It’s the Global Economy (Stupid) – or Is It?

Mark Weisbrot
guardian.co.uk
The concept of the 'global economy' is largely exaggerated. The US can – and should – still set its own economic policies

"This is the day that the world came together, to fight back against the global recession. Not with words but a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable," said Gordon Brown at the end of the G20 summit last week.

This was somewhat exaggerated. There was no plan for global recovery or even a commitment to increased fiscal stimulus. It remains to be seen what kinds of reforms will actually materialise.

But recovery and reform will not necessarily hinge on what the G20 agrees to do. Roll back to the last major economic crisis – that which began in Asia in 1997 and spread to Russia, Brazil, Argentina and other countries. In September 1998 Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan warned: "It is just not credible that the United States can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress." But the US economy kept booming right through the crisis, as a result of consumption driven by the stock market bubble. This continued until the bubble burst, pushing the US economy into recession in 2001.

It should not be surprising that the US economy has the potential to grow even while many other economies are contracting. Eighty-seven percent of what is produced in the US is consumed here. To be sure, the other 13% percent can make a difference – but US recessions are not brought on by falling exports. It is not comparable to the 47% of GDP that Germany exported last year, or even the 28% for Mexico.

Of course the current world recession is much worse and more widespread than the crisis of the late 1990s. The high-income countries that comprise the majority of the world economy, including the US, EU and Japan are mostly in recession. There are some big imbalances, built up over many years, that are adjusting at a pace that is not easy to predict – including the US savings rate, which had fallen to zero by 2007. And there are major weaknesses in much of the world's financial system.

Nonetheless the US is capable of recovering on its own, with a sufficient domestic economic stimulus and a sensible resolution of the major insolvencies in the financial system – regardless of what other governments do. The US recovery will in turn help the rest of the world.

The fact that the dollar is the key reserve currency of the world gives the US even more leeway. There are loud complaints from conservatives about our recession-induced free-spending ways, but investors world-wide are willing to lend the US government money at the historically low (both real and nominal) rate of 2.9% on 10-year Treasury bonds. This is not the sign of an impending fiscal crisis.

It is good that the G20 leaders are at least talking about increased international co-operation in order to deal with the world recession, and there are some areas – eg regulation of the financial sector or preventing illegal international capital flows and international tax avoidance – where increased international co-operation can be especially helpful. But even in these areas, many of the most important reforms can be implemented by individual governments.

The global nature of the "global economy" has been grossly exaggerated, as have been its implications. The world today is still much more a collection of national economies, and national governments – especially in the larger economies – have the potential to choose most of their economic policies much as they did 30 or 40 years ago.

The government of China, for example, has for decades controlled capital flows into and out of the country, regulated foreign investment in accordance with national development needs and plans, fixed its exchange rate and owned most of the banking system. In this way it was able to take advantage of "globalisation" – both international trade and foreign direct investment – to achieve the fastest economic growth in world history.

The contemporary idea of the "global economy" is based on a misapplied analogy to the historical development of national economies. For example, the US economy was much less stable, with more frequent and much longer recessions, before the creation of regulatory institutions, including most importantly the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the New Deal reforms of the 1930s. (The current crisis, which has occurred after decades of deregulatory reforms, appears to be the exception that proves the rule).

Thus, it is reasoned, we now live in a "global economy", and this too must be regulated to iron out some of the irrationalities and instabilities inherent in a market economy.

Of course there is some truth to this argument. The idea of a world reserve currency to replace the dollar, for example, most recently floated by China, is a potential reform that could improve world macroeconomic stability.

But the concept of the "global economy" is very often an exaggerated one, generating confusion and negative political consequences. Reforms that are both necessary and feasible at the national level, such as appropriate exchange rate, fiscal and monetary policies (especially in normal times) or capital controls, are rejected as incompatible with the "global economy".

At the same time, reformers often mistakenly look to supra-national institutions that are mainly deregulatory, unaccountable and regressive – the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organisation are prime examples – to resolve the problems that these institutions have themselves helped to create.

Finance ministers (or Treasury secretaries) that are beholden to powerful interests at home are even less accountable to the public when making decisions in these bodies that are another step removed from the electorate of member countries. If they won't do the right thing at home, they are far less likely to do it at the IMF or the World Bank. For the present, at least, reform at the national or perhaps regional level is a much better bet.

