Has Anti Globalization Become Mainstream Politics - Research Paper Example

Anti globalisation . . . how can you say that the TV image of a religious fanatic who denounces modernity and secularism from a mountain cave in Afghanistan perfectly captures the complex dynamics of globalization? Don't these terrible acts of terrorism suggest the opposite, namely, the growth of parochial forces that undermine globalization?' (raised by a student in a history major class in the aftermath of the 11th September incidents in the US: From Steger. M. 2003) Introduction The quote above summarises, albeit in simpler terms, the complexities inherent in the understandings of what is commonly known to us as globalisation, the ideological parameters that regulate and channel these understandings, the proximity of this topic to our very daily existence and confusions pertaining to the vey opposite of globalisation, that is, anti globalisation. If we start from a level that is just above common sense globalisation shall signify the flow of literally everything including capital, trade, business, products, ideas and ideologies etc., across the globe. “It is about making the world a smaller place by ensuring quick and inexpensive transport of people and goods and, very importantly, of information” (Kort 2006. p 99). Liberal economic processes gains an upper hand in globalisation and, in the process, it considerably undermines the political sovereignty. The ideology of liberalism, that function as the foundational spirit of globalisation, seeks to liberate this flow from all means of regulation that in a conventional political topography was considered very important. The movement of capital from where it is available abundantly to places where it has a high demand has always been associated with regulations, albeit new forms of regulation, that reflects the hegemonic power of that capital. An insight about the kind of changes brought forth by this flow of capital in locales that are entirely different from where it has originated shall lead one to understanding the basic impulses of movements that challenge it. This paper makes a brief attempt towards understanding challenges against the larger process of globalisation in different parts of the world. Whereas the paper largely concentrates on the developing context implicit in its analysis is the fact that developing and developed worlds are not strictly geographical markers that could be identified easily under the labels of nation states or under the rubric of North and South or East and West. On the other hand, as Spivak has argued, just as there exist First worlds among the Third world there are Third worlds visible among the First ones also. Although the paper’s major focus in anti globalisation movements a major part of it tempts to focus on the conditions that have led to the formation of these movements. The paper is divided into five sections including this introduction. In the next section a discussion is initiated about the origins and different understandings of globalisation with regard to its consequences upon labour, environment etc. In the third section an attempt to understand movements that oppose and resist globalisation as also their co existence is undertaken. The fourth section discusses specific instances of such attempts to resist the hegemonic capacity of forces initiated by globalisation. The instances discussed in this paper are the Chipko movement in India, the Zapatistas in Mexico and the MST (Landless Workers Movement) in Brazil. The fifth section concludes the paper. Section II: Globalisation and its consequences In the early phases of colonization, the white man’s burden consisted of the need to “civilize” the non-white peoples of the world — this meant above all depriving them of their resources and rights. In the latter phase of colonization, the white man’s burden consisted of the need to “develop” the Third World, and this again involved depriving local communities of their resources and rights. We are now on the threshold of the third phase of colonization, in which the white man’s burden is to protect the environment — and this too, involves taking control of rights and resources. . . . The salvation of the environment cannot be achieved through the old colonial order based on the white man’s burden. The two are ethically, economically and epistemologically incongruent. Mies and Shiva (1993: 264–265) The incongruity that the above quote refers to is a reflection of the predominant trend that identifies globalisation as having emerged from relations of domination represented by such terms as colonisation, imperialism etc. Such understandings goes much beyond in time to search for the roots of globalisation – a term that primarily carries the connotations of a social change, an increased connectivity among societies and their elements due to transculturation. From a historical perspective globalisation is not a new phenomenon although its pace has been considerably accelerated in the last few decades. This new phase is marked by Economic deregulation, financial liberalization, increased flow of goods and services etc., all further substantiated and motivated by the explosion in the field of information and communication technologies and other scientific inventions (Bhattacharya 2004.p. 4). From an economic perspective Cerny (1996) provides an account of how globalisation even poses a challenge to the sovereignty of the states which is manifested in the decisional, institutional and structural aspects of the policy. The states have to accommodate themselves to the changes at the larger levels in a relative cost and benefits analysis of different macroeconomic and industrial policies. Since institutions be made competitive in tune with the changing standards at a global economic level this affects the institutional aspects also. It has to take into account the growth of global production network, multilateral economic surveillance and regulations. Third, the distributional aspect of government policy is also influenced with the emergence of globalization, since the government's policy making process is now much influenced by the global division of labor and wage competition across the economies. In this connection, negotiations over tradable and non-tradable sectors and benefits of skilled and unskilled labor forces are prime agenda for government policies. Four, as regard the structural aspects of government policy, globalization also brings some structural changes in the national economy since the government has to cope with the altering balance of power between the state and markets. Identifying the country's comparative advantage and areas of trade specialization figure high in the prime agenda for government policies in a globalized world (Cerny P. G. 1996). Steger in his account traces the contemporary economic globalisation to the emergence of a new international economic order in the aftermath of Bretton woods conference. Under the Bretton woods regime, also known as “golden age of Controlled capitalism” (Mohammad 2008) an expansion of “welfare state” was envisaged. Nevertheless in response to profound political changes in the world that were undermining the economic competitiveness of US-based industries, President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold-based fixed rate system in 1971. The ensuing decade was characterized by global economic instability in the form of high inflation, low economic growth, high unemployment, public sector deficits, and two unprecedented energy crises due to OPEC's ability to control a large part of the world's oil supply. Although Laissez-faire was discarded by most political parties in Europe and the US in the aftermath of WWII with changes that marked the demise of Bretton woods regime there was a return to what is called neo liberalist policies. Thus return was further strengthened by the collapse of USSR. This return is marked by three developments, namely, internationalization of trade and finance, the increasing power of transnational corporations, and the enhanced role of international economic institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO (Steger. M. 2003. pp 27-41). The shift in ideology is also related to contending views of the role of the state and state regulation. The ideology of free market capitalism is the motive force behind the globalization that occurred since the late-1970s (Muhammad 2008). Although economic globalization does not fully explain the kind of changes that it has brought forth in locales throughout the globe beyond the East-West divides it is significant in understanding these changes to the extent that the flow of capital and related changes has always been primarily influenced by economic interests. Below I make a brief attempt towards understanding the impact of globalization on labour and environment and its role in causing inequalities at social and political levels and in homogenising the heterogeneous cultures throughout the globe. Globalisation and Labour In a description of how the corporate world has assaulted the civic space as a result of globalisation Naomi Klein suggests that a shift in the focus of corporate giants from making things to marketing them is crucial. Corporations nowadays have made it a routine part of contracting out the production related activities especially to countries in the third world where labour and associated skills are available at rather cheaper costs. While this remains so their main focus has remained in building their brand image by spending enormous amount of money on advertising and such related activities. Tommy Hilfiger, a company that does not produce any clothes and is still run through agreements and contracts, is a classical example in this context (Naomi Klein, 2000). This marks an era where transnational corporations (TNC) consolidate their global operations in a highly deregulated market. The availability of cheap labour, and favourable conditions of production including other resources have made it possible for these corporate world to export their production activities to these other locales. This not only reflects upon the changing forms of conducting business by these TNCs but also offers new forms of exploiting the global economic asymmetries. Such transnational production networks allow TNCs like Nike, General Motors, and Volkswagen to produce, distribute, and market their products on a global scale. Nike, for example, subcontracts 100% of its goods production to 75,000 workers in China, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand. Transnational