Global markets and local cultures - Essay Example

Global Markets and Local Cultures Looking into both the works of Friedman and Haugerud it is interesting to uncover how contrasting their statements are regarding the same issues especially on globalization. Friedman is known for coining the phrase golden straight-jacket in regards to the rules that globalization has brought. These rules of global economy according to him stipulate that the private sector is amassing power with the spread of globalization and that nations should accept this fact by privatizing industries, increasing transparency and curbing corruption and opening up their markets by eliminating tariffs.

He further states that these processes are inevitable and irreversible. He states that for those countries opposing it, it will be extremely hard for them to operate in an increasingly global world as they are to be alienated and investment drawn and taken elsewhere by the electronic herd (Friedman 106-58). He states that it just but a matter of time before this alienation chokes them forcing them to accept the rules. On the other hand Friedman states that the meaning of golden in the phrase attaches the merits that come with accepting the rules.

He states that for those countries that will abide by them, huge investments will go their way thereby becoming rich economically. In regards to protests in Seattle, Friedman stated that protesters were targeting the wrong body and doing so using wrong tools. He called protesters “…protectionist trade unions and yuppies looking for their 1960’s fix…” (Besteman and Gusterson 282). He states that W.H.O is just but a product of globalization and that it acts according to global rules. The current world is one without walls in form of borders, politics and other types of barriers to international relations.

As such there is need to replace walls with rules that govern global relationship which brings about the roles of W.H.O. He stated that the protestors were basically against W.H.O becoming a Big Brother or a Global Government. He said this was ridiculous because they in turn wanted it to push for their rules on environment and labor standards. According to him, this is making W.H.O exactly what they are accusing it of; a global government. Angelique Haugerud is one notable figure completely opposed to the Friedman’s opinions and beliefs.

She argues that Freidman has a narrow view of the world as it is irrespective of whether there is more integration or not. She particularly states that he is blind when it comes to people and societal factors of globalization and concentrates more on wealth. She regards him as excellent in persuading without facts which is wrong from an anthropological point of view. Haugerud offers an example where according to Friedman world leaders’ roles need to concentrate on pleasing investors to prevent them from pulling out their investments and capital.

This means that irrespective of the negative impacts from these investors, governments need to keep them happy which is fallacious according to Haugerud (Besteman and Gusterson 40). She also refutes Friedman’s self acclamation that he is a tourist with attitude by saying that she believes he does not “…have enough insight to call himself that…” and that he has not researched enough. I lean more by Haugerud’s sentiments as they come from a person well acclaimed in the field of anthropology and has done extensive research on issues raised by Friedman.

She therefore has a more authoritative voice on these issues. She also counters Friedman’s arguments and propositions in a moderate and rational perspective. Works Cited Besteman, Catherine L. and Gusterson, Hugh. Why America's Top Pundits Are Wrong: Anthropologists Talk Back. University of California Press, 2005. Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2000.