“The financial bubble that we experienced in the United States was, in fact, worldwide…If we get past this moment without great wreckage, then I think we do have a great opening. That’s why this conference is laying groundwork for a lot of new engagement in politics and in the society…. You are dealing with ideas that have a potential to change the social arrangements in societies that have the nerve and the wit and the energy to begin to work on them that literally will make organic changes in how capitalism functions globally and at home…Democracy is a transcendental story... and I do believe that ownership is a crucial ingredient....The road to democratizing this country and the global system begins at work.”

- William Greider in his keynote speech “Who wins and loses when wealth and decision making are concentrated in large global companies? How can we humanize globalization?” at the COG Policy Conference on 10/9/02

I. Executive Summary

We are pleased to report to the Ford Foundation on the success of the COG International Policy conference in Washington, DC, on October 7-11. It succeeded beyond our expectations. It achieved the groundbreaking purposes for which it was intended: to be the most international meeting ever focused on employee ownership as a response to globalization and to put this subject on the agenda for a number of Washington organizations. It launched a very timely global discussion of the role of employee ownership in continuing viable community-centered businesses in a global economy. We expect it to give rise to several major, new practical policy initiatives.

The COG international policy conference included three back-to-back meetings in Washington.

The first was a two-day meeting (October 7-8) establishing what we hope will be a continuing European-American working group on employee ownership. This session, funded by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and hosted by the National Cooperative Business Association, brought together twenty-seven invited European and American employee ownership leaders and scholars to discuss national initiatives and best practices, the European Commission’s July 2002 communication on employee financial participation (including ownership) in enterprise results, and the new ILO Recommendation # 193 on cooperatives. The group brainstormed key research projects with clear policy implications and created an agenda for additional meetings.

The conference attracted 122 participants from six continents, by far the most international group ever assembled in North America to discuss employee ownership. They included Congressional staff and two members of Congress from both sides of the aisle (who spoke, of course); former members of the Australian and Belgian parliaments; local American elected officials, labor leaders from the United States, South Africa, and Europe; corporate executives; staff from several UN agencies; think tank staff from both ends of the political spectrum; academics; cooperative organizations; and community development organization leaders; as well as representatives of all American employee ownership organizations. We were delighted by the breadth of representation and support.

The third session was a day-long strategy meeting (October 11), attended by 50, aimed at forging a “Fix Globalization” coalition and developing future goals and programs for COG. This Strategy Meeting successfully generated the roots of a coordinated strategy and concrete projects for execution by COG, its evolving coalition and active coalition partners.

The COG coalition and working groups are poised to build practical, positive, community centered policies and practices to ameliorate the negative aspects of globalization and the destabilizing effects of recent corporate malfeasance. They need resources to realize their goals.

II. The COG International Policy Conference

The COG international policy conference included three back-to-back meetings in Washington, D.C., on October 7-11, 2002.

The premises underlying the conference were these: (1) Economic globalization is inevitable. (2) Although it has some aspects that are beneficial to both developed and developing countries, as presently organized, globalization primarily benefits large corporations at the expense of communities and citizens. (3) Broadening ownership to include employees is one important strategy to anchor productive assets locally. (4) There at least eight major positive strategies[1] currently being implemented to fix globalization, each embraced by a different constituency, but the diverse constituents employing these strategies do not coordinate their resources and programs, and frequently are completely unaware of one another. (5) Long-term success requires a coordination of their efforts in order to reach the scale and strength required to change global corporate behavior. (6) Fair solutions to the problems of globalization must be developed by joint work of people in both the developed and developing world.

With the COG international policy conference, we sought to be inclusive in co-sponsorship and participants, and to bring together diverse organizations that interact too rarely to discuss common issues and, possibly, a common agenda. Within our resource constraints – and we were ultimately able to raise another $45,000 from other sources to supplement the $45,000 used from our Ford grant – we sought substantial international representation including significant European and Latin American groups as well as participants from Africa and Asia. Of course our resources were earmarked for speakers, and our small scholarship pool for Developing World participants was too quickly exhausted.