Indeed, "globalisation" under inappropriate rules and policies has contributed significantly to the current crisis. Even the EU, a project that compares favourably to the "race-to-the-bottom" economic integration of the Nafta variety, is currently hampering the Eurozone's recovery. The restrictions on budget deficits and the ultra-conservative central bank set up by the Maastricht treaty are making it more difficult for Europe to counteract this recession.

Efforts to redraw the rules for global commerce in a more equitable and rational manner – such as those of the UN commission headed by Joseph Stiglitz – are a vital part of creating a better future for the generations to come. But the world cannot wait for the time when the governments of the rich countries are willing to cede decision-making power to institutions – such as the United Nations – that they cannot completely dominate. Nor does it have to wait.

U.S. Lays Down Terms for Auto Bailout

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and BILL VLASIC

Published: March 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General Motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid.

The decision to ask G.M.’s chairman and chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to resign caught Detroit and Washington by surprise, and it underscored the Obama administration’s determination to keep a tight rein on the companies it is bailing out — a level of government involvement in business perhaps not seen since the Great Depression.

President Obama is scheduled to announce details of the auto package at the White House on Monday, but two senior officials, offering a preview on condition of anonymity, made clear that some form of bankruptcy — a quick, court-supervised restructuring, as they described it — could still be an option for one or both companies.

Mr. Obama’s auto industry task force, in a report released Sunday night assessing the viability of both companies and detailing the administration’s new plans for them, concluded that Chrysler could not survive as a stand-alone company.

The report said the company would get no more help from the government unless it can finalize a proposed alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat by April 30. It must also reduce its debt and health-care obligations.

If a deal is reached between Chrysler and Fiat, the administration says it would consider another loan of $6 billion to Chrysler.

G.M., on the other hand, has made considerable progress in developing new energy-efficient cars and could survive if it can cut costs sharply, the task force reported. The administration is giving G.M. 60 days to present a cost-cutting plan and will provide taxpayer assistance to keep it afloat during that time.

Along with Mr. Wagoner’s ouster, the task force said most of the company’s board would be replaced over the next few months. In a statement Monday, Mr. Wagoner said he had been urged to “step aside” by administration officials, “and so I have.”

His resignation is the latest example of the government taking a hands-on role in making major decisions at companies it is bailing out. The government has already pushed banks to make management changes and sharply reduce or eliminate their dividends, and it also is directing many of the decisions at the troubled insurance giant American International Group, which is nearly 80 percent owned by the government after its rescue.

In deciding to urge Mr. Wagoner to step down, the Obama administration seemed mindful of the public’s growing outrage over bailouts of private companies, as well as the bonuses paid to employees of A.I.G.

Mr. Obama is well aware that he cannot afford to give the appearance of using tax dollars to reward executives who have done a poor job, and he began signaling as early as last week that he would take a tough stance with the automakers.

In a question and answer session at the White House on Thursday, the president said there had been “a lot of mismanagement of the auto industry over the past several years,” and declared that more government help would be contingent on the companies’ “willingness to make some pretty drastic changes.”

The plan Mr. Obama is to announce on Monday will also include government backing of warranties for G.M. and Chrysler cars and trucks, to give consumers enough confidence to buy them, even if one or both are forced into bankruptcy.

In Detroit, the G.M. board said Monday in a statement that it “has recognized for some time that the company’s restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience.”

“The board intends to work to nominate a slate of directors for the next annual meeting that will include a majority of new directors,” the board said.

Mr. Wagoner has presided over a steep drop in G.M.’s domestic market share, which has led to tens of billions of dollars in losses. His critics have said that management’s failure to move aggressively to address the company’s problems contributed to its dire financial situation.

“The bigger surprise is not that he resigned. That was going to happen sooner or later,” said Michael Useem, professor of management at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. “But the moment seems inexplicable.”

G.M. and Chrysler have almost exhausted the combined $17.4 billion in federal aid they have received since December. G.M. has asked for up to $16.6 billion more, and Chrysler has requested another $5 billion.

