Does the World Really Need Globalization - Essay Example

Anti-Globalization A Summary Globalization, a word tossed around like paltry change, has been the of furious debates and much-contestedarticles. Globalization-are you for it or against it Many a pitchfork has been raised (and many an eyebrow) about this oversimplified, but actually quite complicated term. And with the variety of opinions available on the topic, does the world really need yet another book on globalization Jagdish Bhagwati opens his book, In Defense of Globalization, with this query and quite succinctly, the answer is yes. There is always room for one more voice to be heard in this increasingly globalized world. The popular verdict on globalization has been one of a malevolent evil. In fact, it has received much flak as supposedly being the cause of a lot of social ills. Seen as a threat to children, labor standards, culture, environment, women, and even to democracy, most people believe that it must be controlled and crushed. Bhagwati, however, points out that most people have a simplistic understanding of globalization.1 For one thing, most people refer to globalization as if there was only one aspect of it when there are other aspects such as cultural and communications. Most people, however, are under the impression that they are all one and the same. This is why Bhagwarti makes it clear that for his book, he will only be focusing on economic globalization, which he defines as: "[constituting the] integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, direct foreign investment (by corporations and multinationals), short-term capital flows, international flow of workers and humanity generally, and flows of technology."2 While it can be argued that there shouldn't be much fuss about globalization because it has been happening from the time of the East India Company, one should be aware the globalization has already evolved, far from the kind of globalization one had when the Dutch East Indies company was trading with Indonesia.3 One of the main differences between today's globalization compared to the old globalization is that globalization back then was primarily motivated by technology. In contrast, today's globalization, aside from the obvious evolution of technology, is motivated primarily by policy change. Globalization today has much to do with government intervention for decreased blockages to trading. In fact, nowadays, the author observes, the government has such an effect on globalization that they have the power to actually accelerate or reverse it.4 Aside from this, the evolution of technology has also speeded up the process of globalization. Also, goods and capital move faster now due to the prevalence of the computer and the Internet. The downside to this, however, is the fact it also becomes easier to move capital in and out of the country, making it possible for the East Asian financial crisis to happen again.5 More than this, there is also a sense of economic insecurity and vulnerability now. When something happens to a particular country whether it is in the East or West, the effects are on a global scale and are easily felt. What's more is the fact that in the past, there was a wide technological gap between the two, given that England was far ahead in industrialization. Now, all countries usually have access to the same general pool of resources.6 Economic globalization usually has two main kinds of detractors. These are what Bhagwarti terms as the 'hardcore protesters' and the 'mainstream critics.' The hardcore protesters are those who come from different intellectual backgrounds, but share one thing in common--extreme dislike for globalization. The mainstream critics, on the other hand, are those who do not advocate globalization, but are still open to reasonable discourse. While Bhagwarti believes that the most of their arguments are gigantic non sequiturs, at least, they are unlike the hardcore protesters who are fixed in their beliefs despite contrary evidence proving otherwise.7 Aside from, the author also critiques several projects and policies by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), bilateral aid agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, and trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 8 Charges made by some international agencies such as the World Bank that globalization is hypocritical, uses double standards, and are responsible for unfair trade, he believes, are not to be taken seriously or in his words, "a little more than rubbish." International agencies accuse rich countries of protectionism when, in truth, it is the poor countries who have higher forms of protectionism.9 The perils of globalization are exaggerated, Bhagwarti states further in the chapter. Oftentimes, critics cite the financial crisis of East Asia as the example of the dangers of globalization when, in fact, globalization was the one responsible for the East Asian financial miracle as well. While there was a crash because of a failure in regulating financial flows, the argument for globalization should not be thrown out of the window.10 What's worse is that the popular belief when it comes to become a proponent of free trade, "one must be for free direct investment, for free capital flows, for free immigration, for free love, for free everything else!"11 What is essentially ironic about globalization, nevertheless, is the fact that the voices of anti-globalization beliefs are stronger in rich countries. In the beginning, however, it was the poor countries who were scared of the integration that globalization promised-foreigners and change are generally perceived with mistrust. When globalization was able to raise the standard of living in these poor countries, however, the reception of free trade became markedly different.12 Academicians, on the contrary, hold a differing opinion. Raul Prebisch spoke often of poor countries being in the 'periphery' while the rich countries become the 'center.' Fernando Cardoso, on a similar note, also talked of his dependencia thesis while Osvaldo Sunkel talked how "integration into the international economy leads to disintegration of the national economy." Bhagwarti counters that these are simply products of fear of a phenomenon that was actually benign. Being benign, however, does not mean it is possible for it to have malign consequences.13 Interestingly, things appear to be changing for the better as most countries now perceive globalization to be helpful to their business and their country according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. But the big question is why there is a discontent with globalization This mostly has to do with the anti-capitalism sentiment prevalent among all walks of life. There are the Marxists, communists, and different anti-capitalist revolutionaries who share in a rose-colored vision of the world. There is also the youth who view capitalism generally as a social ill. First of all, they believe capitalism cannot adequately address social injustice. Secondly, Bhagwarti notes, that it is not surprising that the youth have this kind of bent. Education is mainly responsible for their social awakening and it is usually through English, sociology, comparative literature. They are mostly exposed to Foucault, Derrida, and Marxist texts, and post-colonial literature.14 Lastly, there is a sense of empathy for the poor and marginalized that comes from being part of the globalized world. Television and the Internet connect Western teenagers to the plight and problems that African children encounter, because of bad labor conditions. Fingers are pointed to globalization and more often than not, because of lack of critical thinking, the youth take up the cause.15 From this, anti-capitalism quickly becomes anti-globalization and due to these two, the general public has also become anti-corporation as well. Being anti-corporation, however, comes to people who do not even read from left-wing literature. Corporations are portrayed in popular culture as being run by greedy CEOs who are constantly on the look-out for the next country they can exploit. Interestingly, these people do not take into consideration the fact that these companies are also part of the increasingly globalized world. News travels fast and risking their reputation can actually cause a lot of global outrage. This is far from the belief that because of money, corporations are free to do whatever they choose.16 Lastly, Bhagwarti also explores the other ideological and intellectual sources of anti-globalization. He talks about communitarianism, limits to market, and general anti-Americanism. Globalization, in fact, is often used as another word for Westernization.17 It is a misconception-one of the many that Jagdish Bhagwarti seeks to correct in his book, In Defense of Globalization. Works Cited Bhagwarti, J. In Defense of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Read More