Issue 1

VOX

www.clubofpep.org :: vox@clubofpep.org The Periodical of Politics, Economics and Philosophy February 2006 :: Volume 1 :: Issue 1 :: Spring Term 2006

Welcome to the first issue of VOX: The Periodical of Politics, Economics and Philosophy. This marks

the beginning of a successful platform for critical insight into the wide abyss of Politics, Economics and Philosophy. The aim is to fill an academic void on campus and in general. In the next issues we hope to attract academics as well as guest writers from other universities and for the periodical to be distributed nationally. The articles represent a diverse range of opinions which are both interesting and controversial; views that spur debate and analysis. In keeping with the aim of active discussion VOX welcomes further comment on the articles. If you wish to do so, or are interested in writing please send an email to vox@clubofpep.org

In the first article, Christian Westerlind Wigstrom defends certain inequalities. Once absolute minimum standards are met, it is claimed that relative discrepancies between individuals, both pecuniary and skills-wise, are necessary to propel progress. Nicolas Jones examines the rise of ‘leftwing’ governments in Latin America but argues that those predicting a revival of radical socialism are short sighted and doomed to disappointment.

Frederic Kalinke argues that the rise in terrorism can, in part, be explained by ideological polarisation. He places this in an intriguing paradox alongside globalization. Alex Fenton argues that despite the exit of Ariel Sharon from Israel’s fiery political arena, it is still possible for Sharon’s “oneman-band” to continue playing without its lead man. David Voxlin examines the radical differences in the Western and Eastern perspectives on the self and suggests the importance of self-knowledge for philosophical and political theorizing.

We hope that you enjoy this first issue as much as we have enjoyed putting it together.

Frederic Kalinke, Editor

Contents Inequality is good Hail to the Colonel Glopolarization Following the bulldozer’s tracks The importance of the Self

1-2 2-3 4-5 5-6 6-7

Inequality is good The wealth of one is the wealth of many. Not directly, of course. Not even remotely directly as through a network of family connections, but indirectly in the sense that your wealth stimulates me, intrigues me and spurs me.

Any scholar of economics recognises that I am talking about externalities, i.e. non-intended side effects, and could argue that I do not supply much original thought. Moreover, the economist will probably find something else dubious: ‘Wealth?’.

There is a very precise economic definition of wealth – value of assets with monetary application minus debts – and my employment of the term does not seem to fit in very well. True. ‘Wealth’, in this article, refers to a much broader variety of assets that a person possesses. This wealth is divided into pecuniary (can be given a monetary value) and personal (valuable, yet without pecuniary application) wealth. Cash, land and business ideas we count as pecuniary wealth, whereas charisma, loving friends and a trouble-free character we ascribe to personal wealth.

Now, how exactly do I benefit from the wealth of others to an extent that justifies that the wealth of one is the wealth of many and how does this make inequality good? Even if we accept the indirect -1-

benefits referred to above, it seems naïve to leave out the equally possible negative externalities that might stem from seeing others with wealth. What about jealousy and the feeling of being unfairly treated? To this I answer: wealth is not a zero-sum game. Jealousy cannot be justified and unfair treatment can be dealt with. During the IT boom at the turn of the millennium huge values were created at stock exchanges around the globe resulting in many people achieving unprecedented pecuniary wealth. Needless to say, there was no simultaneous ‘inverted boom’ making the same losses to keep aggregate pecuniary wealth constant. Similarly, did anyone hear about an ‘inverted depression’ as the bubble burst which made up for all the money lost? No. Pecuniary wealth is created and destroyed and as such, it is non-rival.

That this argument applies also in the case of personal wealth is utterly clear. If someone loses a loved one, it certainly does not mean that someone else wins one. However, there is another, more interesting argument: personal wealth is personal.

Even if I could wish to have your car or your money, I don’t want to have your friends or your charisma. Instead I want to have friends which are mine (even if they are the same people) or a charisma which is a part of me (even if it shares all the characteristics with your charisma). It is personal and therefore non-transferable.

