The WTO, World Bank, IMF, Starbucks, Nike, Monsanto-all have been targeted by demonstrators condemning globalization and corporate power. Last April, during the protests in Washington against the World Bank and IMF, I wandered through the crowd of demonstrators.

It was like a throwback to the Vietnam War protests of the 1960's and '70's. Students in grubby jeans, dreadlocks and anti-everything T-shirts. Chanting crowds and nervous police lines. But, there was also a difference. Not all the demonstrators were kids. Many were my age or older, some even in preppy khakis and sweaters.

The mood was angry. Demonstrators believe international lending institutions and global corporations are drumming poor people into ever-deeper poverty, exploiting desperate workers with long hours and dreadful working conditions and destroying the environment. They accuse corporate America of greed, arrogance and indifference. Corporate America is beginning to listen.

Over the last several months, such business icons as Business Week and Fortune have begun carrying articles about the restive public. They warn global organizations and corporations to take note of the mood. They point out that Americans give business credit for our economic boom, but deeply resent huge executive salaries, a growing gap between productivity and wage growth and a perceived disinterest in the public good.

According to Business Week, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe business has too much power and political influence. While almost 70% think big companies make good products, there is growing concern over bio-engineered foods and profit-driven health care. The Bridgestone-Firestone tire debacle is only adding to that.

Americans are also holding global companies more accountable for their international relations. And, they're having some success. Remember the protests over Kathie Lee Gifford and Nike's low-wage manufacturing operations overseas. Starbuck's has promised to pay premium prices for coffee in poor countries. Monsanto has lost markets for its bio-engineered products in the face of "Frankenfood" fears at home and abroad.

This activism is now global. The WTO meetings in Seattle collapsed more because of the demands of developing countries inside the conference than because of the demonstrators outside. Developing nations are beginning to question the value of wide open world trade and shock therapy economics required to get World Bank and IMF loans.

A recent World Bank report backs up what the developing countries have been saying. The Bank has focused on relieving poverty by pursuing economic growth in poor countries. It has required these impoverished nations to balance their budgets and pay the interest on their foreign debts, which often amounts to huge percentages of their annual revenues. The laudable goal is to reduce inflation. The results have been meager.

Now, the Bank's new report says, alleviating poverty and creating economic development require key social and cultural changes. Like eliminating corruption. Or reducing the income gap between rich and poor. Or promoting land reform. These sound very much like some of the things protestors have been saying outside World Bank and IMF meetings.

The reality is that new investment will fail to lift people out of poverty if their wages are too low to care for their families. A country burdened with hopelessly high debt payments cannot make the necessary investments in education and health care to ensure a capable workforce. A new factory will do little to encourage economic well-being if it brings economic degradation in its wake.

I believe in free trade. I support international lending and investment. I think economic growth is essential to improve the standard of living of desperately poor people. But, as the demonstrators have been saying, this requires more than merely promoting capitalism and free markets. The social, environmental and cultural needs of people and nations must be part of any transformation plan.

The protestors have legitimate points. They have changed the nature of the debate about global investment and trade. Many Americans who would never join their demonstrations nevertheless agree with them. Multi-national corporations and institutions ignore the unrest at their peril. Many of them have started to pay attention. This will improve confidence at home and opportunities abroad.