Search

Most major transnational corporations (TNCs) are domiciled in the First World and are owned and controlled largely by citizens of these countries. On the basis of an analysis of the largest corporations outside the USA by revenues published annually by Fortune magazine since the 1950s, this paper demonstrates that there have been major corporations from the Third World for decades. Most of the literature on Third World TNCs concentrates on the large number of relatively small companies that have operations abroad in low technology sectors. The argument of this paper is that systematic study of major corporations from the Third World is important for debates about the national bourgeoisie, comprador capitalism and the controversy that currently surrounds the contentious concepts of the developmental state and globalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traces the development of slavery definitions in international agreements from 1815 to 2001. Overview of slavery definitions in international law; Historical analysis of the evolution of slavery definitions in international agreements; Analysis of the main characteristics of slavery in international agreements; Types of social theory that can be used in illuminating slavery; Discussion on the dimensions of slavery.

Debates about new technologies, such as crop and food genetic modification (GM), raise pressing questions about the ways `experts' and `non- experts' communicate. These debates are dynamic, characterized by many voices contesting numerous storylines. The discoursal features, including language choices and communication strategies, of the GM debate are in some ways taken for granted and in others actively manipulated by participants. Although there are many voices, some have more influence than others. This study makes use of 50 hours of in-depth interviews with GM scientists, non- experts, and other stakeholders in the GM debate to examine this phenomenon. We uncover rhetorical devices used by scientists to characterize and ultimately undermine participation by non-experts in areas including rationality, knowledge, understanding and objectivity. Scientists engage with `the public' from their own linguistic and social domain, without reflexive confirmation of their own status as part of the public and the citizenry. This raises a number of interesting ironies and contradictions, which are explored in the article. As such, it provides valuable insights into an increasingly important type of discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]