The first of the back-to-back meetings that comprised the conference was a two-day session (October 7-8) establishing what we hope will be a continuing European-American working group on employee ownership. It was attended by twenty-seven invited European and American employee ownership leaders and scholars, funded by the German Marshall Fund, and hosted by the National Cooperative Business Association. Participants swapped information on new policy initiatives in each country, discussed the July 2002 European Commission Communication on Employee Financial Participation in Enterprise Results, the new ILO Recommendation # 193 on cooperatives, and argued best practices. They brainstormed a series of necessary research projects and created an agenda for additional meetings to share successful strategies for encouraging good employee ownership policies and best practices, and to determine and exploit opportunities for policy implementation (see Appendix I, section B). The European-American Conference enabled COG to bring a number of Europeans to the Fix Globalization Conference, thus permitting us to use more of the Ford Foundation and other funds to bring participants from the other continents.

The second was the main event: the Capital Ownership Group International Policy Conference, “Fix Globalization: Make It More Inclusive, Democratic, Accountable and Sustainable” (October 9-10, 2002). It began with a half-day legislative briefing at the Hart Senate Office Building and continued at the Four Points Sheraton Hotel. Author Bill Greider and the International Labour Organization’s Mark Levin keynoted the conference. The conference had the co-sponsorship of an amazingly wide range of organizations; thirty-five cosponsors included a major United Nations agency, the International Labor Organization; two important academic research centers; four national and international labor unions; several companies, a mutual fund, and two law firms; the national umbrella cooperative federation; roughly a dozen community development corporations, think tanks, and NGOs; the Colombian employee pension fund association; and an American Catholic religious order; as well as the European employee ownership organization and three of the four national employee ownership organizations in the US.

The conference attracted 122 participants from six continents, by far the most international group ever assembled in North America to discuss employee ownership. They included Congressional staff and two members of Congress from both sides of the aisle (who spoke, of course) as well as one tied up as floor leader in that day’s session who had his remarks read, former members of the Australian and Belgian parliaments, local American elected officials, labor leaders, corporate executives, staff from several UN agencies, think tank staff from both ends of the political spectrum, academics, cooperative organizations, and community development organization leaders, as well as representatives of all American employee ownership organizations.

In addition to the Ford Foundation funding, eleven other organizations helped finance the session; these included three labor organizations, a socially responsible mutual fund, three law firms, and several small foundations.

We were delighted by the breadth of representation and support.

The Fix Globalization conference program, presentations and papers are provided in the attached binder. They are also available on the COG website. The program is located at and the papers and presentations at

The third was a day-long strategy meeting, on October 11, attended by 50 of those who had participated in the previous meetings, aimed at forging a “Fix Globalization” coalition and developing future goals and programs for COG. The Strategy Meeting successfully generated the roots of a coordinated strategy and concrete projects for execution by COG, its evolving coalition and active coalition partners. For the results of the strategy meeting, see Appendix I, section A.

Participants in the three components of the COG meeting were diverse by geography, gender, age, organizational affiliation and sector, with participants from six continents, co-sponsorship by major international institutions such as the International Labor Organization, important academic institutions, the AFL-CIO and other national and international labor federations, businesses and NGOs. The conference began on Capitol Hill due to the interest in and participation of members of the US Senate and Congress. The attached conference program (Appendix II) shows diverse speakers on a broad range of proposals for fixing globalization, and co-sponsors. Using the Ford grant, we supported five COG Scholars, all from different continents, who have produced scholarly papers for discussion online and presentation at the Fix Globalization Conference.[2] Those papers were presented at the conference and are included in the attached conference notebook (Appendix III).

Despite difficulty in finding adequate funding to bring all who wished to come, we were able to bring to the events enough articulate representatives from developing countries to persuade the strategy meeting attendees that the relevance of COG’s work in the developing world requires a focus on job creation in the informal economy in addition to its current work in the formal economy.

Both the European-American Working Group meeting and the Fix Globalization conference contributed heavily to COG’s strategy and goals going forward.

The coalition and working groups, which created the October 2002 COG conferences and strategy meeting on Fixing Globalization, are poised to build practical, positive, community centered policies and practices to abate the negative aspects of globalization and the destabilizing effects of recent corporate malfeasance. They need resources to realize their goals.

III. Organizing Impact of the Fix Globalization Conference

The process of organizing and publicizing the Fix Globalization conference provided an important opportunity to spread the message that there are many paths to fixing globalization, and that the participants on these paths must work together to be effective. Most of the target organizations were quite receptive to the message and agreed to participate in the events. We were particularly pleased to have 50 participants in the Strategy Meeting. We contacted hundreds of organizations (including 238 think tanks) worldwide. Thirty-five agreed to co-sponsor our event and many more sent speakers. We distributed 15,000 brochures using contact lists from many of our co-sponsors who also listed our events in their electronic newsletters and calendars. We created a small scholarship program for developing country participants, funded primarily by donations from individuals and companies, which enabled us to bring a few of those who applied, but also brought us in contact with a number of worker cooperatives and cooperative organizers in developing countries.