Where does this take us? Well, if neither form of wealth is rival, then your wealth does not impede my wealth. On the contrary, I argue, having your wealth to compare with, I might realise a way in which I could improve my own situation. It happened in Central and Eastern Europe. People compared wealth, both pecuniary, e.g. living standards, and personal, e.g. freedoms of the individual, with those of people in the West and consequently forced through changes. The wealth of the better off became the wealth of the worse off, indirectly. Certainly, it would have been even better if Communism had never existed to create these inequalities in the first place, but everywhere and always people are born different and into different societies. Even if this, to the philosopher, is without argumentative strength, the politician appreciates the facts of reality as the setting for activism.

Inequality is unavoidable. To say that inequality is good, however, we need a paramount amendment.

To the same extent that inequality of wealth is good, inequality of opportunity is bad. Not only is it intuitively immoral but moreover, it makes room for the negative externalities of inequality of wealth mentioned above.

If I know that the wealth you possess and I covet is unachievable for me due to externally imposed restrictions on my opportunities, the outcome is likely to be resentment rather than positive dynamism. However, if equality of opportunity is

granted, inequality of wealth is a truly desirable state. It is not inequality per se that leads to famine, illiteracy, desperation and the like, but poverty and injustice. While arguing that wealth is not a zero-sum game, we should also make it clear that also in an unequal world everyone could be fed. In fact, in an unequal world people are not satisfied by the mere absence of famine.

Comparison leads to the aspiration of higher goals: ‘If she writes beautiful music, why don’t I?’

The fundamental question is thus: do we evolve by carrot or by stick? Where equality of wealth says ‘not at all’, inequality of wealth says ‘carrot’!

Christian Westerlind Wigstrom

If you are interested in writing for the next issue or would like to comment on the articles please write to vox@clubofpep.org

Hail to the colonel A number of recent stories have heralded the defiance of Hugo Chavez and the increasing prominence of left wing parties in Latin America as a sign that the continent is on the verge of a radical swing leftwards. While it’s entirely possible that one or two new moderate centre-left governments may be elected, those predicting a tidal wave of radical socialism are both short sighted and doomed to disappointment.

Some political analysts see Chavez as the new standard bearer of the left. The particularly idealistic ones see him using oil barrel diplomacy to lead the nations of Latin America on an ‘antiimperialist’ crusade against the self-centred, egoistic, ‘neoliberal’ beliefs of the USA. Under his leadership they foresee a new era of justice and equity. Little could be further from the truth.

The fact is that when Chavez does attempt to intervene in other nation’s politics he gets soundly rebuffed. In a two month spell last year Venezuela’s ambassadors to Bolivia and Mexico were told to pack their bags, both for intervening in domestic politics. This didn’t stop him though, just last month Venezuela’s ambassador to Peru found himself on the plane home after Chavez endorsed the nationalist Ollanta Humala for the -2-

presidency. Far from winning acolytes Chavez appears to be irritating political elites across the continent.

Even if all the elections went his way little would change. Evo Morales won in Bolivia. So what? In a country where more than half of the population is made up of indigenous Indians, the only surprise is that an Indian representative didn’t win earlier.

Despite all the fine rhetoric, should the US withdraw its aid Morales wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Unlike Venezuela, Bolivia cannot depend on vast reserves of black gold.

Ok, let’s assume that all the elections favour the left of centre candidates. Who are the foot soldiers of Chavismo, battling to win power across Latin America? Mexico’s Lopez Obrador is a moderate who is far from certain of victory. Furthermore if elected he would be limited by the Mexican economy’s umbilical chord to the US. Chile’s Bachelet is committed to maintaining the fundamentally neo-liberal structure; Uribe in Colombia is ‘right-wing’ and will not lose the presidency; the ostensibly ‘left-wing’ Roldos in Ecuador is a staunch economic liberal. Moreover six Central American Presidents recently lobbied the US House of Representatives for a free trade treaty.

There is no possibility of a new radical left wing alliance in Latin America because the candidates simply aren’t there.

The conspiracy theorists pointing to Chavez as the new leader of a left wing Latin America allude to the Mar de Plata summit, where the populist, two time coup leader supposedly blocked a US attempt to proceed with talks towards a continent-wide free trade treaty. The meagre opposition, four countries out of thirty-three, does not indicate a radical swing leftwards.

People point to the US’s failed attempt to get the ‘Organisation of American States’ to intervene in nations where democracy is failing, but that was a doomed initiative from the start. Did anyone really imagine that countries which have been invaded by the US on successive occasions would give them a

licence to do so again? If they did they were deluding themselves.

