 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Transformation of the World: What Is Globalization? As we explore the different aspects of the world, and in particular the global economy, it will helpful to take a moment and define globalization and examine in brief some of the issues that surround it. Globalization
is "… the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states
and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is
enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around
the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and
in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations,
and nation-states farther, faster, cheaper than ever before." Globalization is a catchall word describing the transformative effects of various aspects of the world becoming more interconnected. It is often used to refer to the way liquidity of capital and the erasure of trade barriers has changed the nature of the world economy. It also refers to how these economic changes are driven by advances in technologies such as computers, the Internet, and manufacturing. It can be used to describe the cultural effects of worldwide mass media dominated by a handful of corporations, or used in talking about the shifts and changes in governments and social structures caused by changes in the world economy and technology. "Accordingly, globalization can be thought of as; a process (or set of processes -- which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions-assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact-generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercises of power."(i) Although there are a large number of individual aspects to globalization, it implies a singularity of connection. We are living in Marshall McLuhan's Global Village, and like any village, we are getting to know each other better, while at the same time we are affecting each other's lives more deeply. This isn't the first time we've gone through a phase of globalization. Historians point to the Belle Époque of 1870 to 1914 in which similar events took place and cautionary critics point out that this earlier phase of globalization eventually led us into the First World War. The similarities between today and the turn of the 19th Century are significant, but they can also be misleading. Much like today, there were striking advances in technology, such as the telephone, the automobile, and motion pictures, not to mention developments in automation and the creation of the modern assembly line. Also like today there was a vast increase in trade between nations and a proliferation of large corporations with extraordinary amounts of capital and power. However, these similarities are only surface deep. The pace of technological change at the turn of the 19th century was rapid, but it was crawling at a snails pace by comparison to the rate of technological change we are currently experiencing. Moreover, the technologies we are creating today dwarf the power of anything we have previously envisioned and implemented. In 1914 international companies still retained a degree of loyalty to their home nation. By contrast, today's corporations are not simply powerful leviathans, but they are, with ever fewer exceptions, truly transnational and far more concerned with their market value than with the interests of any particular nation. The globalization of the Belle Époque can no more be credited with provoking the First World War than the isolationism of the 20's and 30's can be blamed in entirety for resulting in the Second World War. Both were contributing, but not decisive factors in helping to formulate an atmosphere conducive to conflict. The situation today is quite different. While war is ever more likely as globalization takes a firmer hold on the world, it is ever more unlikely to involve multiple Western nations, except when acting in concert against a common foe. The economic and political ties that bind democratic nations together make it far less advantageous for them to attempt to resolve their conflicts through force. On the other hand, less developed nations, with little or no democracy, weak infrastructure, and rampant poverty, find violent conflict if not a means to resolving differences, at least a way to distract impoverished populations from the tyranny of their leaders. The neo-liberal agenda that promotes the process of globalization we are currently following suggests that stronger economic ties reduce the likelihood of war. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman refers to this as his McDonald's Theory, by which no two nations that possess a McDonald's have gone to war. This theory hasn't held up entirely, as there is a McDonald's in Belgrade, Serbia, which was bombed by NATO during the Kosovo conflict, but by and large it is an accurate platitude. Economic prosperity can lead to less conflict with neighboring nations. However, that economic prosperity needs to reach a rather significant level to establish real safety. The Neo-Liberal agenda of globalization seeks to increase economic stability and prosperity through international free trade. This tends to have both positive and negative effects. Naturally, those who are pushing this agenda, and profiting most heavily from it, tend to focus on the benefits. Not surprisingly, those who are critical of it tend to focus on the negative aspects of globalization. Though it has existed since the beginning of the 1990s as a loose coalition of environmental groups, corporate watchdog organizations, and media critics, in popular consciousness the anti-globalization movement is most frequently linked with the protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in the fall of 1999. This event created a great deal of popular attention for the subject of globalization, granting both its proponents and detractors a wider audience, but few citizens seem to have grasped the implications of the arguments. The truth of globalization, as always, lies somewhere between the extremes of the claims and criticisms the ideologues on both sides of the issue. Globalization does have enormous benefits, but often those are slanted in the direction of those who are already reaping enormous advantage from the system. Free trade can be helpful to developing an economy, but only if it is fair and balanced, giving all sides and all participants equal rewards. The flight of manufacturing companies to less developed nations in search of cheap labor has effects that are both positive and negative. Developed nations get cheaper goods, but fewer good jobs. Developing nations get jobs, but not the freedoms and liberties that these jobs once provided to their counterparts in developed nations. There is a wide gap of meaning between freedom and free trade. As Anthony Giddens, writes, "The citizen is not the same as the consumer, and freedom is not to be equated with the freedom to buy and sell in the marketplace."(ii) Globalization also has serious impacts on the environment, social structures, and cultures, but so does isolationism. The Third Way, which Giddens is a strong advocate for, attempts to bridge this gap and push globalization in a slightly different direction by using various forms of regulation to cushion the effects of free market capitalism. While this is a rational compromise, it fails to address the root causes of the problems arising from globalization. Those who are suggesting a Third Way for the global economy are still gripped by a Modern worldview. Giddens is quite right here though, and this will be nowhere more obvious than in China. The Chinese government is attempting to convince its population that they really want to be consumers not citizens. They have every reason to believe that this will work because they can see that in America citizens have been quite willing to forego participation in government and leave behind all notions of a civil society as long as they could have McDonald's, shopping malls, and 500 channels of satellite TV. As the statistics on crime, depression and suicide in America indicate, this life of consumption and separation isn't all it's cracked up to be. One has to wonder how long this façade will last and whether countries like China will experience the same dissatisfaction with the consumer way of living as many Americans are beginning to. To be specific,
I am not against globalization in general, I am against the way we are
proceeding to go about it, though by and large, this comes down to pretty
much the same thing, as I am vehemently against our current path of
progress. However, I don't advocate a Third Way that cuts a poor compromise
between two extremes, nor do I believe that some return to isolationism
will solve any more problems than it creates. I believe that we need
to reconsider the way we envision the economy at the local, national,
and global levels, taking into account the implications of technology,
social structures, culture, and the environment in every way. The following
chapters will attempt to do just this, at least in a limited fashion,
and the Third Turn, A Vision for World Transformation, will set out
explicit suggestions for how we can steer the world in a new direction
that takes advantage of the gloablizing force we are wielding, without
turning these powers inadvertently against their creators. Footnotes i) David
Held and Anthony McGrew, The Global Transformations Reader, p.55
|