The Fix Globalization conference was unique and timely. It occurred in the fall of 2002, immediately after anti-globalization demonstrations at IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington, DC, and shortly after the Enron, WorldCom and accounting firm scandals. By this time, not only were left and right wing activists concerned about the negative effects of globalization and corporate accountability, but mainstream journalists and politicians were also raising concerns about the need for more corporate accountability from large corporations and more oversight by government. The Fix Globalization conference filled that need. Its purpose was to highlight positive policy initiatives to protect local community interests including a robust economy. Three members of Congress spoke or presented remarks at the event. Authors William Greider and Gar Alperovitz declared that the event was an important step in launching a new movement based on community-centered economics.

The Fix Globalization conference did not pit the developed against the developing world. COG has insisted from its inception that any fair solution to globalization’s ills requires a joint solution. At this conference, COG had significant representation from both groups to develop a meaningful dialogue on creating such solutions. The concrete outcome of the Fix Globalization conference and the Strategy Meeting is a set of goals and projects for COG’s next two years; see Appendix 1.

IV. Conclusion

The Fix Globalization Conference, Strategy Meeting and European-American Conference were successful beyond our expectations.

1. The group of participants was larger and more centrally placed than we expected. We were, however, unable to attract International Monetary Fund participation.

1. The discussions were lively throughout; it was clear that they could have continued usefully.

1. The process of organizing and publicizing the Fix Globalization Conference provided an important opportunity to spread the message that there are many paths to fixing globalization, and that the participants on these paths must work together to be effective. Most of the target organizations were quite receptive to the message and agreed to participate in the events. We were particularly pleased to have 50 participants stay for the Strategy Meeting.

1. Our conference had truly global representation from the developed and developing worlds enabling a meaningful dialogue for development of jointly acceptable strategies.

1. The conference and strategy meeting generated a number of significant projects.

1. The research agenda generated by the European-American Working Group could shape the research work of a generation of scholars in this area. It has already impacted the development of at least two new joint projects: a special issue of the Swedish journal Economic and Industrial Democracy, to appear next year, and a small volume that is likely to be published and distributed by the International Labour Organization.

Thus the COG international policy conference’s three events produced concrete positive steps towards global economic justice and toward the development of a new global coalition to move them forward. The COG on-line working group structure established and operated over the past three years fostered the relationships and joint work that enabled such positive and meaty progress at these events. COG has demonstrated its ability to outperform its promised deliverables. With the necessary resources, we can continue to foster and build this important infrastructure for fixing globalization, making it more inclusive, democratic, accountable and sustainable.

Attachments

Appendix I. Conference outcomes

Appendix II. Conference Program

Appendix III. Conference papers and presentations (conference notebook)

Jl.COG2002 conference.Report to Ford on 2002 policy conference

Appendix I. COG International Policy Conference Outcomes:

New Programs, Goals and Examples

Here are the outcomes of the “future directions” brainstorming for the COG strategy meeting and for the European-American working group meeting.

A. Outcomes from the Strategy Meeting

The Strategy Meeting was a structured process of brainstorming, prioritization and commitment to work on various projects aimed at creating an organized body of sufficient scale and depth to contend with global corporations. The results: new working groups organized around the projects and goals developed during the Strategy Meeting on which people committed to work and to go back to their organizations seeking further support for the work. (A list the newly created working groups, a preliminary list of projects and members can be provided.) A few highlights include:

1) Use of the “Fair Exchange” proposal by consumer groups, labor and good government groups as a wedge strategy to open a concrete debate on using ownership to enforce accountability in transactions between governments and private companies.

2) Develop a book on broad ownership strategies for publication and use by the ILO.

3) Convene an international coalition on broad ownership and seek consultative status as an international NGO with ILO and other international institutions.

4) Develop ongoing outreach to faith based organizations, labor, think tanks and academics, providing speakers, conferences and materials on broad ownership focused to the needs of those organizations. Possibly rerun the Fix Globalization Conference for a group of faith-based organizations.

