Globalization: A Force behind the Worlds Crises - Coursework Example

Globalization: A Force behind the World’s Crises Details: al Affiliation: Globalization: A Force behind the World’s Crises Introduction Probably the most popular concept of the 21st century, globalization is but a complex, multifaceted term that has defied a unified definition (Bardhan, 2006). With raised emotions constantly pulling apart, the controversial concept has generated a debate with a rare magnitude that surpasses any individual’s capability to extract a workable definition that appeals to the time line and the varied interests that seem at odds with a just order. While numerous scholars tend to focus on the transnational, economic exchange-based network effect that that transcends national borders (World Bank, 2007; BHAGWATI, 2004, p. 3), Falk (1999) argues that globalization is largely a fashioned economic phenomenon with inbuilt, inescapable, benign socio-cultural consequences. David Held (2005), however, deviates with a hard hitting locus that seems to tag the concept with the west’s imposition of their interest-serving set of economic and political prescriptions [otherwise known as the Washington Consensus] on the developing world; a position that posits erosion of states’ sovereignty [particularly the poor states] by the powerful global economy forces (Dreher, 2006, p.1092; Jomo, 2005, pp. 13-14). A seemingly self-evident concept, yet vague and obscure in meaning with far reaching ramifications that constantly change faces, the suggestive battle that embodies economic, social, and/or cultural issues is observable almost in every definition. The World Bank’s perspective of increased global exchange appeals mostly because of the radical shifts in the costs of transportation and communication aided by the ever advancing technology (Stiglitz, 2002). Indeed, there is no doubt that the volume of cross-border transactions over the last three decades alone has been enormous; a definitive view that portrays globalization as an organic process working primarily through the market mechanism. Results of the myriad decisions made around the world about where to invest, job search, product transactions, emigration, and personal life commitments among others attest the veracity in the line of thought. Nonetheless, the economic definition seems to be a reliably choice perspective that overlooks the transnational, hegemonic influence of the west, particularly the United States, that serve best to condition the varied social or cultural aspects around the world through the international institutions. Wolf, (2004, p. 19) argue that although the economic perspective broadly captures the global integration of national economies through trade, direct foreign investments by the multi-national corporations, the general international flows of workers and humanity, short-term capital flows, as well as the flows of technology, those in its favour are well alert to the socio-cultural aspects not catered for in the definition. It is no wonder, therefore, that the definition [frequently fronted by the World Bank] is considered a basic one that does not deserve the expansive scope of the concept globalization. Consequently, scholars and development practitioners alike prefer the rather vague “cross-border interactions and exchanges”, refrain from adopting second party definitions and/or defining the term altogether [given the inherent omissions] (Goldin and Reinert, 2007, p.2). Just as evident in the elusive definition, on the ground problems of globalization are even much heavier than those on paper. A carefully designed process whose control is a tightly knit affair in the hands of the transnational corporations (TNCs) suspended by the governments of wealthy industrialized nations, the interests of everybody seems but all in the periphery. The unique importance of varied emotions and the distinct cultural identities are headed for a fateful crash while concurrently and slowly expunging the concepts of environmental protection, social benefit and equality [all deemed foreign] out of the equation. With capitalist mindsets driving the disproportionate allocation of resources globally, capital movement, exchange, revenue, structural adjustment and interest seem to be the trending terms, yet sinking the disadvantaged by taking away even the very little in their custody. The Negative Effects of Globalization The resulting problems of globalization are massive and hit the vulnerable, particularly the children and women, in the poorer countries the hardest. It is very unfortunate that while globalization is credited for significantly improving lives across the globe, the global nature tendencies of the capitalists’ activities have destroyed lives in equal measure, perhaps worse than the benefits; never in history has the world’s inequalities been stretched to the 21st century limits. The United States only constitutes approximately four percent of the world’s population, yet dominates the global free markets with resource-draining effects elsewhere, subjecting thousands into forced misery. Chua (2003) notes that the world’s richest one percent sits on as much wealth equivalent to fifty-seven percent of the poorest nations’ wealth combined. As the rich nations