Bondholders are under pressure to convert two-thirds of the $27 billion owed them into G.M. stock, while the United Auto Workers union is being asked to substitute stock for 50 percent of their health care benefits for retirees. Both groups have resisted those changes.

Administration officials say they have enough money to offer the assistance they envision under plans already approved by Congress. Even so, Mr. Obama may face skepticism on Capitol Hill and from the public.

As part of the companies’ original agreement for the loans, both were required to submit restructuring plans. Mr. Wagoner’s removal underscores how much more G.M. needs to cut than was proposed in the plan the company submitted.

Administration officials stressed that the company needed a fresh approach and leadership changes; they said Steven Rattner, the former investment banker who co-chairs the auto task force, delivered the news to Mr. Wagoner.

As recently as March 18 he said in an interview that his discussions with the task force did not give him the impression that his job was at stake. “They so far haven’t commented on that,” he said then.

Frederick A. Henderson, G.M.’s president, will succeed Mr. Wagoner on an interim basis as chief executive; Kent Kresa, a board member, will assume the chairmanship. Members of the auto panel spoke with Mr. Henderson recently and came away with a favorable impression of him, people familiar with the panel’s discussions said.

Like Mr. Wagoner, Mr. Henderson is a graduate of the Harvard Business School and a lifer at G.M. He started in the finance division in 1984 and later spent nine years in executive positions in South America, Asia and Europe. The Detroit-born son of a G.M. sales manager, Mr. Henderson, 50, became chief financial officer in 2006 and was named president and chief operating officer a year ago.

Mr. Wagoner’s departure at G.M. marks an end to a corporate hierarchy that spanned generations. The last G.M. chairman to leave under duress was Robert C. Stempel, who was forced out in 1992 by outside directors who blamed him for losses.

Mr. Wagoner, 56, came to G.M. in 1977 and rose to become chief financial officer in 1992 when he was 38. He oversaw the company’s North American business for years before being named chairman in 2000.

G.M.’s share of its most important market, the United States, declined steadily under Mr. Wagoner. In 1994, when he took charge of North America, G.M. held 33.2 percent of the American car market. Last month, G.M.’s share was only 18.8 percent, according to statistics from Motorintelligence.com, which specializes in industry data. Auto sales in February were the worst for the industry since 1981.

G.M. collapsed last fall when new-vehicle sales in the United States plummeted to their lowest level in 25 years. G.M. lost more than $30 billion in 2008, and has been subsisting on government loans since the beginning of the year.

The administration briefed lawmakers on the plan Sunday night. Afterward, Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan, whose district is just outside Detroit, expressed frustration over the ousting of Mr. Wagoner and with administration officials for not being clearer about the potential job losses that lie ahead.

“Why would you ask Rick Wagoner to resign when you are giving G.M. 60 days to meet a new target, but you aren’t saying what the new goal is yet,” Mr. McCotter said in an interview.

White House questions viability of GM, Chrysler

PHILIP ELLIOTT | March 30, 2009 08:53 AM EST |

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is sending a blunt message to Detroit automakers: To survive _ and win more government help _ they must remake themselves top to bottom. Driving home the point, the White House ousted the General Motors chairman as it rejected GM and Chrysler's restructuring plans.

Obama is set to elaborate on that message Monday when he announces what his White House told reporters over the weekend: Neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive additional federal bailout money.

GM chairman Rick Wagoner became the most conspicuous casualty of that decision, forced out Sunday as the White House indicated Detroit must make management and other changes if it hopes to survive _ and that the Obama administration will have a hands-on role in those changes.

Michigan Gov. Governor Jennifer Granholm said Wagoner "clearly is a sacrificial lamb" who stepped aside "for the future of the company and for the future of jobs." She spoke on NBC's "Today" show Monday.

Obama said the companies must do more to receive additional financial aid from the government.

"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge _ at the other end _ much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is," Obama said on CBS' "Face the Nation" broadcast Sunday.

Frustrated administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of Obama's announcement, said Chrysler has been given a 30-day window to complete a proposed partnership with Italian automaker Fiat SpA. The government will offer up to $6 billion to the companies if they can negotiate a deal before time runs out. If a Chrysler-Fiat union cannot be completed, Washington plans to walk away, leaving Chrysler destined for a complete sell-off.

