Liverpool and Britain dependent on other countries - Essay Example

Liverpool and Britain dependent on other countries Liverpool is a vital city for the economy of Britain. It is an historic area where a great deal of manufacturing was done and was thus, as a port, important in terms of getting goods out to market. The world is changing like never before. Globalization is affecting every aspect of our lives. It affects our culture, our economy, and even our politics. We face new challenges and old challenges dressed up in new clothes. Liverpool and Britain as a country are no different. In fact it can even be argued that Liverpool is one of the capitals or centres of globalization in the world: it is the west gate to Britain. It has contacts with so many parts of the world through the Commonwealth and through the old networks and traditions of the British Empire. Indeed, Liverpool has benefited enormously from this period of economic expansion. But likewise, as economies become more intertwined, we find that they can also become more vulnerable to unexpected shifts and new forms of opaqueness. This isn’t a reason to turn away from globalization, but it is a reason to be vigilant. This essay will look at the way Liverpool and Britain have become more dependent on other countries through the process of globalization and it will suggest that this has mostly been for the best. Although the exact moment of globalization occurring in Liverpool is a highly debatable question considering the length of Britain’s history and its extensive involvement in world affairs, it could be send that the election of “New Labour” in 1997 marked the rapid acceleration of the period. With Tony Blair’s successful efforts to remake the formerly left-wing, anti-free trade Labour party into a pro-market moderate party, Britain decided to go full steam ahead with economic global integration. The stage had been set a few years earlier. In the words of Merril Stevenson in a thoughtful article on the subject: Britain got its economic act together just as globalisation was accelerating, in the late 1980s. It has managed to catch and ride the current wave successfully, selling the world financial and business services where once it sold cotton textiles and machines. Shifting earlier and more decisively than most countries out of mass manufacturing, where it had few advantages over lower-cost competitors, to more easily defended high-value-added goods and services gave it an edge. Margaret Thatcher's painful union-bashing left Britain with flexible labour markets at a time when countries such as France and Germany are struggling with unbudgetable workers and high unemployment.1 While other countries were slow to see the positive ramifications of globalization, Britain was not. It saw what it wanted and it struck. This is not surprising, as Britain has always been a trading nation. Liverpool has been a central part of that history. Founded by King John in the 12 century, the city has been an important port for a very long time. In the 19th century it became, along with Manchester, the first two British cities connected by railway, allowing the quick transport of goods to market. At first only a few docks were built, but as the naval and sailor class became more professionalized and Liverpool's merchant more saavy, the port expanded dramatically. It played an important role in both the slave trade and the Second World War when it was heavily bombed by the Nazis. Indeed, its partial destruction in the war was an impetus for its redevelopment and modernization over the last sixty years. But it has foremost been the city of globalization for Britain with all the good and bad that means. Of course, with current economic events shaking the world economy, we begin to see some of the potential negative effects of globalization for Britain. In a recent visit to the United States, Gordon Brown was keen to point out that the problems started in the U.S. as the result of bad regulations and greed. He said that the “global banking collapse needed a global solution. He called for the same standards in banking ‘of remuneration, accountability, transparency and disclosure all round the world’, saying this would lead to a restoration of confidence in banking.”2 The problems point to one of the serious drawbacks of globalization: when you open your economy up to the other economies of the world you can get very rich as long as they do well—but you also become very vulnerable to their problems too. This is something Britain has become concerned about regarding the E.U. in the past, and now with the American economy in shambles, it must again revisit this difficult situation. The consequences for Liverpool will be significant. In the course of this important debate about Liverpool and Britain's role in the world it is important to remember the benefits that have come with globalization and with the trade engendered by Liverpool's role as the western gate port. These changes have not always been easy, but they have improved life in Britain. Britain itself has changed drastically in terms of demographics over the last few years because of the ease with which foreigners can enter the country to work. Sometimes this causes social friction between different groups, sometimes even riots, but the great value of a diverse population with diverse skills cannot be overstated. In order to remain competitive Britain needs the best minds from around the world: it can’t do it on its own. Although some Britons are suspicious of closer ties to the E.U., the reduction of restrictions on the labour markets have allowed workers to travel freely. This has been a benefit to Britain and