continue to experience rapid economic prosperity, a phenomenon that more than tripled over the past two decades, many in the developing world, not sparing the world’s poorest, continue to wallow in the ever declining living standards. Between the years 1980 to 1998, for instance, the United States’ per capita private consumption increased an average rate of 1.9 percent per annum, while human living conditions in sub-Saharan Africa declined by 1.2 percent annually during the same period (Gallup and Sachs, 2001). Indeed as the world‘s richest continue to reap super normal benefits of globalization, more than one billion people the world over [the worse off being in Africa] live on less than a dollar a day (UNDP, 2001) Even at their current state of affairs, globalization is increasingly making it difficult for the poor nations to identify just what exactly constitute their national economies. Governments have been reduced to mere actors with ceremonial roles on the global stage as aggressive production systems and capital markets take the center stage in commanding development. The west imposition of the neo-liberal policies through the IMF and the World Bank has forced the raw commodity prices that these countries so much depend on down to the sustenance levels. Without a doubt, the policies have drastically reduced the social safety nets of the poor countries, thus making their economies less and less competitive in the globalized economy (Falk, 1999). The imbalanced relations has so far strengthened the rich by increasing their wealth and power [influence] as the poor’s cake gets even much smaller (Stiglitz, 2002, p.9). Besides the policies are the inadequate foreign aids comprising largely of food supplies that only serve to ensure that the poor remain at the mercy of the west. The inequality gap is further driven by the constant brain drain that hinders proper development manpower to drive the poor states towards the desired real change. It is rather pathetic that the richest 20 percent of the world’s population are firmly in control of [receives-sound better] 86 percent of world’s GDP combined, pockets 82 percent of export trade as well as 68 percent of foreign direct investment the world over, yet the world’s poorest 20 percent only receives one percent (UNDP, 1999). The same report further revealed 358 individuals own as much wealth as that owned by 2.5 billion people. More than any other time in history, labor standards have been lowered to dangerous levels by the multinationals’ influence on public policy. Because governments view themselves as competitors in a world where capitalism matter the most, the multinationals corporations’ (MNCs’) power have been strengthened by the credible exit threats, leaving the former with less bargaining power in championing the interests of its citizens even in the obvious, extreme cases of massive labor exploitation (Huber and Stephens, 2001, p. 224). A survey of 11 countries by the US Labor Department reveals that five actually went to the extent of luring the multinational enterprises into their territories by not only offering them a tax-free status for a certain number of years, but also exempting them from adhering to the hitherto existing labour codes enforced elsewhere in the countries (Charnovitz, 1992, p.343). Given that international labor unions are nonexistent, local labor unions have found it much harder to enlist employees in such organizations for effective income and job condition protection due to the same exit threats. George Soros (2002) argue that globalization has elevated the provision of private goods above the more important public issues of peace, the protection of fundamental human rights, poverty eradication and more importantly, the right to health sustaining environment. Among the exploitative practices of the multinationals commonly cited by anti-globalist are child labour, unwanted collective bargaining, hazardous working conditions and extended unpaid working hours (Lawrence, et al., 1996). Klein (2000) goes further to pinpoint the export processing zone factories that hire, fire and rehire workers at will thus avoiding worker-benefit commitments that would otherwise cut down their huge profits. The world at large is today grappling with grave matters of environmental concern. The position that man is destroying his very own foundation of existence has gained fame with constant search for morally sustainable alternatives the world over. Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation, destruction of ocean habitats and massive industrial pollution are no doubt the results of globalization (Lawrence, et al., 1996). The highly publicized controversies such as the Liberia’s Khian Sea waste disposal saga [a cargo loaded with thousands of tons of toxic ash from Philadelphia]; the leaked World Bank memo signed by Lawrence Summers urging fellow economists at the intuition to support migration of the Wests’ pollution intensive industries into the developing countries; and the 1999 Seattle against the World Trade Organization give a clear picture as to who in the world is at the receiving end to pick the pieces (McAusland, 2008, p. 5). Rees (2002, p. 249) in his findings notes that globalization has not only destroyed the glamorous environment