contact  impressum 

GATS - Service to Whom?

Christoph Strawe



Civil Society's Alternatives to
The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Services [1]


Do you know GATS?

An opinion poll certainly would cause more than 99% of the citizens consulted to shake their heads and reply: "Never heard of it." And yet, speaking of GATS, we are dealing with something that will deeply affect  all our lives, much more deeply than what happens on those levels of political decision making to which our attention is drawn by the media - unless we manage to implement alternatives to the "General Agreement on Trade in Services" ("GATS") which is presently being negotiated within the World Trade Organization WTO.

Through the foundation of the WTO in 1995 the principle of the free movement of goods already proclaimed by the GATT[2] was supplemented with the liberalization of the trade in services (GATS agreement) and with the adjustment of the commercially relevant aspects of intellectual property (TRIPS agreement)[3] GATS is part of the globalization developments which have been systematically pushed since the end of World War Two and speeded up dramatically with the Falling of the Walls in 1989. So it is part of the world-wide linking-up of the societies and the full establishment of the world market, with an unheard-of mobility of capital, which has led to the global competition of the locations.

Former WTO Director-General Renato Ruggiero has said something quite alarming, namely that the GATS extended the WTO into areas never previously recognised as coming under the remit of trade policy. "I suspect that neither governments nor industries have yet appreciated the full scope of these guarantees or the full value of existing commitments."[4] Indeed, the agreement's tendency is to include all activities that have up until now been considered non-commercial ("non-profit-sector") in the profit-making (i.e. business) sphere. And this whole sphere is intended to be structured strictly in accordance with the ideology of neo-liberalism.

Health care and education, the media, child care and elder care - there is nothing that would not be declared a private-branch of business. The question of "Cui bono?" is not too difficult to answer: Over the last few years reference has been made to the so-called sixth Kondratieff-(conjunctural)-cycle[5], in which the new mega-trends are set by an increasing demand in the areas of health, environment and education. If these fields of growth can be drawn into the sphere of shareholder value economy, there will be tremendous profits in store for the corporations in the branches of medicine and biotechnology, but also in the environmental area (alternative energy, waste disposal etc.).

How far there will be any tolerated exceptions to this principle of any service being of a private nature is entirely unclear, even though government representatives reassuringly point to such possible exceptions. What is clear, however, is that there are to be  mechanisms that will make the observance of the GATS rules enforceable, if need be.

Maude Barlow is right in saying in her article "The Last Frontier" (published in "The Ecologist" in February 2001[6]) that with this the end of the very concept of not-for-profit public services could be near. In the British newspaper "The Observer" of April 15th, 2001 there was an article which  quoted from a confidential document of the WTO secretariat.. According to that document, the creation of an international agency is planned which is to have the power of veto against any decisions of single states or governments concerning environment, health, education etc., should these decisions constitute a violation of the liberalization of the trade in services proposed  by GATS. This is, says the "Observer", obviously a plan to abolish the "out-moded political idea of democracy".

In view of such developments large sections of the organized civil society have woken up. The internet abounds with information on the dangers of GATS, along with protests about the agreement. Thus an appeal called "Stop the GATS Attack" has already been signed by 430 Non-Government-Organizations from 53 countries (by June 2001).[7] Perhaps it will be possible to call forth a broad movement similar to the one that brought down the international agreement on the protection of investments, MAI, and the one that led to the failure of the Seattle WTO summit.   

Escaping from the vicious circle of wrong alternatives

There is wide agreement among "civil society"[8] that GATS involves a multitude of dangerous regulations hostile to man. What has to be done now is to enlighten the general public on GATS and to broaden the front against the agreement.

But at the same time the question arises of civil society's positive alternatives. If it can be shown how the problems for whose solution GATS is being praised can be solved in a different way, the movement of civil society will be greatly empowered.