5) Education on several levels:

a. Create a graduate business school curriculum on managing employee owned and participative businesses, and teaching social audit skills to labor organization staff. Versions of this proposal arose out of several workshops, due to the clear need for these skills in employee owned companies, the need for social audit skills within unions, an understanding that COG staff and participants already have or can easily locate or create the necessary curricula; and the university and community college position of several key network participants.

b. Create a university-based distance learning mechanism to offer the above curriculum simultaneously at institutions in diverse locations.

c. Create a community college level curriculum on the same subjects for lower levels of management or union staff also to be offered at diverse locations or on-line.

d. Create curriculum for middle and/or high school to provide ownership literacy and knowledge of forms of ownership other than individual or corporate.

6) Develop a funding proposal for a broad ownership technical assistance center for a developing country – probably China.

7) Disseminate the Community Investment Code idea to local governments and community economic development corporations.

8) Research uses of broad ownership in developing countries; develop a bibliography on it; and work with developing country participants on broad ownership strategies and models useful in the informal economy.

To pursue these efforts, new working groups have been formed, some of which are already on-line. They are planning action on several fronts. Following are some examples.

1) John Médaille, a lay Catholic activist, recruited Dr. Andrew Abela, marketing professor at Catholic University, to assist in a marketing survey to identify faith-based organizations (FBOs) and points of entry for COG and its message. Médaille is pursuing FBO venues to rerun the Fix Globalization Conference in some form, and has undertaken coordination of the COG outreach to FBOs in conjunction with Sr. Mary Ellen Gondek of the Sisters of St. Joseph.

2) Mark Levin of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Cooperative Branch staff, proposed an ILO published book based on the Fix Globalization Conference papers. He has proposed a book outline that is currently under discussion in a new COG working group.

3) Kent State University (KSU) is organizing a symposium on globalization and democracy for April 2003 for which many COG participants and scholars have been tapped as possible speakers.

4) Terry Lewis, Vice-President for Cooperative Development of the National Cooperative Bank, became very excited about the possible uses of the “Fair Exchange” (stock in exchange for government largesse to corporations) proposal as a concrete way to raise, in the post-Enron environment, the issues of local control and ownership in the relationship of government to business. She offered to bring the idea to major consumer organizations. She thinks they will embrace the idea and move it forward.

5) Michigan State Senator Martha Scott and local newspaper publisher from Highland Park, Michigan, Margaret Lewis are working with Australian author and businessman, Shann Turnbull, to see whether Turnbull’s Community Investment Code (CIC) idea might be implemented in Michigan to help communities like the bankrupt City of Highland Park, which was formerly world headquarters for Chrysler Corporation and had the original Ford Motor Company headquarters and the first Model T plant. The companies received many concessions from this community that they have now left.

6) Ravi Naidoo, director of the National Labour and Economic Development Institute (NALEDI), the labor think tank of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and advisor to South Africa’s Minister of Finance, was one of our COG scholars. He wrote a conference paper providing a developing country perspective on the uses of employee ownership to deal with globalization. His primary concerns were that: (1) most employee ownership is in the formal sector and thus irrelevant to the majority of developing country workers, except in the form of cooperatives; (2) ESOPs of the American or British style were too skewed toward management to be meaningful to the mass of workers; and (3) that there was a type of participative employee ownership particularly in the unionized sectors of the US and other countries that held promise as a preliminary model for developing countries such as South Africa. During the course of the conference and strategy meetings it became clear that South Africa provides a unique set of political and economic circumstances in which a new, market driven, union and worker friendly type of ownership structure could be created in South Africa that might serve as a powerful model for the developing world.

7) Chinese participants, Situ Gongyun of the Chinese Institute for Reform and Development and George Tseo, Pennsylvania State University, decided to work for the creation of a Chinese employee ownership technical assistance agency that could provide workers with assistance to get a fairer deal in Chinese employee ownership schemes, and to provide legislation and model ESOP plans with workers’ rights built in. COG will provide whatever experience it can offer from its members and support it can find to help make this proposal a reality.

8) Per Åhlström, a very experienced Swedish labor consultant and former labor leader, came to the conference as a skeptic, and left after offering to organize an international employee ownership to fix globalization coalition.