The supposed heartland of the new socialist democracies is Venezuela. A country wholly dependent on its oil reserves. A country which relies on the US for more than half of its export earnings. Venezuela could no more resist an ultimatum from Washington than President Bush could walk safely down the streets of Baghdad.

Is Washington viewed with deep suspicion in Latin America? Yes. Is there a tendency to blame all Latin America’s problems on the twin evils of the US and corruption? Yes. Is Latin America economically dependent on the USA? Yes. Chavez is an undemocratic showman. His gifts for rhetoric and eye catching gestures have earned a reputation far exceeding his actual influence. His poverty programmes may or may not bring results, but his actions to extend his influence across Latin America will fail. He may be popular on the streets of Latin America, but his standing in the capitals does not warrant talk of revolutions, crusades, or even sustained defiance.

Nicholas Jones

PEPtalk

News from The Club of PEP

On Monday 30th January the second AGM of the Club of PEP took place with changes in all three Executive positions. Rosie Whalley and Rachel Piggot, Frederic Kalinke and Sofia Tillo were elected as joint presidents, treasurer and secretary respectively. In addition to this a significant number of new members were voted onto the General Committee.

The Club is in the process of planning its annual Finance Fair, which like its predecessor will bring the biggest finance and accounting firms to campus.

An ‘alternative’ employment fair is also being considered which will host NGO’s, Newspapers and Law firms. Keep your eyes peeled. The Club has also forged links with the University of Lund in Sweden which promises for some exciting events in the future.

For more information www.clubofpep.org

please

visit

-3-

Spring ball A reminder about our Annual Charity Spring Ball!

It will be held at the Grand Assembly Rooms, 7pm on Thursday 16th February. Included in the extravaganza are a champagne reception, three free drinks, a string quartet, a three course meal, and ‘Q jumpers’ for Toffs. All proceeds will go to the Stop AIDS Campaign. This year’s Spring Ball is generously sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

For more information visit www.thespringball.com

Glopolarization 2005 was a year of mixed blessings. On the bright side, the global economy continued its moderate and steady growth rate at five percent, concomitant with record levels of investment and trade, while the two developing powerhouses, China and India, began to reap the rewards of market reform. On a darker note 2005 was marred by the seemingly incessant bombardment of separate natural disasters, destroying communities from Kashmir to New Orleans, Jamaica to Niger.

Critically there too were calamitous earthquakes across the political landscape. London experienced its largest terrorist attack of its kind, and there was revived violence in Bali and Egypt. The beginning of a new year marks a time to reflect on past events and look to the future. Are there factors which can explain this rise in terrorist activity? In light of this past year, is the trend likely to continue?

I argue that politically, the world has not fallen victim to a tropical disease with no diagnosis or cure. The problem, in part, has an identifiable cause and an arguable treatment. The root lies in ideological polarization. The West and the East stand in marked opposition, like two armies with differing faiths, practices and beliefs. The problems which exist are linked to this ideological battlefield and the prescribed treatment should not be ‘wars on terror’ or draconian immigration policies, but

rather an attunement to break not just the barriers of financial markets but rather the barriers which divide humanity.

‘Glopolarization’ captures the intriguing paradox in which global politics presently resides. On one level the world seems to be getting smaller and more unified: the advances in communication and the erosion of trade barriers have led to a level of interconnectedness previously unheard of.

Globalization has happened. We have seen rapid global economic integration and an almost universal allegiance to economic liberalism. The discrediting of communism and the succumbing of former soviet states to market allocations corroborate this movement. It won’t be long until China, once the epitome of a planned economy, will remove its capital controls to the interests of foreign speculators. However, running parallel with this sweeping homogeneity, deep below the veneer of capitalism and its financial orthodoxy and promise of prosperity, a monster lurks.

It would certainly be naïve to document the steady increase of the divide between East and West as a recent phenomenon, or indeed argue that it is a concrete distinction. However, the divide is visible when juxtaposed with the shared economic identity inherent in globalization. Moreover we are now living on the battlefield, and divisions cannot be ignored. We can no longer hide beneath a warm duvet, watching foreign events unfold on the evening news: the bombs, the blood, the anger are on our doorstep. The terrorist targets are no longer world leaders but innocent haggard ordinaries of all faiths. The recent terrorist activities are ideological battles, products of Islamic extremism, waging war with the ‘Western’ way of life and crucially, they are also products of the West’s attempts at domination.