of the 300 years ago, but continues to inch man closer to the worse battle of resources ever witnessed in history; a battle suspended by ‘a population bomb’ that adds approximately 260,000 people on the earth’s surface every day (Dauvergne, 2004, pp.372-373). Indeed as it is, if the world can barely sustain the current population, will it really bear the pressure that another 3 billion is expected to bring in the next four decades as predicted? (McNeill, 2000, pp. 6–8). In the words of William Rees and Laura Westra (2003), globalization is fast constructing a world of ‘eco-apartheid’ and ‘eco-violence’ with unequal and unsustainable patterns of consumption; a phenomenon that increasingly marginalizes indigenous populations, particularly in Africa. Clearly, environmental justice in a world where the affluent [such as Bill Gates] lives alongside the over a billion spending a day on less than a dollar is no more. As a consequence of environmental degradation, the over a billion people have no access to clean water (The World Water Organization, 2010). According to world health organization statistics (2002), unhealthy environments resulted in illnesses that caused deaths of over 4.7 million children under the age of 5 in the year 2000 (State of the Philippine Population Report, n.d.). The future is even grimmer for the less competitive as the environmental effects combines with HIV-AIDS [a pandemic expected to wipe out of the earth’s surface 68 million people between 2000 and 2020 (Dauvergne, 2004)] to kill more. As the world become increasingly abuzz with free exchange flows, so are the cultural attitudes. Just like in the trade phenomenon, indigenous cultures—usually from poor countries—are finding hard to compete fairly with the trending global culture (Chua, 1998, p. 981, 988). At the core of the argument is a fundamental concern that the multinationals are improperly appropriating indigenous cultures; that these corporations are taking undue advantage of the knowledge gap to acquire super normal profits without properly compensating the locals in the less disadvantage world. Perhaps the most far-reaching effect of globalization on culture is the commercialization of unique cultural identities around the world. Culture alongside other essentials of social life such as marriage and family life, work, religion and leisure [the crucibles of cultural creation] have been commoditized like any other market goods or services. It is evident in a myriad of spheres influencing human behavior that only smaller number of the world’s population experience cultural globalization on their own terms. Justified in colonial Africa, for instance, as a civilizing mission and there after as modernization, Westernization was/has been a wholesale erosion of other cultural identities with very little room, if any, for a meaningful middle ground (Akande, 2002). Cultural imperialism has completely disordered the hitherto revered African values through wholesale adoption of anything foreign and an exaggerated reinvention of the past in the name of tradition. The cumulative effect is but a crisis of cultural confidence that has led to non-thoughtful consumption as a curative answer to insecurities, especially among the youth. Most people in the developing world, for example, welcome the economic benefits that come with vibrant, profitable tourism industry. Nonetheless, the package is fitted with sex tourism and other behavioral change aspects that are rather damaging to the old cultural order. In a strongly worded protest, Omekwu (2006) notes that: “It is extremely difficult for African countries with strong Islamic and Christian cultures to tolerate the level of pornographic activities that go on the Internet. In traditional African culture, nudity is still not a virtue. In many African universities and urban centers, nudity has become and Africa’s rich and elegant dress style are becoming outdated.” A form of modern slavery, human trafficking is no doubt one of the greatest human rights violations of our time (Lagon, 2008). Lured by innocuous adverts that sound lucrative enough in all manner of sensible instincts, thousands of unwitting applicants with seemingly nothing to lose fall prey to international criminals who reap huge profits out of situations clearly driven by extreme desperation (Bales, 1999). According to The International Labor Organization report (2008), approximately 2.4 billion people are subjected to forced labor and/or exploitation [including but not limited to sex] as a result of trafficking at any given time the world over. Staying with the issue of international crime, the 9/11 was but a ghastly reminder that the distances had not only gotten smaller in terms of communication flows and beneficial exchange of goods and services, but also expedited the reach of global. Stibli (2010) notes that Al-Qaeda is not any terrorist organization in the traditional sense, but an oiled machine of global terror with well-defined, organized system of hierarchy with a decentralized network of Islamic extremists worldwide (p.1). More than any other time in history, globalization has availed technology with high capabilities [atomic bombs, for instance], with the result of disrupting and jeopardizing everybody’s security and