9) The Education/Curriculum post conference working group [3] has been very actively seeking materials from and histories on related programs to teach managers how to manage employee owned and participative companies. These include:

a. a curriculum created by Prof. Logue and regularly utilized by OEOC at KSU, which was organized as a certificate program several years ago, but not implemented;

b. a program on participative management at the University of Manitoba;

c. a similar course at Mondragon University;

d. the now defunct program at the Yale School of Organization and Management which produced excellent managers for employee owned companies; and

e. a current postgraduate certificate program at Cambridge in England on Cross-Sector Partnerships.

Ray Carey is interested in providing some course material and his foundation is interested in providing some funding. KSU has a distance learning program that may be a logical vehicle through which to bring together these institutions to offer one or more joint programs. In the past it has been difficult to find a sufficient market for this type of course in a single location, although employee-owned companies frequently and persistently express a need for this type of management training. So there is a clear market. It is not heavily concentrated in one geographic locale. However, with the on-line capacities of COG, the KSU distance learning center, and a cooperative agreement between some of the institutions mentioned above, it seems highly likely that a program could be created for this very needy and distinct market.

10) The European Federation of Employed Shareholders (EFES) is holding a companion meeting to the Fix Globalization Conference in Bilbao, Spain November 19-23, 2002. At that time we will discuss with Adrian Celaya, General Secretary of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC), who was a speaker at the COG meetings, the possibility that Mondragon University might help us establish the above mentioned program.

B. Outcomes from the European-American Conference

(1) Joint research and future meeting topics

The group spent much of the final afternoon brainstorming and discussing possible collaborative research and policy development ideas as well as topics worthy of focus at future meetings.

Research topics ran the gamut from basic research (how does broadened ownership impact the micro level, such as rates of reinvestment; the community, such as health and civic participation; and the macro level, such as rates of growth) to comparative policy analysis and development. Several of the topics discussed at the working group meeting have been added to the agenda for a European-American issue of the Swedish journal Economic and Industrial Democracy to be edited by NijmegenUniversity (Netherlands) professor Erik Poutsma.

The discussion of future meeting topics generated enough subjects for several additional meetings, and there seemed to be a strong interest in continuing the trans-Atlantic dialogue on broadening ownership of productive assets.

The results of the brainstorming of possible collaborative research topics and future meeting agenda topics follow in sections 2 & 3.

(2) Collaborative research ideas and policy development projects

. Collaborative research ideas and policy development projects

Brainstorming is an excellent method to put ideas on the table, not to flesh them out. This brainstorming list of research ideas is presented with that caveat.

a. Theory

Create a discussion framework on theoretical and practical approaches to empowerment of ordinary working men and women: what is the utility of the ownership-based approach compared and contrasted to a democracy-based approach?

b. How does broadened ownership impact macro-economic performance?

This would include:

1. a cross national analysis that uses

(A) the University of Texas Inequality project data

(B) the Australian report on inequality

(D) new data collection as necessary

The inverse impact of the maldistribution of wealth on growth is also worthy of study. As part of this area of research, effects of merger and acquisition activity leading to increased absentee ownership deserve analysis. A particular concern is what happens to technology companies, which are supposed to be foci for future employment growth, when control passes from local to absentee ownership?

c. How does employee ownership affect communities?

1. Replicate findings of David Erdal with additional studies of the impact of cooperatives on community health, both physical and emotional. Compare matched communities with and without cooperatives/employee ownership.

2. Analysis of the impact of where decisions are made, especially through broadened, locally anchored ownership, on the community: on measures of community economic performance and social indicators.

d. Corporate governance

1. What can Americans, in the post-Enron debate on corporate governance,

learn from German corporate governance and co-determination?

2. From other European countries experience?

3. From the recent EU decisions on worker representation in corporate governance in the European corporations?

e. Economic development

1. Study Canadian regional development and labor venture funds for lessons for Europe and the U.S.

2. Compare use and impact of company networks among cooperatives and other employee-owned companies.

3. Explore trends in new economic institution development/employee ownership and develop policies to encourage ownership.

4. Compare national policies on what governments get in return for providing subsidies and supports to private companies.

5. Compare local economic development agencies and what they get in return for providing subsidies and supports to or involvement with cooperatives and employee ownership.

f. Training and education

1. Compare management training designed for cooperatives, employee-owned companies and participative management. Examples: Mondragon University (Spain); Nijmegen University (Netherlands) School of Business Conference on Social Responsibility; College of Notre Dame of Maryland (US); University of Manitoba (Canada); abandoned program at the Yale University School of Organization and Management (US). Develop model program.

