1043: im outta here
It is difficult to write this essay without the urge to write an entire four-hundred page book on the topic. The topic, globalization, and whether it is good or bad, leads to seemingly endless debate; everyone has so much to say because of the nature of globalization in that it creates huge interconnections. The essay subscribes to a combination of definitions of globalization drawn from the works of de la Dehesa in his book ‘Winners and losers of globalization’(pg 1), Galbraith in the introduction of a 2001 compilation of works featured in ‘the Economist’ under the title ‘Globalisation’ (roman numeral pg ix) and Mittelman on page 4 of his book ‘Whither Globalization? The vortex of knowledge and ideology’ which is, in general terms,: A series of processes creating greater interconnections on a world scale through the spread of economics, people, ideas, technology, etc. that is being driven by liberalism and, to further complicate things, the processes are not new but have been happening for centuries, although they seem to have been occurring much faster in the last 100 years. It is difficult to separate the processes of globalization into smaller, more manageable sections without an inner twitch nagging one to consider more and add more to make the point more complete. This essay does not leave room for that much detail and will therefore focus on a few broad topics and examples to explain why globalization is indeed bad. The essay will focus on why the globalization of economics, culture and environmental issues are harmful, particularly in regards to developing countries, highlighting throughout the increasing interconnectedness of these topics. It will later conclude with reasons why this is in turn bad for states already developed, providing analysis of the importance of the issues raised.
First, on the topic of economic globalization. In ‘Globalisation’, the writer on page 72 makes a blunt statement: ‘Trade is the most obvious manifestation of a globalizing world economy… measured by imports and exports’. This is a key idea to capitalism, an inarguably western dominated force that the entire world economy is being based on. Throughout the same book, it is agreed by all contributing authors that the main idea behind capitalism is to gain profits. There is some variation throughout on whether this is good or bad, but for the most part it is argued that this is justifiable. Another key idea to capitalism is ‘free market’s’ because it is believed by many economists that opening up markets will lead to greater growth. A key concept of this, as described on page 76, is the idea of comparative advantage; something that is often the product of history and chance with little regard to a countries access to resources and workers skill. This leads to the conclusion that a countries history with elements of globalization will affect the present day economic standing of a country and determine the strength of the comparative advantage. Therefore, as will be demonstrated below, as different countries have had different encounters with forces of economic globalization, economic globalization is inherently uneven throughout the world.
Here now are a few empirical examples of this unevenness. First, on a broader scale. It is argued, as already mentioned, that opening up markets will lead to more growth. It has also already been mentioned that globalization has rapidly increased in the last few decades. If the world is globalizing faster, then markets have become more open and there has been more economic growth in the same time span. According to UNCTAD statistics, there has been growth in the last few years. From 1992-2004, the GDP per capita of developed countries rose, not steadily, from 21, 825 dollars to 33, 052 dollars. GDP per capita in developing countries also rose from 1, 027 to 1, 648. Although both have risen, there is not a pattern in how it has. There are approximately, according to this same compilation of statistics, 956,615,000 people in developed countries and 5, 100, 722,000 in developing countries, leading one to gather that opening up markets and increasing globalization is not bringing more equality into the world, but is keeping the rich and poor far apart. As manufacturing exports have increased to make up for lack of resources, GDP/capita in the countries that have increased their exports in the last ten years has risen, however there have been periods where it has been significantly lower making one believe that as there is no pattern, the argument made that opening up economies will increase wealth is false. Even when scholars take a different approach to measuring the spread of wealth, such as the purchasing price parity and the GINI index as used by Robert Wade in the Economists compilation, this is clear; in fact, as Wade effectively argues, when one applies the GINI coefficient, it seems inequality between the rich and the poor is increasing(217-219).