The strategy of the inspiring forces that stand behind the WTO is to cause confusion and lead mankind astray by means of pseudo alternatives. Thus it is suggested that GATS is, so to speak, the logical conclusion and the only possible consequence of the failure of the attempts to regulate large areas of social life by way of planned economy and bureaucratically. Only consequent liberalization and deregulation , they say, sets people's innovative forces free and finally leads to general social prosperity. This strategy obviously aims at mentally disarming the opponents of the present form of globalization, describing them as the last Mohicans of a quasi stone age bureaucratism, who have slept away the year 1989. What is public is pretended to be generally identical with sovereign state-controlled direction and petty-minded bureaucratic regimentation. At the same time it is insinuated that, as a rule, non-governmental actors become active in the social context purely out of commercial interest, their free initiative therefore being essentially "private" (the Latin word "privare", after all, means "take by force", i.e. appropriate selfishly). Finally we are made to believe that there is a choice to be made between the allegedly insurmountable opposites of liberty (along with economic efficiency), on the one hand, and solidarity (which is equated with planned-economical inefficiency) on the other. In this one-sided view, liberty, of course, excludes any system of health care or education which would be financed consequently on the basis of solidarity.
It is imperative to confront such ideological stereotyped thought patterns with unbiased observation and appropriate formation of concepts in order to be able to outline guiding ideas for the development of society which make real sense. What counts here are not made-up "solutions" for all social problems, but the question of social structures that give people on our globe the chance to solve their problems by themselves, step by step.

"Public" does not necessarily mean "state-run"

One stereotyped thought pattern which has to be overcome is the equation "public = state-run". By no means is this equation any longer obligatory in our times. There are many civil society organizations which work in a self-administered and self-determined manner - referred to as "in freier Trägerschaft (in independent Œcarriership')" - in other words, which are not state-run, but independently run, but which at the same time assume public functions and are therefore rightly financed publicly, wholly or in part. In many areas such organizations are entirely indispensable for the functioning of the public sector. This applies to certain areas of care of the elderly, nursing and therapy, social work, curative education, and drug therapy among others, partly also to the educational system, where non-commercial free schools play an important part in the realization of the public task of realizing the human's right to education.

Indeed, it complies with the spirit of an age of individualization and pluralization that solutions born of free initiative can take the place of state-controlled solutions wherever people want this. Between the pseudo-alternative of "state-run" and "private" there is a third option: free initiative for the community, financed on the basis of solidarity. This third way is a way of balance between liberty and solidarity. It does not lead to "deregulation", but rather to an unbureaucratic regulation of problems through a variety of task-orientated associations and self-governing networks which could simultaneously co-operate with the state.

What are services?
About the difference between economy, state activity,
and cultural life, respectively intellectual production

GATS being concerned with services, the question must be raised if the concept of services, which underlies this agreement, is at all appropriate. Is there, latently, a certain one-sided conception of man at the bottom of it, and if so - which?

To provide services means to do something for others - to serve others. Looked at it in this way,  any activity in a social context is a service. In order to be able to do something for others long term it is necessary to have an income that makes this possible. Income in the form of money, in this context, means being entitled to use and consume a certain part of the economic values created. In this respect everything anyone does for someone else in our modern society necessarily has an economic aspect. Does this mean, however, that every activity is an essentially commercially directed economic activity per se? For this is what the logic of GATS implies!

Economy is primarily the production of goods, ultimately induced by the pull of the consumers' needs. Goods are material things, such as food, clothing, housing, means of transport, which are bought and sold. In order for them to reach the consumer, services are required that are not material things in themselves, but do call forth material results and are indispensable for the material goods to reach their destinations. Here we find the work of the haulage contractor as well as that of the bank clerk, the wholesaler and retailer, or the telephone company over whose lines business appointments are made. These kinds of services are directly marketable, i.e. saleable and purchasable.

It is somewhat different with the services rendered by the "civil servants" (officials), parliamentarians etc. They do, indeed, need an income, but they are neither indirectly nor directly involved in the production of marketable material commodities. They receive their part of society's wealth by way of tax revenues. It would make little sense to pay a top government official according to the number of rules "produced". What matters in government and state is something qualitatively different from economic  goods; what matters is that everyone, as a peer, receives that which is his inalienable right. Thus this area ensures (at least this has been its ideal so far) a certain social infra-structure and social harmony, which is also vital for the economy. But the state is only capable of doing this if its citizens - through democratic consensus - are in a position to set certain limits to the economy by law, regulatory frameworks, with which enterprises have to comply.

We have to recognize that there are essentially different kinds of services, which cannot necessarily be equated with each other. With a building contractor, for instance, we sign a contract for work and labour, which connects the payment with the result, e.g. the finished house; with a lawyer - at least in central Europe - we conclude a service contract, which provides payment irrespective of the result of the case.