2. Develop and promote training for worker directors

3. What do we know about the impact of school programs that teach principles of cooperatives, sometimes as early (as in rural Ohio) as the 4^th grade curriculum?

g. Trade unions

1. Compare trade-union experiences in worker-owned companies

2. Bring the trade union leaderships together for education and exchange of experience on employee ownership (EFES)

3. Comparative union experience with participation systems and corporate governance

h. Investment issues

1. Identify mechanisms that facilitate savings (and funnel them into worker ownership)

2. What is the impact of tight money policies on financing employee ownership across nations?

3. Investment of trade union pension funds in the U.S. and Europe: focusing them more on employee ownership

4. Compare investment patterns in worker-owned and conventionally owned companies

5. Are there successful asset building systems that work in advanced industrial democracies? How do they work? Can they be replicated?

6. Can Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) be successfully linked to employee ownership?

3) Possible topics for future meetings

Here is the list of topics brainstormed for future working group meetings.

a. Continuing mutual national updates

There was general agreement that the national updates were extremely useful.

b. Identify and explore central theoretical issues

1. What is the role of employee ownership in system change?

2. What are effective strategies for spreading employee ownership?

3. Why is it important to promote employee ownership?

4. Identify distinctive cultural approaches, for example French-German style vs. Spanish vs. Anglo-Dutch vs. U.S.

c. Develop standards for

1. ownership impact statements

2. reporting employee ownership in public companies which could be applied in both North America and Europe

d. Cooperatives and Mondragon

1. What are the limits of the Mondragon model?

2. Consolidate and compare what we know about the economic performance of worker-owned and cooperative companies

3. Comparative law on cooperatives and worker ownership

e. Discussion of employee ownership in privatization and deregulation

f. Trade unions

1. What local trade unions can do with worker ownership

2. Education of senior trade union leaders in employee ownership basics, perhaps with visits to unionized employee-owned firms

g. Discussion of new openings in the public debate for broad ownership

1. The failure of Enron, etc., demonstrates failure of current approach to corporate governance.

2. Collapse of Argentina’s economy, the outcome of the elections in Brazil, and the subsequent presidential election results in Ecuador call into question the viability of the Washington Consensus

3. Employee pension funds were among the primary groups that lost out. How should they invest instead?

4. How has short-term thinking failed?

5. The expansion of the European Union to include as many as ten new member states offers impressive opportunities as well as challenges (Cyprus)

6. Rethinking privatization and deregulation

h. Sustaining local economies in economic globalization

1. Responding to dislocations caused by plant shutdowns

2. Reconstructing local financial institutions

3. What is the impact of local vs. absentee ownership?

4. Creating new institutions for community economic development

i. Continuing the dialogue between meetings

1. How do we best share experience on an ongoing basis (the web?)

2. How can we assist each other and on what issues?

Jl.COG2002 conference.Report to Ford on 2002 policy conference

[1] The 8 major strategies for humanizing globalization include:

1. broadening ownership of productive assets,

2. international financial institution reform for economic development that gives developing countries the tools to develop internally,

3. trade reform which includes adequate, enforceable labor and environmental standards,

4. international labor rights,

5. sovereignty protection for governments,

6. business accountability standards, such as those Good Jobs First promotes, and those Congress just passed,

7. environmental standards and ecologically sound development methods, and

8. pension investment for corporation accountability, labor & social wage standards.

[2] Under this same grant COG created an on-line conference center, think tank and library which can be accessed at both and www.capitalownership.org. It has had approximately 1,434,000 information requests from more than 25,000 people in 128 countries. The think tank includes 15 working groups. COG has also hosted other conferences, and its initial book manuscript, Ownership for All, is currently under review for publication.

[3] These include John Logue of KSU, Jessica Nembhard of the University of Maryland, Mary Landry of the Community College of Baltimore, Ray Carey of the Carey Center for Democratic Capitalism, Ravi Naidoo of the National Labour and Economic Development Institute (South Africa), Maria Oliveros of the Roberto Oliveros Foundation (Mexico) and representatives of several other educational institutions, businesses and government agencies, Vic Thorpe of Just Solutions, and Deb Olson of COG.

CAPITAL OWNERSHIP GROUP

International Policy Conference

. Collaborative research ideas and policy development projects