production networks augment the power of global capitalism by making it easier for TNCs to bypass nationally based trade unions and other workers' organizations (Steger. M. 2003. pp 48-50). Anti-sweatshop activists around the world have responded to these tactics by enlisting public participation in several successful consumer boycotts and other forms of nonviolent direct action (Featherstone 2002). In his book Globalisation and labour relations Peter Leisink offers an account of how the government of Australia functioned as hand in glove with Patrick, one of the two major stevedoring companies in Australia, to dismiss a 2000 strong unionised workforce who was then replaced by non unionised labour. Leisink observes that the confrontation was decisive because it “marked a definitive moment in the transition of the Australian industrial relations system from its democratic forms to a more authoritarian one, similar in certain respects to the Asian one” (Leisink 1999. pp 211-212). The defeat of labour caused by globalisation goes even beyond the versions offered by the above accounts as not only does such a defeat marks a stark absence of any demanding power on the part of the workforce but it also reflects the fallacies behind the claim made by its proponents that globalization and economic development during the neoliberal era has liberated women and improved gender issues in the global economy. Floro and Dymski (2000) and Singh and Zammit (2000) consider the effects of financial liberalization and the resulting instability in financial markets on women. They find that women bear a larger share of the costs when a country liberalizes and when financial crises occur. Women are usually the first to lose their jobs during crises. There are increased demands on women’s time to do unpaid household labour because governments usually cut social spending in the aftermath of financial crises. Globalisation and environment The impact of globalisation on environment requires even more focused attention since environment and cultural values have a closer relation and the effect on one is bound to have implications for the other. For instance many religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and several sects of Hinduism identify their existence as inevitably related with the existence of their surrounding environment. This contradicts with the human centred philosophy of Judeo-Christian humanism. Nevertheless the impact of environment on human existence cuts even beyond these cultural issues because the impact of any degradation of environment is equally felt by all despite their cultural, religious or any other similar markers. Environmental degradation in the context of globalisation also enables one to understand the real cost incurred for the benefits that proponents globalisation claim. Globalisation has aso placed pressures on the global environment and on natural resources, straining the capacity of the environment to sustain itself and exposing human dependence on our environment (Georgiescu-Roegen, 1971). A globalized economy can also produce globalized externalities and enhance global inequities (Daly, 1993; Bauman, 1998; Shiva, 2005). If production is unquestionably a contributing factor to the environmental degradation then consumption also plays a major role in this. This particularly needs to be read in the context of population explosion resulted from the medical interventions. The global impact of humans on the environment is as much a function of per capita consumption as it is of production and population size (Steger. M. 2003). Responses from various parts have already shown how seriously is this issue of impact of globalization on environment is taken and several international summits have already witnessed the demonstrative capacity of these new genre if movements. A new kind of response in the form of a social movement, called environmentalism (Castells 2003. p 170), has emerged in order to address this issue. We shall look into the details of this movement in the latter part of this paper. The Battle of Seattle "It didn't start in Seattle" serves as widely accepted slogan among globalization activists, refuting the belief common in the mainstream media that the movement first arose in protests against the WTO's Third Ministerial Meeting in 1999. Many participants and theorists instead trace the lineage of the movement through a 500-year history of resistance against European colonialism and U.S. imperialism. Other commentators see the anti-globalization movement as continuous with the anti-Vietnam war mobilizations of the 1960s and 1970s, with worldwide uprisings in 1968, and with protests against structural adjustment in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s.The 1999 "Battle of Seattle," while not the first appearance of the global movement, dramatically altered the debate about trade and development taking place within international institutions. It served as a prototype for many future protests and also marked the moment when "anti-globalization" as a term gained widespread usage. In Seattle, an estimated 75,000 activists organized an unusually colorful and confrontational demonstration against the meetings of the WTO. Groups like Art and Revolution created giant puppets