There is an even better example between developing countries themselves as to why globalization is economically difficult. The information to follow was found on the CIA world fact book website. The label of developing countries, however, was given by UNCTAD. The example is of Burundi and Gabon, two countries in developing parts of Africa. Burundi is a resource poor country, while Gabon is a high petroleum exporter. The average GDP per capita in the former in 2004 was 93 dollars, whereas in the latter the GDP per capita was 4, 710 dollars. While this supports the theory of opening up markets to trade for exports is better, it does not make a morally just argument. Burundi exports mainly coffee and tea which have profits that rely on weather conditions and market prices. Burundi therefore has a low level of technological development (only one paved airport runway) and in addition has high levels of conflict. Burundi also does not receive large-scale international aid, despite its high level of poverty. Gabon, even though it does have a known well paying resource receives a lot of international aid from the IMF and has more technology ( an example, to contrast with Burundi, is that Gabon has eleven paved airport runways). In Gabon, income inequality is higher, however, than it is in Burundi. This is not to say that Gabon should be lowered so that it too has all around poverty, but it is to note the uneven effects of globalization even when looking into the depths of developing countries.
The fact that the IMF, another example of globalization, is helping a country that does not need as much help raises other questions of fairness. How will levels of equality be achieved if the IMF is helping those who can help themselves and leaving the rest behind? Economic globalization is therefore quite uneven. It is also unstable; the CIA fact book pointed out the reliance both countries had on the global market which leads to greater dependence on other countries in the world. Even the fact that the IMF, which is known to mainly be dominated by the developed world (‘the west’), is intervening in such a way leads one to gather that reliance on the market is not in the best interest of countries because it does not provide the means to help ones own, but to further lose ones sovereignty to the ways of the dominant, mainstream ideas.
In regards to historical factors determining the plight of countries today in regards to economic globalization, the example of Cuba can be used. Cuba remains communist today and is doing quite well despite the arguments that only capitalism will provide most effectively the economic needs of a country. After the Ten Years war (1868-1878) the US had a distinct economic interest in Cuba: sugar. It was able to use it’s military to get what it wanted from Cuba and because of this Cuba ended up focusing on exporting sugar. It remained this way until the 1950’s and the world sugar price fell because of over production. This sent Cuba into a trade deficit because they were importing more than they were exporting and Cuba lost wealth it had previously gained. It was also relying heavily on the US during this time because the US had an interest in its sugar. The US owned a lot of the sugar plantations in Cuba and that led to heavy reliance on the US for income. Although Cuba has recovered, much intervention in Cuba by the US remains, and it is not always for the benefit of Cuba, which is arguably, caught in between being developed and being developing. This is an example of historical placement and the dominant ideas that are governing the global economy.
Arguably, through things such as HIPC initiatives as discussed on the UNCTAD website, globalization is positive because it provides some aid for those countries in need. Not nearly enough, however as UNCTAD also demonstrates because again there is no evidence that suggests those under HIPC initiatives are receiving greater aid because between 1992 and 2004, it only rose GDP per capita by forty two dollars and there were instances in those twelve years of GDP per capita falling. Furthermore, those initiatives are band aid solutions, as demonstrated by Burundi, because they are not always provided for those in the most need. I say that those initiatives are band aid solutions because providing economic support is not going to fix the domination of western ideals nor evoke self-sufficiency or fix the unbalance of historical processes of uneven resource location and, undoubtedly though not exhaustively discussed here, uneven power distribution. The idea of comparative advantage is further detrimental because often it is encouraged that a country, in order to maximize efficiency and productivity for exports as argued in the Economist and demonstrated in the Cuban example, ‘specialize’ which means they focus on making what they can produce the best (and the terms of what is ‘the best’ is not always what is best for the country, but the market) meaning that their economy relies heavily on one thing and furthers the instability of that economy because if they have a bad year such as because of weather or internal conflicts, exports will fall and their economy will be damaged. Also, if many countries specialize in the same thing, the price in the market will inevitably be lower and again the dependency on external forces for ones own well being serves to be harmful.