It is the ignorance and unassailability with which the West imposes its set of ideals on the rest of the world which is at the heart of the problem. It comes as no surprise that the West is often referred to as ‘arrogant’ and ‘uncompromising’. It is the secularization of modern life; the ubiquitous consumerism and its exportation; the baleful demands of structural adjustment policies prescribed by the IMF which puts profit before peoples, which is upsetting the attunement. The West is trying to impose not only foreign ideas on everyone else, but ideas that contradict and would destroy the fundamental values of non-Western societies.

It is also the hypocrisy and alleged moral superiority of Western nations which heightens the bitterness. How can the West and its main -4-

proponent, the US, profess its moral purity and invade other countries for their dire human rights records when, until only recently, it was legal for minors in America to be executed before they were allowed to make decisions on marriage, cigarettes and alcohol? How can the moral crusader be one of only two countries, the other being Somalia, who have not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Building our walls higher, in terms of immigration policy, and expulsing possible threats will arguably only increase the assiduousness of extremists to wreak havoc. It is a short term solution to a long term problem. Although it will rid the country of possible threats, and may momentarily make our home a safer place, it will only serve to antagonize and alienate, to breed the hatred and resentment which terrorism relies on. It will divide humanity further, and make the pearly gates of the Western way of life more exclusive. There needs to be a global shift away from the idea of perfectionism towards the realization that there is not one unequivocal way of living which can be applied universally. Autonomy and diversity are what make the world go round. We need to open our arms and not close them. Although obviously this is easier said than done, we must work more multilaterally in an integrated global polity, with Muslim leaders occupying top positions in Western government and non-government agencies which will change the dynamics of decision making.

Developing countries need to be given autonomy over their future, not fall victims of the imperialist demands of Western financial institutions to follow a certain path.

I am not arguing that ideological polarization is the sole cause of the recent wave of terrorism. Nor am I arguing that the ideologies of the East and the West are mutually exclusive. I do, however, think that it is often forgotten that wars and disputes are almost always rooted in ideology, not territorial demands, and there is a tendency for this to be overlooked when finding solutions. The recent controversy over the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad in various images elucidates the clash between the pursuit of freedom of expression and an adherence to a religious moral code.

I hope 2006 will not be a year when leaders hide behind markets and the flowery promises of unprecedented global economic growth. Although borders have blurred and workers, consumers, speculators can now celebrate in the incremental opening of trade and financial barriers the global political system is malfunctioning. The division between the West and the East will only get starker unless we rebuild the foundations on which

global decisions are made and not the walls which divide us.

Frederic Kalinke

Following the Bulldozer’s Tracks Since 2001 Ariel Sharon provided the stability that Israelis long for. Due to his stature Sharon’s Kadima (‘forward’) party looked certain to triumph in elections in March; but the Prime Minister’s ill health has left the future anything but certain. For supporters of unilateral disengagement, Sharon’s collapse is a severe setback. For those concerned for peace in the Middle-East, the latest cruel twist in Israeli politics can only be seen as further delaying the emergence of a two-state solution.

Despite the gloomy outlook, the prospects would not look so bleak should Kadima rally behind its new leader, Ehud Olmert. Sharon’s recent policy of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip added an unlikely new spin to his reputation as “The Bulldozer”, and has left Israelis, voters and politicians alike, with a tough choice ahead. An end to the policy of disengagement would, at the current time, be a disaster for the entire region.

The decision that Israelis make in the coming few weeks will certainly decide the short-term future of the region, but will also have an impact that will last for generations. Hopefully, Israeli voters will put their faith in Olmert. The choice they make will depend, however, on two, separate, but equally vital influences.

The idea versus the man Kadima may have been built around one man, but it was also built around one idea, that of limited unilateral disengagement from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If Israeli voters place emphasis on the idea, this will benefit Kadima. Most vital now, is the emergence of a strong leader, a genuine successor to Sharon. If the Israeli people show that their faith lies more in the idea than in the man, then Olmert, as a strong proponent of Sharon’s plan, will be able to steer the party to election victory. If Olmert maintains his position, and Israel’s electorate holds its nerve by voting to continue the dismantling of settlements, the current process will be saved. If Olmert can prove himself loyal to Sharon’s legacy, Kadima will survive.

