My Points... of View!

Globalization has the potential to be a positive force in the world, helping to drive the advancement of all peoples. Currently however, the people and organizations that represent the interests of globalization seem to be serving their own needs selfishly, and blindly applying their values to countries and cultures around the world.

Potential for Positivity!

I tend to agree with Friedmann (2005) when he points out (via Marc Andreessen) that anyone, even a teenager in a remote country, can obtain the tools required to compete with all the businesses in the world, provided they can obtain internet access. That kind of equality can only be a good thing, in the eyes of any capitalist, because it increases competition. This goes hand in hand with elevating people from poverty, the more people can participate in a global market and create value the more they can enrich themselves. Because they don't need to move anywhere to do these things, they tend to stimulate their local and national economies by importing revenue. This is just one of the potential positive aspects of globalization. It also has the potential to allow all companies to reach a wider market of six billion or more, as opposed to being constrained (except in the cases of China and India) to a few hundred million at the most. The key here, as we can see from the examples given in “The Promise of Global Institutions,” (Stiglitz, 2003) is balancing the protection of national industries with the reduction of trade barriers. Dropping all trade barriers immediately, especially in industries that have not had sufficient time to develop, can be disastrous. This is exemplified by the situation in Argentina in 2001 (Lewis and Klein, 2004). The government removed all trade barriers to comply with the IMF's requirements, and most of their industrial sectors were subsequently devastated because they could not compete with the huge multinational corporations. If the government had kept some of their barriers in place (although that would preclude getting help from the IMF), they may have been able to reap the benefits of opening their industries to a world market without putting them in direct, full-frontal competition with that market. This could have turned out much better, because the industries would then have been able to use the increased profits from having access to that wider world market to improve their efficiency so that eventually they would be able to compete with that market without the shielding of government imposed artificial trade barriers.

Foreign aid is another aspect of globalization that no one can deny is a positive force. Stiglitz (2003) cites numerous great examples of foreign aid, such as irrigation projects which doubled the incomes of the farmers they affected and AIDs projects, which, in a few countries at least, have helped to contain the spread of that disease.

Selfish Actions and Other Problems!

One particular instance of globalization taking a toll on a country (through the actions of the IMF), is Jamaica. In the film Life and Debt, we see the direct effects of globalization on the Jamaican agricultural industry. The farmers are unable to sell their products within their own country because the rules that the IMF instituted forced them to allow outside producers to sell their goods in Jamaica. These foreign producers can outstrip the efficiency of the local farmers quite easily, thereby allowing them to severely undercut the indigenous farmers. If the IMF had not forced Jamaica to bring down its barriers to trade, the imported goods would most likely be taxed and tariffed to make them at least as expensive as the locally grown foods. This is an instance in which the IMF acted in the interests of the corporations already competing in the global market, without taking into consideration the farmers already on the island. These farmers are perfectly capable of producing enough, or nearly enough (so it would seem) to supply the countries' needs, so forcing them to compete with the global market doesn't make much sense.

Part of the problem, as Stiglitz so keenly points out, is that the developed countries involved in promoting globalization and the reduction of “artificial” trade barriers, tend to be unwilling to lower their own barriers. This hypocritical stance doesn't sit well with those who oppose globalization, obviously.

Application of Foreign Values!

One of the largest problems with globalization seems to be the misapplication of “American” values to other cultures (Subcomondante Marcos, 1997). Because most of the proponents and initiators of globalization are either American -or European-based multinational corporations, they tend to view the world through the lens of American capitalism. These values are not the only way to a healthy market economy, as countries like Argentina can now attest. Lewis and Klein showcased a new sub-type of capitalism, with some elements of socialism and a healthy dose of democracy, that could become the model for many countries in the future. In their case, the style of capitalism practiced in America failed, mostly thanks to corrupt politicians in tight relations with big businesses. They have found their way out of that quagmire by taking the parts of the system that work for them, and doing away with those elements (mainly management) that didn't fit.

Probably the brightest example of globalization done right is China. They have moved into the global economy at their own pace, protecting industries that would be unable to compete openly and allowing those that were able to compete the freedom to do so. India has also had great success with rolling their own form of global market integration, generally moving into high-tech industries, especially software (Friedmann, 2005). They have gone to great lengths to provide the infrastructure and education system required to support their long-term aspirations in the world market, and are well on their way to being a commanding force in the IT markets of tomorrow.

If the IMF and the other organizations that are facilitating the transition to a fully globalized economy can start attempting to help developing countries in ways that have a lower chance of backfiring and give them more leeway in how quickly they enter the world market, there is hope that we will soon see more of the positive aspects of globalization begin to materialize.

References

Friedman, Thomas L. (2005). It's a Flat World, After All [Electronic version]. The New York Times.

Marcos, Subcomandante (1997). The Fourth World War Has Begun. Le Monde diplomatique. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from http://mondediplo.com/1997/09/marcos

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2003). The Promise of Global Institutions. Globalization and Its Discontents .W.W. Norton & Company. New York and London.

Laszlo Barna (Producer P.P.), & Avi Lewis (Director D.D.). The Take [Motion Picture]. Canada.

Stephanie Black (Producer P.P.), & Stephanie Black (Director D.D.). Life and Debt [Motion Picture]. USA.