Publication of this survey had originally been intended to coincide with the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, scheduled for September 29th-30th in Washington, D.C. Those meetings, and the big anti-globalization pro- tests that had been planned to accompany them, were among the least significant casualties of the terrorist atrocities of September 11th. You might have thought that the anti-capitalist protesters, after contemplating those horrors and their aftermath, would be regretting more than just the loss of a venue for their marches. Many are, no doubt. But judging by the response of some of their leaders and many of the activists (if Internet chat rooms are any guide), grief is not always the prevailing mood. Some anti-globalists have found a kind of consolation even a cause of satisfaction, in these terrible events--that of having been as they see it, proved right. To its fiercest critics, globalization, the march of international capitalism, is a force for oppression, exploitation and injustice. The rage that drove the terrorists to commit their obscene crime was in part, it is argued, a response to that. At the very least, it is suggested, terrorism thrives on poverty and international capitalism, the protesters say, thrives on poverty too. These may be extreme positions, but the minority that holds them is not tiny, by any means. Far more important, the anti-globalists have lately drawn tacit support if nothing else, reluctance to condemn--from a broad range of public opinion. As a result, they have been, and are likely to remain, politically influential. At a time such as this, sorting through issues of political economy may seem very far removed from what matters. In one sense, it is. But when many in the West are contemplating their future, with new foreboding, it is important to understand why the skeptics are wrong why economic integration is a force for good and why globalization, far from being the greatest cause of poverty, is its only feasible cure. Undeniably, popular support for that view is lacking. In the developed economies, support for further trade liberalization is uncertain in some countries, voters are down- right hostile to it. Starting a new round of global trade talks this year will be struggle, and seeing it through to a useful conclusion will be. The institutions that in most people's eyes represent the global economy--the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization are reviled far more widely than they are admired the best they can expect from opinion at large is grudging acceptance. Governments, meanwhile, are accused of bowing down to business, globalization leaves them no choice. Private capital moves across the planet unchecked. Wherever it goes, it bleeds democracy of content and puts 'profits before people'. In your opinion, what may be the main topic of this passage?