Unfortunately, even with this the case, Olmert’s takeover will prove problematic; knowing where ‘The Bulldozer’ was headed is a difficult task.

Sharon himself may not yet have decided upon his -5-

next move, and Kadima’s platform contains few clues beyond declaring that “Jerusalem and large settlement blocks in the West Bank will be kept under Israeli control”.

terrorists’ triumph has, so far, not led to a rightward shift in opinion.

It is undoubtedly true that, before all this becomes relevant, before the Israeli people make their choice, Kadima must prove itself both united, and able to last. As such, an obstacle to the party’s election success may turn out to be the stayingpower of its ‘members’, most of whom have been drawn from Netanyahu’s party. The solution here, however, should prove simple - if Olmert can show Kadima's 'members' that the party is heading for victory, then their support should be guaranteed – they are politicians after all.

Although this is precarious territory for a man who does not hold the same standing with the public as his predecessor, there is no doubt that Sharon would have evacuated at least some settlements in the West Bank. This is a sentiment that Olmert will need to echo, and no one is better placed to do so.

The full impact of the Prime Minister’s stroke will depend upon the strength of character of the Israeli people, and on the political know-how of Ehud Olmert. A continuation of the policy of unilateral disengagement, embarked upon by Sharon, and supported by over half of the population, is not an impossibility, but it will require a certain leap of faith. Sharon was undoubtedly a strong and significant leader, but the future of his party, and thus the nature of his legacy, are no longer in his hands.

Sympathy versus fear

Alex Fenton

With Sharon’s move forging a genuine three-party system, the old rules with ‘hawks’ voting Likud, and ‘doves’ moving towards Labour no longer apply.

Kadima must now maintain the status quo by consolidating these circumstances. It will prove hard, but not impossible, for Israelis to vote for a party which has no ideology, no infrastructure, and has now lost its massively influential founding member. His replacement must be able to ride the wave of sympathy so often apparent in these situations. Once more, Olmert is in the best position to do this. His unhesitant move to join Sharon in Kadima, along with the symbolic gesture of refusing to sit in the Prime Minister’s chair at a cabinet meeting, have enhanced his image as Sharon’s ‘right-hand man’. However, the ‘sympathy effect' will be of less use to Olmert should Israelis’ fear of violence increase.

The Palestinians have already made their choice.

January’s elections to the Legislative Council proved a huge success for Hamas, the terrorist group that denies Israel’s right to exist. Cumulative to the effect of this result, any escalation in violence would further encourage the Israeli people to look to the hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu, of Likud, for protection. Olmert is already demonstrating the capability to halt the Israeli trend of retreating to a hard-liner in times of uncertainty. Recent polls indicate that the

The Importance of the self There is a presupposition in the philosophy of mind stretching as far as to those disciplines, politics in particular, whose theories are dependent on a theory of human nature. Independent of what philosophers believe to be the character of human nature, if indeed they believe that it exists at all, there seems to be a common agreement in that we are free to explore it. This claim can arguably be said to be true in the sphere of phenomena arising from the relationship between individuals and their study from a macro perspective as in sociology and social anthropology, but what about at the individual level?

The historical protagonist, spontaneously entering the scene when we ask questions concerning our nature, is the self. It is therefore with the self which we must begin our inquiry. There is a common but mistaken belief that in order to do so, there is a need to confront ambitious ontological questions first. Although our discussion will be inescapably metaphysical, it will be in the classical, rather than the modern academic sense of the word.

-6-

Consider the philosophical development leading up to the enlightenment. Descartes, in his meditation on scepticism, found himself unable to reduce and dismantle further down than his existence as a thinking being. This fact was for him indubitable.

The empiricists that followed him also accepted versions of this thought. Hume saw nothing with which to identify himself but “a bundle or collection of different perceptions”, and being an atheist, he could, without problem, imagine death as the end of that continuum of perceptions, and sensations, as the final end of existence in any form. Locke disapproved of Descartes’ idea that thought is the essence of the soul, and of what would later be Hume’s curious belief that we do not know whether we continue to be ourselves whilst asleep. Instead he saw our stream of consciousness, stored physically as our memory, as the basis of our identity. Interestingly committing himself to some form of materialism.