mobility anywhere without warning (Kiras, 2008, pp. 378-80). The ever burgeoning literature on the controversial effects of globalization underscores the status of a moral dilemma that more than pits the west and everybody else in the world. That globalization is a force behind the world crises is rather obvious; a paradoxical force that has fallen behind its weight with a feasible threat of making everybody losers in the end. Competition, the basic premise that underlies the concept of globalization, has created an army of losers with only a bunch of winners who care less about the destitute. It is fallacious enough to believe that the familiar political institutions referred to most often by advocates can provide any tangible relief in the face of the race to the bottom through dubious deals that leave them [poor countries] more vulnerable than ever. In a world where a third World War is almost a reality, a crafted fate may be just but on the way. References Akande, W. (2002) ‘Drawback of cultural globalization’, malasyiakini [online], available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinions/21967 Bales, K. (1999) Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, Berkeley: University of California Press. Bhagwati, J. (2004) In Defense of globalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charnovitz, S. (1992) ‘Environmental and Labor Standards in Trade’, The World Economy, 15(8), 335–356. Chua, B. (1998) ‘World Cities, Globalisation and the Spread of Consumerism: A View from Singapore’, Urban Studies, 35 (5/6), 981-1000. Dauvergne P. “Globalization and the Environment”, in John Ravenhill, ed. (2005) Global Political Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 (pp. 366-389). Dreher, A. (2006) ‘Does Globalization Affect Growth? “Empirical Evidence from a new Index’, Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091-1110. Falk, R. (1999) Predatory globalization: A critique, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gallup, J. L. and. Sachs, J. (2001) ‘The Economic Burden of Malaria’, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 64 (1 supplement, January), 85–96. Goldin, I.and Reinert, K. (2007) Globalization for Development: Trade, Finance, Aid, Migration and Policy, Washington DC.: The World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan. Held, D. (2005) ‘Toward a New Consensus: Answering the Dangers of Globalization’, HARV. INT’L REV., 27(14), 15–16. Huber, E. and Stephens, J. (2001) Development and Crisis of the Welfare State, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. International Labor Organization (2008) ILO action against trafficking in human beings, Geneva: International Labor Organization. Jomo, K. S. (2005) ‘Economic Reform for Whom?: Beyond the Washington Consensus’, post- autistic economics review, 35 (2), 11-18. Kiras, J. ‘Terrorism and Globalization’ in Baylis, J. Smith, S and Owens, P., ed. (2008) The Globalization of World Politics, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klein (2000) No logo, New York: Picador. Lagon, M. P. (2008) ‘Modern-day Slavery: Human Trafficking‘s Terrible Toll’, The Washington Times, 6 Oct., Op Ed, A21. Lawrence, R. Z., Rodrik, D. and Whalley, J. (1996) Emerging agenda for global trade: High stakes for developing countries, Washington DC: Overseas Development Council. McAusland, C. 2008. Globalization’s Direct and Indirect Effects on the Environment [online], available at http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/41380703.pdf McNeill, J. R. (2000) Something New Under the Sun. An Environmental History of the Twentieth Century, London: Penguin. Omekwu, C. O. (2006) African culture and libraries: the information technology challenge, The Electronic Library, 24(2), 243 – 264. Rees, W. E. (2002) ‘Globalization and Sustainability: Conflict or Convergence’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22(4), 249-268. Rees, W.E. and L. Westra (2003) ‘When Consumption Does Vio-lence: Can there be Sustainability and Environmental Justice in a Resource-Limited World?” Chapter in Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World (J. Aygeman, R. Bullard and Bob Evans, eds.) New York: Columbia University Press and London: Earthscan. Soros, G. (2002) George Soros on Globalization, New York: Public Affairs. State of the Philippine Population Report (n.d.) Seeking a Healthy Balance:Population, Health and Environment Integration, [pdf] Available at http://www.popcom6.ph/forms/StateofthePhilippinePopulationReport5forweb.pdf Stibli, F. (2010) ‘Terrorism in the context of globalization’, AARMS, 9(1), 1–7. Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its discontents, New York: W.W. Norton. The World Water Organization (2010) Water Facts & Water Stories from Across the Globe [online], available at http://www.theworldwater.org/water_facts.php United Nations Development Program [UNDP] (1999) Human development report 1999, New York: Oxford University Press. United Nations Development Program [UNDP] (2001) Human development report 2001, New York: Oxford University Press. Wolf, M. (2004) Why globalization works, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. World Bank (2007) World Development Indicators [online], available at http://go.worldbank.org/3JU2HA60D0 Read More