Liverpool and will again be a benefit after the current economic crisis concludes. In the words of one commentator: The flow of foreigners into Britain has increased over the past ten years, partly because a growing economy has demanded more workers and partly because disruption elsewhere - plus European enlargement - has boosted supply. Immigrants have undoubtedly kept wages down and most likely taken some jobs from those that wanted them. But they have also lifted economic output and contributed needed skills.3 Liverpool has been an entry point for immigrants for generations—and this will continue. Some may argue that all of these changes are just a paler version of a longstanding trend towards liberalizing world markets. They might say the turn of the last century showed more dramatic shifts in the world economy, etc. But those changes were happening from a much lower baseline. These current changes are drive by technology our grandfathers could only imagine. In the words of one observers, these changes show “qualitative differences from that of previous epochs. Most notable are: real-time world financial markets; the speed of economic exchange; the scale of gross economic flows of goods and short-term capital; the institutionalization of economic relations at an interregional level . . . [it is] deeper today.”4 Economic integration has many consequences: some relating to culture and society, some relating to security. If you’re economic interests are shared, you must share the work in defending them against people who would do you wrong. In many respects the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, proved to be a globalizing events, further accelerating changes that were already underway.5 The attacks led to the Global War on Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Britain threw its chips in with the United States, supporting it to the hilt. A broad range of countries settled on a common security policy which involved playing offence rather than defence. The result was a sort of globalized foreign/defence policy that involved countries as diverse as the United States, Britain, Denmark, Australia, Spain and Togo. They came together under American leadership to take a stand against Al Qaeda and enter into long and controversial dialogue about the use of military force in the modern age. This was all certainly part of a trajectory towards greater globalization. Now attention has shifted off these foreign security crises and returned to the very structures of economic globalization itself. However, the trust and distrust built up over these foreign policy issues linger in the current economic debate. Countries want to feel like they can rely on their allies in times of crisis. The close relationship maintained between the United States and Britain bodes well for their dealing closely and collaboratively with the current economic crisis. But back to the beginning periods of globalization in Britain in 1990s. There is one further issue which has not been discussed and which is sometimes lost in the great debates over money and guns. Globalization is not simply about economics: it is also about the cultural and social shifts that accompany the reduction in tariff and the easing of travel, communication, and trade. It is about the way people from all across the world can come together to have a conversation and to collaborate on numerous projects and cultural products. Cultural products are commodities too and they can be exchanged more easily in an open marketplace. Economic globalization in the 1990s went hand in hand with the promotion of a new wave of British culture which found a receptive audience around the world. Liverpool too led the way becoming a European cultural captial. Britpop was back in a big with artists such as Oasis and Blue and many other singers having their faces splashed across famous magazines worldwide. British artists such as the Young British Artists made millions selling their art to the nouveau riche in East Asia and the Middle East. Indeed, art itself began to shift in substance during this period becoming more consumeristic and material. It was more about surface and saleable than content or deep thought. This appealed to those who were happy to spend millions on a status symbol and this new from of conspicuous consumption that was making inroads throughout the world. To America, Britain was no longer a totally foreign culture or country—this was the second wave British cultural invasion. People were receptive because it was all quite familiar by this point. Works consulted Beck, U. (2000), What is Globalization?, Ch. 1. ‘The World Horizon Opens Up: On the Sociology of Globalization’, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bilton, T. et.al. (2002), Introductory Sociology, Chapter 3, Globalisation and Modernity, London: Palgrave. Bauman, Z. (1998), Globalization: The Human Consequences, Ch. 4, ‘Tourists and Vagabonds’, Cambridge: Polity Press. Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2000), Global Sociology, Ch. 2, ‘Thinking Globally’, London: Macmillan. McGrew, A.M.. (2005). “The logics of globalization.” in J.Ravenhill ed. Global Political Economy. Stevenson, Merril. “Britain and globalization: a good marriage.” OpenDemocracy. February 2, 2007. http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-britannia_redux/good_4314.jsp Tepe, Fulye. (2005) “September 11, Globalization, and World Peace.” Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Yıl:4 Sayı:7 Bahar/1 s.189-199. Wintour, Patrick. “Brown to visit Obama.” The Guardian. March 3, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/03/gordon-brown-barack-obama Read More