Contrast this view with Buddhist philosophy of mind which would take Descartes’ thinking being, Hume’s bundle of perceptions, and Locke’s stream of consciousness not as the end, but as the starting point of inquiry. From there the philosophical question that presents itself is what is the exact nature of the self? The final answer to this question, what is known in Nyingma Buddhism as pratyekabuddha yana containing the five skandhas, turns out to be that the self exists only as an illusion, with the function of making the objective world conceivable. In order to maintain this function the self acquires certain characteristics, the most threatening of which to the assimilation of self and identity is the counterintuitive lack of free will in favour of subconscious control, but also its capriciousness, typified in its vivid emotional life and in its fruitless attempts to obtain satisfaction.

An understanding of the self can, according to Buddhism, only be found through extensive concentrated study of the mind, known as meditation. The problem for European philosophers, like Descartes and his successors, is that there is a conception of unlearning which is required in order to fully understand the nature of the self, a concept which was not alien to them in terms of doubting intuitions, but became unattainable at a certain

point because their enterprises fundamentally intellectual character.

were

of

a

If the Buddhist thesis on the self was found to be true, it is clear that the basis on which modern philosophy of mind rests would be threatened. Let us assume for a moment that it is true; what would the consequences be? The identification of the individual with the self would be a drastic mistake, and the resulting lack of general self-knowledge would most likely lead to a thoroughly confused perspective on the basic question of what makes human beings happy and fulfilled. This in turn would lead us to expect to find numerous and incompatible criteria for such fulfilment and this is what we find in the different accounts of human nature.

Moreover, the dependence of many philosophical and political theories on an account of human nature has also made it common practice for philosophers to attack rival theories, and their dubious foundations, in this respect. It was Marx’s great achievement to question the claims of Ricardo and Smith that capitalism was a superior system due to it corresponding superiorly to what they saw as being human nature, in favour of his thesis that human nature is very flexible indeed.

Marx’s own writings, however, are deeply influenced by his own materialistic view of human nature, not only in the macro study of the socioeconomic relations between men, but also in his belief that fulfilment for man lies in his ability to express his ‘species being’ through his productive activity, a much more obscure thesis with far reaching consequences. Weber, on the other hand, looked to the metaphysical and religious issues as the most fundamental to the human condition.

Rousseau saw his man as basically altruistic, Kant as irredeemably sinful, and so on... These matters constitute the metaphysical foundation of much of modern philosophy branching into many other disciplines, and are clearly in need of firm establishment. Perhaps it is time to pay them the attention they deserve.

David Voxlin

www.clubofpep.org VOX, The Club of PEP, Derwent College, The University of York, York, YO10 5DD It should be noted that the views expressed in VOX are not necessarily those of the Club or its sponsors but of the authors.

This issue of VOX was compiled by Alex Fenton, Frederic Kalinke, Nicholas Jones, Jessica Levy, Kirsi Mäkinen, Michael Nicolaides, Christian Westerlind Wigstom and David Voxlin.

VOX would like to thank PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP who sponsored this issue. If you are interested in sponsoring this publication contact vox@clubofpep.org

-7-

22196-297x210-York

23/1/06

2:33 pm

Page 1

You’d be surprised what we get up to...

Graduate Opportunities Nationwide – Autumn 2006 When you hear the name PricewaterhouseCoopers, you might think all of our people are very much the same. In fact, we need our workforce to truly reflect the diverse world in which we operate and we really value the things that make everyone different, including what they do in their spare time. Whether that be spotting planes or jumping out of them for fun! So if you’re thinking a career at PwC may not suit you, you might be surprised to find lots of people here who are similar to you, and lots of people who aren’t. But that’s not the only surprise you’ll find here.

Another big surprise is that careers at PwC are about much more than simply number-crunching. Whether we’re auditing a company’s financial results, identifying the commercial risks they face, helping with tax planning or assessing the implications of strategic business decisions – it’s about getting beneath the skin of other organisations*.

So wherever you join us, you’ll be dealing directly with clients right from the start, while working towards a professional qualification.

And since the challenges we face span virtually every industry sector, the depth and breadth of experience you’ll gain will equip you for an exciting career.

Even more surprising, you don’t need a business or finance degree to join us. Yes, you’ve got to be comfortable dealing with numbers and you must have a strong academic record. But the subject of your degree is less important than your willingness to contribute and your eagerness to learn.

Find out more at www.pwc.com/uk/careers/ Go on. Surprise yourself.

*connectedthinking © 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.