In addition, all cultural work, all intellectual production, in as far as it does not have a purely private leisure-time character, can only be achieved if it is financially supported. Teachers, doctors, and university lecturers need an income in order to be able to devote themselves to their profession. In this respect their work becomes directly comparable with that of any other occupational category. But they do not produce any material goods or any accomplishments connected with material production, either. What teachers help to develop in their students in the way of key qualifications will no doubt become economically highly relevant in the future; for the present, however, this relevance rests completely on the "principle of hope". It is absurd, in fact contemptuous, to say that pupils are "products". The teacher does not produce economic goods, but assists in the development of the individual child by the manner in which he faces him. His work is not a standardizable performance, but a subtle "relational service"[9], which requires a space of creativity where it must be possible to individualize. Similar questions arise when we consider the relationship between doctor and patient, between geriatric nurse  or curative educators and those cared for.

The activities mentioned need a form of financing that creates the free space necessary for them. Only when an understanding of the importance of the cultural sphere prevails in our society will there be the readiness to place that part of the economic values created at its disposal which this sphere needs for its development. Wherever education is viewed only from the angle of economics, the readiness to ensure the right of being educated to every young person, irrespective of his parents' purse, will eventually disappear. Something similar holds for the health system.

Marianne Hochuli has put it in a nutshell: "Sectors like education and health should under no circumstances be subject to the same rules as the trade with manufactured goods."[10]

The puppet in the puppet: The concept of man in the GATS ideology

The ideology which is behind GATS obviously leads to an intellectual blindness to the particular nature of culture and law as opposed to the economy, absorbing, however, also certain aspects of economy itself, while distorting others or making them appear oversized.

The neo-liberalism of the WTO ideologists knows and acknowledges only selfish private interest as the motor of all economic enterprise. In the neo-liberal ideology, the contradiction between this "self-interest" and the fact that labour for others is necessary in our labour-dividing economy, can only be resolved by combining pecuniary incentives with unlimited competition. For only through this competition - in their way of thinking - will the opposing egotistical motives wear each other down, and only the whip of competition is believed to lead to permanent innovation and hence  to an increase in productivity and a cheapening of the products, so that finally - without the economic actors' will and intention - a social redistribution takes place behind their back. In a recent publication the underlying principle is described as the "Mephisto-principle"[11]. To its supporters, any attempts to infuse the economy with social and ecological reason, through processes of agreement among the partners involved - in production, distribution and consumption - are suspected of cartelizing and are therefore to be prevented by strict application of the competition law. This gives the competition law priority over the law of contract, which surely - as an aspect of the general freedom of action of the individual - is an inviolable human right.

The underlying view is determined by distrust of the developmental possibilities of man. Its credo reads: Human beings can't help being as they are. Man's selfish side - undoubtedly existent - is simply blown up to equate with the whole of man's nature. The fact that responsibility and social qualities develop only through taking part in social processes is faded out systematically in this context. This distrust also explains the seeming inconsistency of the advocates' of elite globalization insisting on apparently limitless freedom in the economic sphere while opposing both an extension of the principle of democracy and a consistent autonomous self-government of a free cultural life. Neo-liberalism does harmonise well with a "Singaporization" of large parts of the globe, that is with authoritarian structures.

Economy - servant of society or its master?

The economic sector, thus conceived, is preparing - through GATS - to make itself irrevocably the master of society.. More precisely: Money reigns over the economy, and the economy ruled by money is supposed to rule society. To this economy, for which the principle of universal saleability does not stop at the goods, but which extends it also to the factors of production (land, labour, capital), human beings are necessarily cost factors so long as they cause wage costs or social costs. The economy, therefore, tends to become anti-human and presumes to derive law from its feigned inherent necessities instead of yielding to the law, by which the societies set limits to it.

The state used to raise taxes and social revenues to be able to finance public services - social systems, culture, but also the actual state activity itself. Today the economy is evading its grip by putting pressure on the states in the course of the competition of the locations with the aim of re-adjusting  the social costs and taxes to a lower level. Eighty percent of the people will be dispensable to the economy in the future anyway and will at best receive what a former American safety advisor has called "Tittytainment" - a combination of covering basic living costs at a relatively low level and cheap entertainment. Resistance is essential, if this is not to be tomorrow's reality.

Right is what is advantageous to the Global Players

The critics of GATS are therefore justified in emphasising that the creative authority of the democratic states, that means the law-developing power of the citizens, which is perforated through globalization, anyway, will be even further reduced by the agreement. At the same time, so the critics, the principle of subsidiarity, whose supposed purpose is to permit the problems to be handled as close to the basis as possible, will be thus undermined.

