The three major factors that have resulted in globalization over the past five or six centuries are: the need for cheap resources; technological advances; and untapped markets. Technological advances made globalization possible and the other two maintained the need for it. In this process the relationship between technological advances and need for resources and new markets turned into a chicken-and-egg relationship. It is now impossible to find out which one has a causal effect on the other.
The colonial era represented opportunity for exploiting cheap, or rather free, resources. Later, the global rage against the idea of outright exploitation and repression of populations not only led to the end of colonialism but also to the idea of corporations. Corporations shielded individuals from potential legal repercussions of unethical business practices. Corporations also helped individuals bear less extreme losses upon unsuccessful risky practices. This brought about an escalation of speculative behavior in the business world, which in turn led to further innovations and economic growth.
As corporations are coming under closer scrutiny of the public, individual level globalization is already underway. The era of individual globalization, as advocated by many proponents of free-market capitalist globalization with socialist leanings (such as Thomas Freidman, David Bollier and WIRED’s editor in chief, Chris Anderson), is barely changing the paradigm at its roots. What we see, is a continuum of the process of breaking down and decentralizing responsibility: first from governments and aristocratic families to corporations and now from such entities to individuals.
The cost that has always gone missing from the books of those who have made relative fortunes through free-market capitalism is the cost to the voiceless. Externalizing costs has been the most predictable result of cost minimization practices. If we are paying less than three dollars a gallon for gas while the real cost is much more, someone is paying for it. The oil company is certainly not paying the difference as apparent from their soaring profits. The prices are subsidized by the life of indigenous people and local communities, of let’s say Niger Delta. They pay by loosing health, losing soil fertility due to over-cultivation of scarce land, losing viable water resources for agricultural or even drinking purposes and a destroyed local economy.
I was reading an interesting article about land grab (or rather water grab) in the Economist of May 21st, 2009, called "Outsourcing's third wave.” The facts presented in this article are emblematic of how the current financial structure incentives further growth of those who have access to large sums of capital on the expense of the so called "unprivileged." In the case of land grab, many richer and/or developing states are now purchasing land in poorer countries. Saudi Arabia is using its oil wealth to grab land in Ethiopia while China is using its dollar holdings to purchase land in the Sudan. But where does this land come from? Did President Al-Bashir inherit this from his Dad? Of course not. This is the land over which the most tragic conflict of the 21st century, the Darfur conflict, has resided. "Host governments usually claim that the land they are offering for sale or lease is vacant or owned by the state." They fail to mention, however, that such lands are the source of meager subsistence of many herders "who graze animals on it." The crop that China and Saudi Arabia will produce and sell in their countries will be partly paid for by Ethiopian and Darfurian lives.
A just globalization cannot be based on such an uneven playing field. Even if all individuals are given equal opportunity for participating in a globalized market economy, the already existing inequality will guarantee further losses for the already unprivileged. The argument that individuals’ era of globalization will ultimately lead to more equality is an illusion perpetrated by the winners. Imagine that we are participating in a 1000 meter running competition. The organizer of the game announces that certain people (majority) will start at the starting point, a few other can start from a point marked at 200 meters ahead of the starting point and two remaining runners will start from half way. But the organizer assures us that everyone will have a chance to run and really win. He also gives us guarantees that we can take part in the game whenever we want but the rules will remain the same. How do we feel about this? I agree that this may feel like an improvement if previously we were not even allowed to participate, but challenge you on calling it a fair game.
For effective consideration of the common good in the process of globalization two major requirements should be met. Firstly, the current inequality needs to be structurally addressed. Gaps ought to begin closing and the disenfranchised ought to be reintegrated into the game. Secondly, a global legal regime should be put in place to ensure a continued maintenance of a balanced prosperity in the world. This might require rigorous taxation and wealth redistribution schemes at least for the recovery period.
The realization of these two critical principles of a just globalization is the primary reason why I consider a slow down of the globalization process potentially beneficial. A pause in the process will give the world a chance to work towards those objectives. But I also have another consideration, which renders such a deceleration potentially advantageous. That is the problem of over extraction of resources from mother earth. Any slow down of the rate of consumption in the world, even at the expense of economic growth, will allow our ecosystem to slightly recover.
No comments:
Post a Comment