Shawn Morgan, a Chrysler spokeswoman, declined to comment ahead of Obama's announcement.

A Conversation with Mauricio Funes

By Roberto Lovato & Josue Rojas

March 17, 2009

Thenation.com

On March 15, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) became the first leftist party to clinch a presidential election in the history of El Salvador. By 10 pm, it became clear to Salvadorans and to the world that the former guerrillas had ended more than 130 years of oligarchy and military rule over this Central American nation of 7 million. In the streets, thousands of red-shirted sympathizers chanted "¡Si Se Pudo!" (Yes, We Could), while they celebrated the victory of the FMLN's Mauricio Funes.
Funes captured 51 percent of the vote, to 49 percent cast for Rodrigo Avila of the Nationalist Republican Alliance party, which had been in power for twenty years.

Though Funes, a former journalist, is the best-known Salvadoran on his country's TV networks, he is little known outside the region. Thanks to a collaboration between The Nation and New America Media (NAM), reporters Roberto Lovato and Josue Rojas had the opportunity to interview El Salvador's next president on the night of his election. What follows is an excerpt from this interview with Funes, who addressed numerous issues: the meaning of his presidency, El Salvador's relationship with the United States, immigration and other domestic and foreign policy concerns.

Immigration has become one of the defining issues of the US-El Salvador relationship. How will your administration's approach to this issue differ from that of the outgoing Saca administration?

The fact that we're going to rebuild the democratic institutions--enforce the constitution and make of El Salvador a democratic state that respects the rule of law--is the best guarantee to the United States that we will significantly reduce the flows of out-migration.

Salvadorans who leave to go the United States do so because of the institutional abandonment, the lack of employment and dignified ways to make a living. This forces them to leave in search of new possibilities in the US. It's not the same for us to ask the US government to renew TPS [temporary legalization] without a Salvadoran effort to avoid further migration flows, as to do so from a position in which we have undertaken efforts to reduce the migration flows.

What's the first message you'd like to send to President Obama?

The message that I would like to send to President Obama is that I will not seek alliances or accords with other heads of state from the southern part of the continent who will jeopardize my relationship with the government of the United States.

Opinion polls in El Salvador indicate that large majorities of its citizens reject key policies that define, in many ways, the relationship between El Salvador and the United States, specifically CAFTA, dollarization and the Iraq war. What will your approach be to these issues?

We can't get mixed up in repealing CAFTA...nor can we reverse dollarization, because that would send a negative message to foreign investors, and then we'd be facing serious problems because we wouldn't have enough investment to stimulate the national economy.

What do you think the United States government should be concerned about with regard to El Salvador at this time?

To the degree that we do our part, which is to rebuild our productive capacity and to create a coherent social policy that improves the quality of life, there will be fewer reasons to leave for the US and we'll reduce migration flows. And that should be a concern for the US.

Where will the effects of the transition in power be felt most immediately?

We're going to change the way we make policy. And one of the most significant changes is that we will no longer have a government at the service of a privileged few. And we will no longer have a government that creates an economy of privileges for the privileged. Now, we need a government like the one envisioned by [Archbishop of El Salvador] Óscar Arnulfo Romero, who, in his prophetic message, said that the church should have a preferential option for the poor.

Paraphrasing Monseñor Romero, I would say that this government should have preferential option for the poor, for those who need a robust government to get ahead and to be able to compete in this world of disequilibrium under fair conditions.

This government implies a break from traditional policy-making.

Now, what we're going to do is put the government and the structure of the state at the service of the Salvadoran people--the totality of the Salvadoran people--but fundamentally, of that great majority who are oppressed and excluded from the country's social and economic development. [The people who for] not just the last twenty years but for last 200 years or more have not had the possibility of participating in the formation of public policies.

A government like the one I'm going to create will give them the protagonist's role, which, until now, they have not had.

A.I.G. Chief Asks Bonus Recipients To Give Back Half

By DAVID STOUT

Published: March 18, 2009
NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — As the lucrative bonuses paid to employees of the American International Group fueled fresh outrage at the White House and on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, the embattled chief executive of A.I.G. said that he had asked some recipients to give at least half the money back.

The chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, made the announcement during his testimony on Wednesday afternoon before a Congressional committee investigating the problems at the insurance giant.

“I have asked the employees of A.I.G. Financial Products to step up and do the right thing,” Mr. Liddy told lawmakers. “Specifically, I have asked those who received retention payments of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments.”

The A.I.G. chief said that some recipients had already offered to give up all of their bonuses, and he added later that he expected to get most of the money back.

Of the 418 employees who received bonuses, 298 got more than $100,000, according to the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo. The highest bonus was $6.4 million, and 6 other employees received more than $4 million. Fifteen other people received bonuses of more than $2 million and 51 received $1 million to $2 million.

Before Mr. Liddy’s testimony, the A.I.G. affair prompted President Obama to declare that a culture of “excess greed” demonstrated in A.I.G.’s dealings should have no place in a new Wall Street.

“As we get out of this crisis, as we work toward getting ourselves out of this recession, I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace don’t think that we can return to business as usual,” the president said after meeting with his economic advisers.

Accordingly, Mr. Obama said, he will push for quick Congressional legislation to create a regulatory framework for entities like A.I.G., which is not a bank, similar to the powers that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has over banks.

“I’m angry,” the president said. “What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way.”

The president reiterated his faith in Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “No Treasury secretary since maybe Alexander Hamilton has faced such challenges,” he said. Mr. Obama has already called for Mr. Geithner to explore whatever legal means might be available to retrieve the bonuses. The president and his aides have also noted often that the near-collapse of A.I.G. and other aspects of the financial crisis began to manifest themselves before the start of the Obama administration.

The president did not call on Wednesday for the bonuses to be paid back, or taken back somehow. But there was strong sentiment on Capitol Hill over the $165 million in bonuses, and it was by no means clear that asking bonus recipients to give up half of their windfalls would appease the lawmakers. A.I.G. has received nearly $200 billion in federal bailout funds.

“We are the effective owners of this company,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, going on to suggest a lawsuit to recover the $165 million in bonuses. “I think it’s worth trying.”

By “we,” Mr. Frank made clear, he meant the American taxpayers, whose collective anger has been felt on Capitol Hill over the last several days. And no wonder, said Representative Gary L. Ackerman, a Democrat from Long Island. The typical taxpayer knows he is “the ultimate sucker” in the A.I.G. debacle, Mr. Ackerman said.

The lawmakers, having heard from their furious constituents, seemed unwilling to be mollified by the pledge from Mr. Liddy, who took the helm at A.I.G. last fall after it had begun imploding because of reckless investments, that the company’s 116,000 employees were united in wanting to work out of the morass, and work “shoulder to shoulder” with federal regulators.

Instead, the lawmakers were focused on the recipients of bonuses at the very unit that caused A.I.G. “to teeter on the brink of collapse,” as Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who heads the capital markets subcommittee, put it.

“A million dollars is a sizable sum to the typical American family,” Mr. Kanjorski said, “and a million dollars is a lottery prize for anyone who has just lost a job.” He called on A.I.G.’s employees to join with the legions of Americans who “have made personal sacrifices to survive these difficult times.”

For the American people, said Representative Paul Hodes, Democrat of New Hampshire, the initials “A.I.G.” now stand for “arrogance, incompetence and greed.”

But Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, the senior Republican on Mr. Kanjorski’s subcommittee, said he had a question for those who are unhappy with the way the A.I.G. story has unfolded: “What did you expect, and why weren’t you asking more questions before?” The big scandal is not the millions in bonuses but the billions going to try to save A.I.G. in the first place, he said. “And to what effect?”

It was clear even before the start of the hearing by the subcommittee that there was the potential for emotional outbursts from the audience, enough potential that Mr. Frank warned at the outset that there would be “no heckling,” and that he would have people arrested, if necessary. A few hours later, Mr. Kanjorski said a group of protesters in the audience had exhausted his patience. He director Capitol police officers to confiscated the protesters’ signs, which the police did without incident.

Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the leading Republican on the Financial Services Committee, urged his colleagues not to be distracted by what he said should be their true goal, “trying to recover as much taxpayers’ money as possible.”

Mr. Bachus said Congress should feel some responsibility for the mess, given an apparent failure to regulate adequately in recent years. “The American people are paying for it,” he said.