An investment, according to the logic of GATS, is a service rendered - in fact, not only a real-economic investment, but also one at the financial markets. Thus any independent legal regulation, which, for instance, provides control of the financial markets, can be unhinged. What if people advocated a certain level of environmental protection and social security? The answer would be: This is an offence against the freedom of the trade in services! - What about imposing regulations on foreign-based investors? This would be an offence against the freedom of trade! - What about the state supporting and financing institutions which are independently run, work community-orientated and do not accept commercial principles as the basis of their management? Again: Offence against the freedom of trade! - What if economic partners in a global chain of economic value added in a certain branch stipulate measures to safeguard fair prices? This would be a violation of the freedom of competition! - What about people claiming their freedom of action and of contract making? Well yes, but only if there is no impingement on competitive freedom! - And what about promotion of local businesses or publicly set ecological and social standards in the case of orders placed by public institutions? This would be a violation of the worldwide obligation of open prize competition!

Particularly affected by such regulations are poorer countries. Some governments of these countries rightly demand a "protective clause in the GATS permitting steps to be taken whenever a country is flooded with services activities that threaten the existing domestic service-providers."[12]

Is acting out of discernment impossible? - The campaign against autonomous man

The attack launched by GATS goes even beyond this, however: In the Universal Rights of Man the dignity of the individual is centrally placed and under the protection of the global legal system. Dignity of man, in its quintessence, is the possibility of the individual to make use of his own thinking without any direction from outside and to act out of his own insights. This fact substantiates individual rights of freedom, on the one hand, and -  on the other hand - democratic rights of participation wherever rules for larger communities of people sharing a common territory are concerned. Ensuing from this fact are, at the same time, social rights of man, without which freedom would exist on paper only and social protection would at best be an act of grace dependent on the cash balance of the state.

The mode of thought on which GATS is based offends this concept of human dignity in its very essence. This frequently happens in a disguised form, though, so that you have to look very closely to notice it. If everything is economy - and if economy is promoted only by man's self-interest - then there is basically no practice that flows out of free insight, out of love of the aim of the action or, respectively, for the person opposite to whom the action is directed - in no case, however, a practice relevant for the social sphere. There are only calculating and selfish actions. For this reason man's capacity to act must be squeezed into a system. Such a system is the set of rules of competition, supplemented with the control of a state totally orientated to the economy. The governmental activity itself is thereby supposed to undergo a transformation, which is already underway everywhere under the slogan of New Public Management. This transformation consists in the fact that the governments, in the first place, are meant to align their own activities to the criteria of market economy and, in the second place, to enforce the commercial alignment of cultural life - if need be by creating artificial market-like conditions in education, social therapy, kindergartens, the public health sector etc.

At first sight competition between services providers seems to safeguard  the autonomy of the cultural sector at the same time: anyone may offer now whatever he likes. In reality, though, "solidarity-financing" of culture as a component of the public sector is weakened without any achievement other than that "partial autonomy" which, particularly in education is being invoked as a slogan everywhere in these times of the New Public Management. Partial autonomy means: Apart from ensuring freedom of trade the state also sees to the securing of an adequate "output" of the cultural institutions, the catchwords being: performance orders, comparability and cost-cutting through standardization and establishment of "competition-like" conditions, implementation of quality assurance systems and, at the same time, downward delegation of detail responsibility. As far as public financing still takes place at all, it is coupled with the fulfilment of corresponding requirements.

What does it mean to class the activity of a teacher, a doctor, a researcher in the realm of economics? It means that a certain way of thinking appears which in the long run cannot but change the quality of the activity of the teaching, the researching, etc. Research becomes liable to economically utilizable results, also fundamental research basically becomes applied research. Liability, warranty and consumer protection become relevant categories for the tuition. There is a dimming of the understanding of culture as an antipole of the economy, as a sphere of inner growth as opposed to outer growth, of meaning as opposed to gratifying the outer needs, etc. Where everything is buyable, inevitably also the spirit is for sale. That the other central WTO agreement, TRIPS, ensures the saleability of intellectual property, including the utilization of plant species and the patenting of life, is founded on the same fatal logic.

Orientations for action and alternatives

Regaining the democratic states' capacity to act

What can be done to restore the legal communities' capacity to act? Certainly: First of all, the crudest assaults against democracy must be parried , GATS and the foundation of the practically uncontrollable agency for the monitoring of its observance must be prevented. But this will not suffice. The powerlessness of the legal community, of the democratic state has its root in the possibility of the Global Players to evade any territorial regulation by simply transferring job sites or to enforce social curtailments using the argument of competitiveness. At the same time there is a worldwide increase of unemployment through the very development of increasing labour productivity, and this means that more and more people can no longer earn their income through gainful employment and are dependent on "social income". How can the exclusion of these people be avoided? Moreover, how can the poorer countries be enabled to build up their own social security systems?