To conclude this section, in this same book put out by the Economist, it is shockingly pointed out that ‘liberalism lays down no certainties of the requirements of social justice in terms of income redistribution or the extent of the welfare state’(pg 7). It later argues, on the same page, that liberalism assumes everyone knows what is best for ones self. Capitalism is a liberalist supported ideal. If this is what the interconnecting world economic system is based on that explains a lot. A system that is not based on social justice is bad because there will always be people out of the loop and the system will be able to justify it because of the rules of the system! As an aside, all of these economic issues were discussed without the mention of TNCs or specific trade agreements because there are so many and there are a lot of details and variables and the intent of this essay was to look at fundamental issues as to why globalization is bad; trade issues come before TNCs, and the system in which trade occurs comes prior to trade agreements, although trade agreements do change the dynamics of trade for each country. However, fundamental ideas such as comparative advantage have more wide spread, common influence than the differentiations of individual or regional trade agreements.
This leads into the next point: cultural globalization. Since capitalism is a western ideal, globalization is being driven by the west. There are many things economic globalization includes that are detrimental to cultures. In ‘Winners and Losers in globalization’, Guillermo de la Dehesa defines culture on page 169: ‘Culture includes language, ideas, values, beliefs, and customs; codes, institutions, tools, techniques, work of art, rituals, ceremonies’. While he goes onto argue that cultural globalization will not lead to homogenized cultures, when cultures that were previously rich with art, language and different ideas are bombarded with aspects of economic globalization, countries will start to become more a part of the ideals of it in order to survive. Ideas will be lost because of dominating ones that they will have to play by, as well as the prevalence of their own values and ideals because of aspects of ‘development’. For example, on page 72 in ‘Winners and Losers’, he points out that some cultures ‘adapt’ better than others to western culture. How is it justifiable that cultures should have to ‘adapt’ to these other ideals? Why are the western cultures the cultures being spread? This is highly unjustifiable, let alone it undermines the whole concept of personal meaning in culture. Personal experience in a developing country has shown me the negative effects of cultural globalization. A trip to Guatemala showed that when Guatemala was colonized, much of it’s traditional Mayan languages were lost. Now there are hardly any traditional speakers. In relation to economic globalization, TNCs there have intruded on local markets and made the gap between the rich and poor wider. This was clear when one evening a group of us were walking down main street Antigua, a small city rich with heritage, only to round a corner and be struck by a horrible sight: A Mcdonald’s restaurant with a guard standing in front of it holding a rifle much larger than any of us had ever seen. Upon inquiring with those that we were staying with, they told us it was because of the fear of robbery because much of Guatemala is poor.
Cultural globalization does not enhance meaning or culture. On pages 65-66 in ‘Withering Globalization? The Vortex of knowledge and Identity’, Mittelman provides research he has conducted on a wide variety of people about culture and identity. 89% of people agreed that when globalization alters culture it is not a positive thing. 93% of people agreed that TNC’s have a very negative effect on ordinary people in the world. To tie it into the previously mentioned IMF, 90% of people asked felt that it carried a negative effect. No matter what theories tell you, people are going to be the ones affected by globalization. Culture is where a lot of people find meaning and when that starts changing without their consent, people are not going to be very happy.
Another aspect of capitalisms affect on culture and the spread of technology through such means, are when countries start accepting the western cultural values and try to use them as an economic way to provide for their country. An example again can be found in ‘Winners and Losers in globalization’ in chapter ten. Television and the movie industry in India has caught on at an alarming pace, however India is having trouble expanding it’s cultural influence on that technology because of language; their media is predominantly Hindi, but the world’s main language is English. So, even when a country does start to adopt another culture and mesh with it to make it somewhat their own, trying to spread those ideas seems difficult.
While it is true that globalization of cultures can be positive as it can lead to more diversity and greater understanding of other cultures, the multicultural policies of Canada (though, as everything else, are flawed) provide a good example. However, the overbearing ideals of capitalism and ideas of the west prove that it is difficult for any other culture to gain the wide-scale impact that it has.