But for the moment, the focus was on the 418 so far unnamed recipients of the bonuses, paid out after A.I.G. was receiving $170 billion in public money after its near-collapse threatened not only the company but the entire financial system.

Mr. Frank threatened to issue subpoenas, if necessary, to make public the names of the bonus recipients.

“Morally reprehensible,” Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, called the bonuses. No one disagreed.

Nor did anyone disagree with Mr. Liddy when he said A.I.G. had made mistakes “on a scale few could have ever imagined possible.”

“The most critical of those mistakes was that the company strayed from its core competencies in the insurance business,” Mr. Liddy said in prepared text. “Those missteps have exacted a very high price, not only for A.I.G. but for America’s taxpayers, the federal government’s finances and the economy as a whole.”

“We are meeting today at a high point of public anger,” said Mr. Liddy, a former chief executive of Allstate who was installed as A.I.G.’s chief when the Federal Reserve announced its rescue package. “I share that anger. As a businessman of some 37 years, I have seen the good side of capitalism. Over the last few months, in reviewing how A.I.G. had been run in prior years, I have also seen evidence of its bad side.”

'Son escuelas de élite... para talentos'

Las universidades de la Ciudad de la Educación de Qatar se reconocen como de élite pero receptivas de talentos, se cual sea su posición económica

Sonia del Valle / Enviada
reforma.com

Doha, Qatar (15 marzo 2009).- Cursar una carrera en una de las universidades que conforman la Ciudad de la Educación en la capital de Qatar, tiene un costo de entre 30 mil a 50 mil dólares al año.

Sin embargo, a decir de Michael Vertigas, director de Relaciones Públicas de la Universidad de Weill Cornell, aquellos alumnos que no pueden pagar, tienen la posibilidad de adquirir una beca.

"El costo, es igual que en las universidades en Estados Unidos, depende mucho del programa, pero puede rondar entre los 30 mil y los 50 mil dólares al año.

"Las universidades asentadas aquí ponen su prestigio, sus maestros e investigadores y aquellos estudiantes que no pueden pagar, también tiene la opción de aplicar para un beca que otorga la Fundación Qatar", señala.

Con ese beneficio, el alumno que sea aceptado -previa presentación de exámenes y valoración del Comité de Admisiones, asentado en EU- podrá cursar sin problema sus estudios, y una vez terminados, "pagar" al Gobierno de Qatar por la inversión realizada trabajando en el País por 5 años.

O si lo prefiere, añade, la otra opción es cubrir el costo de los estudios en un plazo igual al que duró la carrera.

En caso de optar por la primera opción, señala, el empleo lo consigue la Fundación Qatar y la paga es competitiva.

"En este caso, no se tiene que pagar el costo de la educación, se paga por el servicio que se presta al trabajar en el País, la otra opción es pagar el costo de los estudios en un plazo igual y la beca se convierte en realidad en un préstamo", señala.

Quienes pueden solicitar su ingreso a las universidades de la Ciudad de la Educación son sólo alumnos de excelencia, con calificación de 10.

- "¿Son universidades de élite, no son para el pueblo?", le cuestiona un periodista al directivo de la Universidad de Weill Cornell.

- "Sí", responde Vertigas, "son de élite, pero para los talentos".

- "¿Cuántos latinoamericanos hay?", pregunta otro.

- "Ninguno", responde.

Por otra parte, Abdulla Bin Ali Al-Thani, vicepresidente de la Fundación Qatar, la cual desarrolla el proyecto de la Ciudad de la Educación desde 1995, señala que su País invierte en la gente hoy para vender conocimiento mañana.

"Estamos invirtiendo en la gente para crear nuevo conocimiento, lo vamos a aplicar, comercializar y exportar al mundo", explica.

Abdulla Bin, dijo que la apuesta de su País es transformar el petróleo y el gas en conocimiento.

"Estamos desarrollando el capital humano para hacer de la investigación y el conocimiento la palanca de desarrollo para el País.

"Vamos a crear nuevo conocimiento, lo vamos a aplicar, comercializar y exportar al mundo, y lo haremos en asociación con otras instituciones educativas que son líderes en sus áreas de trabajo para el desarrollo social y económico de la región".