At present the financing of the public sector is mostly attached to the working income in the form of incidental labour costs or income tax. This results in the social welfare expenditure of the rich countries being exported to the south by way of prices and goes hand in hand with a kind of social dumping through imports (from the south). The countries of the south cannot build up any social systems without jeopardising their competitive advantage of low labour costs, while, at the same time, the social systems of the north are coming under considerable pressure. If there was world-wide acceptance of the principle that the financing of the public sector is achieved through taxing the consumption, we would have a different situation, as consumption is location-bound. The "legal communities" (i.e. states) would be able again to guarantee a legally intended protective social level without its discriminating against the respective home industry in their competition. In future it would be much more difficult for legal conditions for industry and business to be thwarted by economic arguments.[13]

For a structural change of the public sector

What matters is to defend the public sector as a sphere of non-profit services! But don't let us blunder into the trap - let us not be made to defend the status quo! In fact, in the past there has been too much petty regulation by the state. The alternative to this, however, is not GATS, but a structural change in the public sector corresponding to the inner impulse of civil-society's commitment. The principle of civil society is the struggle against conformism of any kind, it is diversity and individuality. For the public sector this would necessarily mean: moving away from the traditional sovereignty and prerogative of the state, and moving towards systems of education and health that are funded "in solidarity", but at the same time also stamped by being independently run, by diversity, and, therewith, by the respective direction of the volition of the receivers of their benefits. Let us put a real partnership between institutions and enterprises which are self-determined and at the same time obligated to the common interest, on the one side, and the state-run institutions, on the other, in the place of distorted forms of Private Public Partnership.

We do not need performance orders given by a government to cultural institutions dependent on directions and forced into an artificial ruinous competition, given by a government which on its part is a an order receiving lackey of an economy soaked with neo-liberalistic ideology, which defines the "output" expected of the cultural institutions. What is promising is, rather, solutions where free institutions, in a self-obliging manner, take over public functions as independent responsible bodies and enter into contractual relationships with government partners on eye to eye level.

And as for the government itself, what matters here is a transformation towards more basic-democratic participation, including the right of citizens' initiative, popular demand and plebiscite.

Giving a chance to new forms of social economy

The GATS ideologists obviously want us to forget that there have always been - and still are - attempts to counter the liberal and neo-liberal economy with an economic system that is polity-orientated and socially responsible without being planned-economic: The business enterprises of the Labour movement, Ernst Abbe's foundation idea, Gottlieb Duttweiler's idea of social capital, the concept of the Grameen Bank, the initial stages of similar ideas  in the Prague Spring, and the movements of upheaval of 1989 towards a Third Way should be mentioned here; not to forget either the manifold attempts at cooperating and fair trading from production to consumption, nor new forms of handling money, land and capital, nor initiatives for a new agriculture.

Even though many of these approaches failed at first or presently only have a limited radius of operation - to call them to mind is enough to refute the thesis that an economic system which is based on maximum profit of the capital owners is the epitome of economy. Civil society has no reason to be "anti-business‰, but it does have every reason to support new approaches of doing business in an ecological and social manner which might also be capable of forming associations to balance regional and global interests on a basis of mutual trust and cooperation.

Only such an economic system where services are not a vehicle of profit making, but where cost-effectiveness and profit are a means to fulfil social and ecological tasks, can be called humane.

From GATS to "GAFT"?

Let us develop a broad global movement against GATS! Within this movement and at the round tables of trisectoral partnerships, let us develop, at the same time, a dialogue on civil society's visions of a social future stamped by structures that enable people to solve their social problems more and more fruitfully and to put into practice ever more freedom, justice and solidarity.

This GATS - we don't need it. What we do need at best is an agreement which does not yet exist and which we might call "General Agreement on Fairness in Trade" ("GAFT"). This would be an agreement which creates global basic conditions for the gradual  development of a global economic life, which is only shaped by the agreements of the partners concerned and which is efficient and structurally and regionally well-balanced - in a word, a socially responsible economy, which is based on the equalization of interests and aims at setting fair prices.