This leads to the last point: why environmental globalization is bad. The environment means different things to different cultures. Look around Canada. It could be argued that Indigenous cultures favor the environment more than so called ‘developed’ or western cultures. Other cultures care more for the environment in developing countries as well. A common trait of developing countries is small scale farming. So, when the cultural ideals of the west invade in the name of building up economies, it is bound to have detrimental effects on the environment as these ideals encourage expanding to create market growth and more access because they view, as mentioned before, the natural environment in terms of ‘environmental resources’, or in plainer terms, something to be used.
When countries start to expand their economies, there is increased pressure to industrialize because that is believed under the capitalist way of things to be better for development. It is argued on page 232 in the compilation by the Economist in an article by Bjorn Lomborg that with increased globalization, developing countries will be able to afford technology to build more sustainable (environmentally friendly) industry. In this way, globalization is seen to be good because it will lead to the spread of better environmental practice. However, developing countries must first be able to afford this. And how are they encouraged in the economic system to do this? Expand and produce more to export first by using their natural resources and then by manufacturing. If they are currently not producing sustainably, as is implied by his statement, then that means that in order to become more environmentally friendly, they must first be more horrible to the environment which will set them back even further and create a bigger obstacle to overcome: deeper environmental degradation.
Population, which as mentioned previously is much, much higher in developing countries, also strains the environment. According to Lomborg on page 234, population is supposed to stabilize by 2100 and the effects of over population will be minimized. However, that is in almost 100 years! What are people to do in the meantime when they are not able to sustainably produce to develop in this system (which will, hypothetically, get them out of poverty and following the paths of more developed countries that typically see lower population growth)? Green house gas emissions which lead to global warming are proven to have dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. We are feeling the effects today. As more countries are not able to switch over to known more sustainable production practices that do not have the same kind of effect on climate than ones that are able, climate change is only going to get worse.
The UN issued a report on climate change in 2004. On their website it is indicated that yes, indeed climate change is wide spread and is occurring largely because of increased CO2 emissions (section 19.1.3). They also said that developing countries are going to be continually suffering more because of it (section 18.7) as they do not have the resources (which links back to the issues of unequal economic globalization) to deal with it. The UN addresses this in regards to ‘adaptive capacities’, which as already described developing countries in poverty lack. As it is mostly developed countries that have caused these environmental issues, as they have industrialized, there is a level of obligation to make it up to developing countries in some way in regards to this.
The key issue regarding globalization and why it is so detrimental to developing countries is because of the particular ideals that are being globally spread. Wealth is not distributed equally or under fair circumstances particularly in regards to historical standing, and those who are suffering economically continue to suffer culturally and environmentally more so as globalization continues down it’s developed path. These reasons alone are enough to believe that globalization is bad; how can a system that is not based on spawning equality or looking out for people who were not necessarily lucky enough to be born into a country with a friendly government, or with lots of environmental resources. Globalization does have some positive impacts because it can bring people together, help the environment (for example, the Kyoto accord) and create less poverty when the right ideals are spread.
Historical differences must be overcome. With policy changes and a more global (good for all, not just a few) attitude that acknowledges and works with the needs of all people, not just a few, it could become quite positive. Although developed countries do not always benefit, for example terrorism, the marginalization of indigenous people within them and environmental issues, not to mention the job issues moving TNCs and working towards bigger and more ‘efficient’ means to export more create to name a few, the leaders of the developed countries are still driving globalization and do indeed benefit and have benefited more than developing countries. Without going into too much detail about elitists in developing countries who are also benefiting from globalization, it must be noted here that because the majority of people in the world, the populations of developing countries, continue to benefit much less than developed countries as they are most affected by the negative aspects of the global economic structure, loss of culture and the natural environment around them, globalization is unquestioningly bad. Only when globalization encompasses the vision of a global world, in which all people and the earth are given an equal chance and the same level of respect, will globalization be a positive force.
i just have to make my reference list which i cannot until i go home. woot!