Transforma Qatar petróleo en educación

reforma.com

Invierten renta petrolera en la formación de alta calidad de sus habitantes

Sonia del Valle / Enviada

Doha, Qatar (15 marzo 2009).- Desde hace 14 años, Qatar se fijó una meta: transformar el desarrollo económico del País, basado en los hidrocarburos, a una economía sustentada en el conocimiento.

Por ello, el Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani y la reina Sheika Mozah Bint Nasser Al Missned decidieron utilizar la renta petrolera para crear la Ciudad de la Educación, con el objetivo de ofrecer a su población una formación académica de alta calidad.

La decisión se vio aparejada con una inversión millonaria en el sector educativo, pues este País, con menos de 2 millones de habitantes, catalogado como el de mayor ingreso per cápita del mundo, destina 3.3 puntos porcentuales de su PIB para la educación, que es de 116.9 mil millones de dólares, y 2.

por ciento para investigación científica y tecnológica.

El proyecto, que arrancó en 1995 y fue trazado a 25 años, ha concretado ya seis complejos universitarios en Doha, capital de Qatar, en una superficie de 14 millones de metros cuadrados.

Se trata de los campus de Virginia Commonwealth University, para Arte y Diseño; Weill Cornell Medical College, de Medicina; Texas A&M University, para Ingeniería; Carnegie Mellon University, de Computación, Negocios e Informática; Georgetown School, de Servicio Exterior y Northwest University, para Periodismo y Comunicación.

Durante un recorrido, REFORMA pudo constatar la infraestructura educativa con tecnología de punta que propone un innovador concepto de aprendizaje colectivo entre maestros y alumnos.

En los salones, los alumnos están sentados en mesas alineadas en forma de un cuadrado, se trata de las clases "cara a cara".

Cada mesa cuenta con computadoras que suben y bajan de la mesa-escritorio con sólo activar un botón; las paredes del salón son pizarrones electrónicos de piso a techo o pizarrones blancos donde se puede escribir mientras se discute la lección entre estudiantes y maestros.

En otros salones, se toman clases vía teleconferencia con un académico ubicado en Estados Unidos, quien da una lección, como parte de uno de los seminarios que se imparten en esas universidades.

También están los salones laboratorio y de cómputo y la biblioteca sin muros.

Ésta última se conforma de mesas con 2 sillas y una computadora que se pueden encontrar en todos los pasillos de las instituciones, a través de la cual se despliegan las bibliotecas de al menos 50 universidades de todo el mundo, libros a los que los estudiantes y la facultad puede acceder con sólo conectar sus laptops, sus celulares, sus I-pod, o cualquier gadget.

En otros salones, los estudiantes se sientan en lofts, alineados como butacas de teatros, desde donde escuchan a un maestro dar su clase ayudado por un micrófono.

Ubicada al sur de la capital, la Ciudad de la Educación alberga también la Academia de Qatar, desde preescolar hasta bachillerato, y la Academia para el Liderazgo creada junto con las Fuerzas Armadas, que preparar a los líderes militares y políticos.

Además, se encuentra la Escuela para el Aprendizaje que ayuda a los estudiantes a compensar sus debilidades académicas y el Programa Academic Brigde que prepara a los alumnos para ingresar a la universidad.

Cuenta además con la Facultad de Estudios Islámicos, el Instituto de Investigación de Políticas Públicas Rand; el Centro de Desarrollo Cultural que albergará la Librería Heritage y el Museo de Arte Moderno Árabe.

La Ciudad concluirá su primera fase de expansión en 2012, una vez que abran sus puertas el Centro de Convenciones, el Parque de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica que cuenta con una inversión de 300 millones de dólares; el Jardín Botánico; el Centro de Investigación Médica y Hospital Sidra, el Centro de Recursos Educativos sobre los Equinos Árabes.

Este último contará con un museo, spa para caballos, veterinaria, colegio de equitación, cría de caballos y pista de carreras.

"Se trata de la primera gran inversión para la generación de conocimiento del futuro", explica Michael Vertigas, director de Relaciones Públicas de la Universidad de Weill Cornell, un inglés convencido de que en la Ciudad de la Educación se escribe la nueva página de la sociedad del conocimiento global.