to carry in the demonstrations, activists inspired by British Reclaim the Streets actions held parties in intersections blocked by protesters, and musicians formed activist marching bands. While the labor movement led a mass march on the organization's Ministerial meetings, student, anarchist, and militant environmentalist "affinity groups" formed a nonviolent human blockade around the convention center, preventing trade ministers from holding the opening session of the meetings. Police responded to the blockades with tear gas and rubber bullets. Shortly thereafter, a "Black Bloc" of anarchists vandalized downtown storefronts of major banks and corporations like Nike. Authorities temporarily enacted martial law, and over 600 protesters were arrested for acts of civil disobedience during the week of action. Ultimately, the Seattle round of trade negotiations deadlocked when developing nations, bolstered by grassroots resistance, rejected U.S. and European demands. The week delivered a lasting setback to the WTO and represented a turning point for neoliberal advocates, who adopted a defensive posture in subsequent negotiations and in their public justifications of the "free trade" agenda (Broad and Heckscher, 2005). Section III: Anti globalisation movements … personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for everybody … the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other Rocker 1938, 17–18 Having thus discussed about the conditions under which globalisation has invited hostility and unhappy responses for the unforeseen affects it has caused in the different parts of the world let us now turn our discussion into the movements that challenge, resist and oppose globalisation through various means. Castelles in his book Power of Identity suggests that social movements need to be considered as movements motivated by and towards certain definite purposes and despite the means they have adopted in order to achieve these goals they cannot be charectorised as positive or negative. That there can’t be a “predetermined directionality in social evolution” and thus “there are no good or bad social movements (Castells 2003.pp 73-74). Hence he considers Al-Qaeda which uses religious fundamentalist ideologies and violence as their chief weapons to fight against globalisation and Zapatistas of Mexico on the same lines. “Yet, they are all . . . meaningful signs of new social conflicts, and embryos of social resistance and, in some cases, social change. Only by scanning with an open mind the new historical landscape will we be able to find shining paths, dark abysses, and muddled breakthroughs into the new society emerging from current crises (Castells 2003.pp 75). Anti globalisation, despite the heterogeneity that characterises its constitution, is commonly understood for its opposition to the multinational corporations’ possession of unregulated political and economic power. The movement is also known under the names of global justice movement (Della 2006) and/or alter globalisation movement. Nevertheless these different names are also indicators of precisely what these different movements have accepted as their cause and what their means are. The opposition to the use of capital in places different from their origin is an old phenomenon probably stretching back to the colonial times. The struggles for independence and the various internal reformations movements in throughout the colonies that marked especially the late 19th and early 20th centuries could be, in one sense, identified as movements that opposed the use of this capital in their mainland in order to exploit their resources at the cost of their own rights over them. There were oppositions against Bretton woods institutions also when they came into existence in the post war scenario. Nevertheless movements in the scale and degree against globalisation as we see them today are not as old. The trends that were lying sporadically in different parts of the globe against the process of globalisation began to develop themselves and were manifested on a global scale in the 1990s when OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) proposed deregulating cross border investment and trade restrictions through its famous MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment). The availability of this treaty for public scrutiny arranged an occasion for national and international representatives to raise their voice against it and it was eventually abandoned in 1998. Against the promises of unregulated trade practices bringing welfare and other forms of benefits for members of the poor societies the advocates of anti globalisation raised the issues of preserving the natural environment and human rights. They also raised arguments that were related with the undue influence of multinational corporations on the local governments’ decision making capacities. It is obviously feared that the asymmetries of the global economic structure will again lead to a state where the political sovereignty of the, especially third world and other underdeveloped, countries will be threatened (Broad and Heckscher, 2005). Apart from moves that attempted to lift trade restrictions and thus to deregulate trade there were other occasions that invited the hostility of those who opposed globalisation. The gulf war in the 1990s and the invasion of Iraq in 2002 were incidents that fuelled the sentiments of many of those who identified such acts as invasion on their religious faith. Also significant in this context is the support extended to Israel by the West. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that globalisation envisaged a world where lifestyles, demands etc., are more or less homogenised despite the locales of such impact. In other words the ideology of neo liberalism promoted individualism and a new culture based on consumption practices. This promoted the members of many of the communitarian sects to come out of their cultural groups and lead a different life than what they are expected as members of those groups. The developments in the political and economic sectors, then, eventually led to what we now understand as violent forms of anti globalist sentiments (Juris 2008). An important fact to be kept in mind related to these developments is that some of these violent factions were in fact results of American war related and corporate related interests. For instance Taliban which founded the religious sentiments in Afghanistan against the globalisation processes was initiated into action, during the cold war, by the US military power as tool to resist the USSR army that controlled a major portion of that land. After the collapse of USSR Taliban turned out to be threat for the US power itself. This sudden change eventually resulted in uncompromising hostility against the forces of globalisation that caused a recurrence of events as I mentioned before in this passage. Violent forms of opposition against globalisation is only one form of anti globalisation. On the contrary a much larger sense of international politics is required in order to capture anti globalisation movements in their full depth. In fact even the term globalisation is a highly contested and debated one. On the one hand the name has emerged from its opposition to free trade agreements and attempts to deregulate markets, at an inner level it is considered to be a heterogeneous one for instead of opposing to globalisation as such many of these movements are directed towards specific issues. Anti globalisation movement defies any easy classification since it involves a large spectrum of issues across different contexts all over the globe. As such some of the major participants of the movement assume their positions to be against that of the international government organisations that guide global economic integration, namely, the World Trade Organisation, the European Union, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the G-8 and the international monetary fund. The internationalisation of business ventures that is primarily targeted in these ventures is primarily represented by Multinational Corporations (MNCs). The MNCs are understood to be solely motivated by profit and capable of challenging the nation state territories and the power of the local governance to autonomously decide upon matters. Those movements which belong to this category are also considerably motivated by human rights issues and invasion of these Multinational Corporations’ invasion on their lands and existence. The grass root level campaigns against the use and survival of Coca cola in India and similar such organisations in the different parts of the world belong to this category. Apart from being sporadic instances of protests these movements have come under a close knit functioning at the grass root levels at the same time as participating in national and international protest organisations (Smith, Chatfield, & Pagnucco, 1997). The issues involved in this category of anti globalisation movement are complex and varied. Instead of opposing to globalisation as a phenomenon that make possible a small world all the parts of which are mutually connected and with reduced distances they oppose, as I suggested earlier, MNCs functioning against certain public interest issues. These issues might range from drinking water (as with Coca cola and/or Pepsi) to bio technologically developed seeds (Monsanto) or for introducing brand foods (as McDonald) considered as harmful by local epistemologies but nevertheless addictive, or for corrupting the local officials and contractors for getting agreements materialised. Also figured in the issues are child labour, low wages, sweatshops, destruction of the natural environment, global warming, genetically modified foods, and so on (Daboub and Carlton. 