Search results

Mankind stands at a turning point in time as empires crumble, old enemies make peace, and the old‐order based on nation‐states is threatened. But, regrettably, it seems scholars are increasingly playing dysfunctional roles: instead of preaching tolerance and understanding fit for a Global Village built peace and cooperation, voices of intolerance and extremism are making significant inroads into the ivory tower.

In a small, but insightful book, Civilization on Trial, written more than half a century ago, the great English historian, Arnold Toynbee, expressed great pessimism about the prospects of Western civilisation which he found to be Eurocentric (Toynbee, 1948). Toynbee's study of history was universalistic, reflecting a deep knowledge and respect for non‐Western cultures and civilisations. For Toynbee history was unified whole; it was a universal history of the entire humanity, not just of some Western people. In this sense, Toynbee is similar to the great Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun, the author of Muqaddimah, written almost six centuries ago, as an inquiry into the causes of the rise and decline of civilisations (Mehmet, 1990: 81–4).

The last two centuries, roughly from the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, have witnessed a remarkable process of globalization of Western capitalism. The principal institutions facilitating this process were originally the chartered companies and, in the more recent times, the multinational corporations headquartered in the West. Search for global profits has always been the driving force behind this globalization. But the deeper inner logic of this process is capitalization on a world‐scale.

States that Abu Hamid Muhammad Al‐Ghazzali (ad1058‐1111) is generally regarded as the Islamic equivalent of Kant. Reveals that he was a prolific and influential scholar, and that a central objective of Ghazzali in all his writings was the unity of knowledge, rooted in the Oneness of God, and reason (i.e. intellect plus free will) as the path for all moral concepts ultimately leading to the belief in God. Argues that Ghazzali’s ideas of good government, Dawlat, based on social justice, ad’l, penned 1,000 years ago, are still refreshing and relevant today. For, as humanity approaches a new millennium and globalization is slowly integrating peoples and cultures of the world, demands for global equity and good governance are at the top of the international reform agenda. Concludes that, in this context, Ghazzali’s ideas are especially relevant for a critical analysis of a discipline, i.e. economic development, which has for too long been Eurocentric.

The last 200 years, roughly from the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in 1776 to the present, have witnessed a remarkable, systemic drive for the globalization of Western capitalism. The intellectual origin of this drive has been mainstream economics which has capitalised technology, labour, environment and other productive resources; in practice, these resources have been harnessed by aggressive capitalists [originally called adventurers, forerunnes of today's multinational corporations (MNCs)] in a worldwide search for profits. This drive has enriched the West but not the vast majority of humanity.

Globalization is rapidly integrating markets, universalizing Western materialism, and weakening the capacity of national states to safeguard local values and institutions. While some, principally the World Bank (1999) regard integrating world markets as an efficiency‐driven process, spreading the benefits of technical innovation and information technologies around the world, many are skeptical. Skeptics include in particular social scientists writing from a Non‐Western and Islamic perspective (Ismail 1999, Rajee 2000). If globalization is indeed a threat to the Nation‐State, then it would follow that small states would be the most vulnerable. At a minimum, it is significant to inquire whether globalization threatens the survival and sustainability of small states.

I. Introduction We live in a world of cultural diversity, a mosaic of cultures. Cultural diversity can be an enriching asset, enhancing tolerance and mutual respect among different peoples; or it can be a source of bitter inter‐ethnic conflict. In this paper the focus of attention is on the second, i.e. inter‐ethnic conflict resulting from ethnocentricity. The overall purpose of the paper is to explore ethnocentricity in inter‐ethnic conflict as a basis for teaching human rights courses in education.

After the restoration of Turkish parliamentary democracy in 1961, Turkey adopted the path of development by planning to be coordinated by the newly created State Planning Organisation (SPO). Manpower and educational planning were given top priority and longrange forecasting became an important task of SPO's Social Planning Department (SPD). Some 20 years later, the same institutional organisation and the original preoccupation with longrange manpower forecasting is maintained, despite the fact that this period has seen a rapid technological, structural and industrial transformation of the economy and the emergence of an acute problem of unemployment. While manpower planning is focused on future labour market conditions, there is virtually no employment policy designed to accelerate productive employment creation in the short and medium runs.

This paper examines the phenomen of microstates and, in particular, their often exceptionally high per‐capita levels of income. It suggests that the small size of a state, in terms of both area and population, may be economically advantageous. The special characteristics of microstates are defined and a case study of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus is used to examine them further. Conclusions are drawn and, hopefully, discussion will be stimulated regarding the relatively unexplored field of microstates.

I. Introduction It is no secret that Islamic countries have entered a new epoch in which serious questions regarding the nature of their economic institutions have taken on renewed urgency. During the past few years, elan debates have taken place, both nationally and internationally, among specialists in economic sciences, specialists in traditional Islamic disciplines, and intellectual exponents of various Islamic political movements. Inherently complex, the discourse, which appears in academic and semi‐ academic publications as well as the popular press, is made distinctly more complex as it often takes place in an extremely volatile environment, which has been shaped by severe economic crises, political turmoil, and social unrest.