureaucracy, but allow a self-governming emergent system to grow. This is but one of the two main pillars on which this scenario is build.
The other pillar is the approach to a very important question in our project: “Are we ready to make the value of our environment explicit? If yes, how can we do that?” Taking the approach that it is inherently impossible to put a price-tag/value on aspects in our eco system, because we do not and cannot know everything ( E.O Wilson gives a very good talk), we searched for different ways.
One way to go to answer this question is that we do not put a price on the environment, but put a price on the amount of work, the labor, people will do to protect,govern,build,do not interfere, steward, or in other way help the environment. Then it doesn’t matter what it is that is worked on.
Combining the collaboration principle to determine how much is to be payed for the labor is the basis for this scenario. For a detailed look, here is the pdf.
The stakeholders in this scenario.
Comments
One Comment so far. Leave a comment below.June 2008 – As a Brazilian plane took several bird’s eye view photographs of an ‘uncontacted’ tribe in the Amazon, the world took a glimpse into a world we – the western world – only know from history books and movies. After publication of the photos one debate stood out all others; should these people be contacted and what will that mean for these people? Although Globalization seems to make the world smaller and smaller – or flatter (Friedman, 2005) – regions like the Amazon Rainforest seem to still house several tribes that have never been in contact with ‘modern world’. For these people, finding out about the world as it is outside the world as they know it could have enormous or even devastating impact. Yet, due to factors such as global warming and deforestation, contact with ‘modern’ societies might be inevitable on the long run.
Society today is composed of a series of institutions: from political institutions, legal institutions and religious institutions to institutions of social class, familial values and occupational specialization. It is obvious the profound influence these ‘traditionalized’ structures have in shaping our understandings and perspectives. Once created, institutions are powerful external forces that help determine how people make sense of their world and act in it (Campbell, 2004).
The influence of globalization on institutions is clear to everyone with one of the best examples provided by European colonization. One should only visit Latin America where to experience the institutionalizing power of Globalization. Though institutionalization might not (mainly) be about converting native subjects to Christianity anymore, the results are everywhere. Today the globalization debate is more focussed on its economic impact with ‘the Battle of Seattle (1999)’ as a famous example. In stead of religious institutionalization it is now mainly about organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank who are by some believed to force their ‘conviction’ upon poorer nations as Joseph Stiglitz (2002) elaborates.
As globalization and institutionalization are highly related, globalization indirectly has influence in shaping our understanding and perspectives. As Campbell (2004) puts it, institutions are the foundation of social life, consisting of formal in informal rules, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and systems of meaning that define the context within which individuals, corporations, labor unions, nation-states, and other organizations operate and interact with each other. Of course without stable institutions, life becomes chaotic and arduous (Campbell, 2004) but potential problems with [institutions such as national governments, corrupt regimes, global financial institutions, and central infrastructure planners] are their top-down approach, protectionism of developed markets and the status quo, bureaucracy, and corruption (de Soto, 2000; Easterly, 2006; Stiglitz, 2002). Also established institutional arrangements can also suppress the diffusion of innovations and constrain market creation (Vermeulen et.al. 2007). The granular case of Vermeulen et.al. (2007) is conducted within the Netherlands which means that innovation that is being suppressed in that particular market might offer opportunity in different markets. Also Stuart L. Hart (2007) empathizes the opportunity in different markets:
The four billion people at the base of the world economic pyramid represent the most attractive early market for many of the most exiting new clean technologies. Because most such technologies are disruptive and will, therefore, be resisted by established markets, the vast underserved populations in shantytowns an rural villages offer the most promising places to incubate and grow the technologies of tomorrow. (p. 26)
Trackbacks
One Trackback