2002). These movements position is also ideological to the extent they consider the global financial institutions as primarily responsible for the ill effects of the MNCs’ functioning which has basically evolved from the Neoliberalism’s misconceptions about the world order. I shall also briefly touch upon alter globalization or alternative to globalization before I enter into discussing specific instances. Movements which belong to this genre are primarily led by a world order to the extent it is kept insulated from the ill effects that have brought forth upon it as a result of globalization. It endeavours towards neutralizing, and abolishing altogether, the selfish enterprises undertaken by the MNCs all over the world. In other words it proposes new ways of dealing with the same issues as globalisation is concerned so as to mitigate considerably the unforeseen consequences; this could be with regard to environmental issues, human rights and social justice (Hinkelammert and Duchrow 2004). Since it attempts to identify ways to deal with negative consequencs of globalisation many are committed to its goals despite their position with regard to globalisation as such. Examples of such purpose include the exploitation of labour, outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations, pollution of local environments, and harm to foreign cultures to which jobs are outsourced. Although critics identify a strong nationalistic feeling embedded within these alter globalisation enterprises the larger context where these issues become meaningful and relevant saves it from the label of nationalistic. Section IV: Here I shall briefly discuss some of the movements considered significant from the perspective of altering the attitude towards anti globalisation movements. I discuss three movements, namely, the Chipko movement in India, the Zapatista movement in Mexico and the Landless workers’ movement in Brasil. Chipko Movement In India the forests are a critical resource for the subsistence of rural people throughout the country, especially in hill and mountain areas, both because of their direct provision of food, fuel and fodder and because of their role in stabilising soil and water resources. As these forests have been increasingly felled for commerce and industry, Indian villagers have sought to protect their livelihoods through the Gandhian method of satyagraha or non-violence resistance. In the 1970s and 1980s this resistance to the destruction of forests spread throughout India and became organised and known as the Chipko Movement. The first Chipko action took place spontaneously in 1973 and over the next five years spread to many districts of the Himalaya in Uttar Pradesh. The name of the movement came from a word meaning 'embrace': the villagers hugged the trees and thus saved them by putting their bodies in the way of the contractors' axes. The Chipko protests in Uttar Pradesh, India achieved a major victory in 1980 with a 15-year ban on green felling in the Himalayan forests of that State by order of India's then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. A similar ban was later also implemented in the states Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh. (the ban is still in place regarding felling for commercial purposes except for Himachal Pradesh where it had been lifted again in 2004 despite Chipko s protests) (Guha, R 2006). The successful result of chipko movement has increased environmental awareness in India at dramatic levels. Apart from displaying new forms of protesting against deforestation efforts it also motivated a large size of followers to go further with aforestation campaigns. It also conveyed a message regarding the relevance of protesting and resisting for means of livelihood despite the results such efforts can yield (Joshi, Naveen (2006).  Zapatistas On October 12, 1992 San Cristobal de las Casas, Mexico hosted a massive demonstration protesting against the fifth centenary of the Spanish conquest of America by destroying the statue of Chiapas’ conqueror, Diego de Mazariegos. In Chiapas, on January 1, 1994, on the same day as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, the Zapatistas launched a two-week campaign of armed clashes with the Mexican military. The two incidents are related by not only such facts as they took place in the same region or they were organised under the same initiatives but also by what they actually thought to be fighting against. A “reincarnation” of the earlier oppressive regime “was seen in the current form of the new global order: NAFTA, and the liberalising reforms undertaken by President Salinas, which fail to include peasants and Indians in the modernisation process (Castells 200o. p 80). Having eschewed the traditional forms of leadership hierarchies the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) subsequently turned to non violent means of struggling for land reforms and indigenous rights. As a rebel army seeking not to claim state power but to create spaces of autonomy and direct democracy, the EZLN both paid homage to earlier models of national liberation struggle and transformed them. Their example became an influential one for the nascent globalization movement. Nevertheless the changes in the historic article 27 of the Mexican Constitution, which had given formal satisfaction to the demands of agrarian revolutionaries championed by Emiliano Zapata, became the symbol of the exclusion of peasant communities by the new order of free traders. Many leaders, including Marcos, responded unhappily to this calling the demise of socialism in Latin America. Nevertheless Zapatista movement was successful in marking an ideal model to be followed in the future. On the one hand they fought against the exclusionary forces of modernization and, on the other, they also challenged the inevitabil;ity of a new geopoliticalorder under which capitalism becomes universally accepted (Castells, 2003. p. 82). Brazil’s Landless workers’ movement (MST) Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) is Brazil’s most effective and Latin