November 2001. Translation by Wilfried Hüfler. © Christoph Strawe

[1]  This article has been taken from the circular Threefolding of the Social Organism, No. 2 / 2001.
This circular contains contributions on current topics of our time and problems of modern social development. It reports on approaches to self-governed cultural life and "associative" economics and on initiatives in the field of shaping the law and of politics, and informs about meetings, training courses and  publications. It is published in German by the initiative "Netzwerk Dreigliederung" (= "Network Threefolding"), Büro Strawe, Haußmannstr. 44a, D-70188 Stuttgart (0711-2368950, fax: 0711-2360218, E-Mail:, where back-numbers and specimen copies can be ordered. - Internet address:

[2]  The GATT - the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - was concluded in 1947.

[3]  Very useful information about the WTO's origin, bodies, functioning and agreements has been placed (in German) on the websites of the Austrian ecology group Global 2000 (Flurschützstraße 13, A-1120 Vienna), see

[4]  Quoted from Marianne Hochuli: Die WTO zu wessen Diensten? Ein Positionspapier der Erklärung von Bern zum WTO-Dienstleistungsabkommen GATS ("The WTO - in Whose Line of Duty? A positioning paper of the Declaration of Bern concerning the WTO services agreement GATS"). Published in the internet under

Ruggiero's speech was held on June 2, 1998 in Brussels ("Towards GATS 2000 - a European Strategy" ) (

[5]  cp. Leo A. Nefiodow: Der sechste Kondratieff. Wege zur Produktivität und Vollbeschäftigung im Zeitalter der Information ("The Sixth Kondratieff: Ways towards productivity and full employment in the age of information"). Sankt Augustin, Germany, 4th edition 2000. The book deals with the long waves of the ups and downs in the economic situation and the basic innovations underlying in each case. The first so-called Kondratieff cycle was earmarked by steam engine and cotton, the second by steel and railway, followed by electrical engineering and chemistry, finally petro-chemistry and automobile, and at last, in the fifth cycle, the information technology. - Nefiodow represents a model of a cooperative society with a denominationally-Christian stamp, so he himself cannot be considered as a neo-liberalist.

[6]  The article can be found in the internet under, and without certain mistakes in the monthly "The Ecologist", London, February 2001, or can be ordered - corrected - in printed form through Wilfried Hüfler, Lodenbergstr. 23/1, D-72766 Reutlingen,

[8]  multifaceted term "civil society", which is more and more frequently used in present-day discussions, may be outlined as a variety of social groups, initiatives and movements that operate to a large extent independently of governmental, party-political or private-industrial institutions. A profound discussion of the concept can be found (in German) in this year's first issue (March 2001) of the aforementioned circular (Rundbrief Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus), p. 9-21.

[9]  The term of "relational services" ("Beziehungdienstleistungen") was coined by Udo Herrmannstorfer, cp. his essay "Die Arbeit am Menschen - ein Produktionsvorgang? Zur Charakteristik von Beziehungsdienstleistungen - Ein Beitrag zur Debatte über die Qualitätssicherung" (= "Working on Man - a Process of Production? Concerning the characterization of 'relational services' - a contribution to the debate on quality management"). In: Rundbrief Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, (see above, under 1), number 2/1999.

[10]  Die WTO zu wessen Diensten? ("The WTO to whose service?"), op. cit.

[11]  cp. Michael Miersch, Dirk Maxeiner: Das Mephisto-Prinzip: Böses schafft Gutes. Frankfurt/M. 2001. The authors believe to be allowed to follow Goethe' s Faust, where the devil, Mephisto, is named by God a part of the power which always wills the evil and always creates the good. They forget, though, that the tempting power of Mephisto can only work that way because it meets with Faust, the man who "always striving" "exerts himself" on behalf of the good. If Faust intended the bad only, Mephisto would win his bet with God, instead of losing it, as he does with Goethe.

[12]  Die WTO zu wessen Diensten? ("The WTO to whose service?"), op. cit.

[13]  Cp. for this: Udo Herrmannstorfer, Harald Spehl, Christoph Strawe: "Umfinanzierung der Lohnnebenkosten durch einen verbrauchsorientierten Sozialausgleich. Ein Weg zur Zukunftssicherung der Sozialsysteme unter den Bedingungen der Globalisierung. Umfinanzierung der Arbeitslosenversicherung als erster Schritt" (= "Changing the form of financing of the social systems  - consumption-orientated social compensation instead of incidental labour costs. A way towards the securing of the social systems for the future under the conditions of globalization. Re-financing the unemployment insurance as a first step."). In: Circular "Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus", issue 1/1999, and under (cp. footnote 1)