America’s largest social movement (Wright and Wolford, 2003). The poor land distribution that persisted in Brazil has caused the wealthiest 20% of the Brazilian population to own approximately 90% of the land. Much of that property is not in production, used for ranching that benefits a minority, held for tax write-offs, or occupied in producing export crops; while at the same time millions of families without employment or land for subsistence live in poverty. The distress in Brazil’s countryside has given rise to one of Latin America’s largest social movements, MST. For the past 18 years, MST activists have been educating, organizing, and taking direct actions to achieve land reform and procure economic policies that support family-based agriculture. In recent years the MST has also tackled global integration and trade issues, such as imports of genetically modified (GM) seeds and international trade pacts like the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The movement’s use of people power and the often violent response it evokes from detractors have won the MST sympathy and support from civil society in Brazil’s cities, as well as from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights activists abroad. At the same time, other farmers’ movements in the Americas have begun to look to the MST’s work as a model for their own efforts to strengthen local and regional markets through the construction of farmer-run cooperatives, sales, and distribution networks. Conclusion The scale at which globalisation is resisted and opposed, through means that are violent and non violent, has grown to enormous proportions in the recent years. It is obvious that globalisation with its ideological apparatus called neo liberalism, have had yielded results that is not looked at with any empathy by a large size of common people. Just as globalisation has made transportation and communication all across the globe possible, so has the movements that resist it. While these need not be sure in the case of those movements which have assumed violent forms, those which follow non violent and civil forms of resistance have definitely clustered around issues to make sure that people have adequate access to social justice, human rights and to protect and preserve their environment from further degradation. References Bauman, Z., 1998. “On Glocalization: Or Globalization for Some, Localization for Others.” Thesis Eleven, 54. 37-49. Bhattacharya, Debapriya, “Globalisation and the State: Human Development and Capacity Building Needs- A Review of Asian Country Experiences.” In Globalisation and the State: Challenges for Economic Growth and Human development, New York: United Nations. pp 3-41. Broad, Robin and Zahara Heckscher. 2005. Before Seattle: The Historical Roots of the Current Movement against Corporate-Led Globalisation. Taylor & Francis. Castells.M., 2003 The Power of Identity (2nd ed). London: Blackwell Cerny, P.G. 1996. "What Next for State" in E. Kofman and G. Youngs (eds) Globalization: Theory and Practice. New York: Pinter. pp. 123-137. Daboub and Carlton. 2002. World Trade and Anto Globalisation: Ethical Implications. Retrieved from blue.utb.edu/business/research/DaboubWorldTrade.pdf on 9 May, 2010. Daly, H.E., 1993. “The Perils of Free Trade.” Scientific American. (November): 50–57. Della Porta, Donatella, ed.,2006. The Global Justice Movement: Cross-national And Transnational Perspectives. New York: Paradigm. Floro, M. and G. Dymski (2000), “Financial Crisis, Gender, and Power: An Analytical framework.” World Development, Vol. 28, No.7. Georgiescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Guha, R. 2006. The subaltern social ecology of Chandi Prasad Bhatt p. 175-189, in: How much should a person consume. Permanent Black. Hinkelammert, Duchrow. 2004. Property for People, Not for Profit: Alternatives to the Global Tyranny of Capital. Progressio Joshi, Naveen, 2006. Dava nal (a novel based on Chipko Movement) New Delhi: Samayik Prakashan. Juris, Jeffrey S. 2008. Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalization. Durham: Duke University Press. Klein, Naomi. 2000. No Logo. Flamingo: London. Kort, Joop De., 2006. Neo-Liberalism, Globalism and Social Sustainable Globalisation, Eva Nieuwenhuis: Brill Publishers. L. Featherstone 2002 Students against Sweatshops London: Verso Leisink. Peter. 1999. Globalisation and labour relations. Northampton, Ma. : Edward Elgar Publishing. Mies, Maria, and Vandana Shiva, 1993. Ecofeminism. Melbourne: Spinifex Press. Mohammad. 2008.Globalisation and Labour. Retreived from www.global-labour-university.org on 9 May, 2010. Shiva, V., 2005. Globalization’s New Wars: Seed, Water and Life Forms. New Delhi: Women Unlimited. Singh, A. and A. Zammit (2000), “International Capital Flows: Identifying the Gender Dimensions.” World Development, Vol. 28, No.7. Smith, J., Chatfield, C. and Pagnucco, R, eds. 1997. Transnational social movements and global politics: Solidarity beyond the state. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press. Steger, M. Manford., 2003. Globalisation: An Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wolford, Wendy and Angus Wright, 2003. To Inherit the Earth: The Landless Movement and the Struggle for a New Brazil. Oakland, CA: Food First Books. Read More