The world coming to our homes, to put it in the simplest way, is a wrong description of globalization. Globalization does not remove borders, as one might hope for. It does not create a complete free market economy with a sense of equality amongst the players. Neither does it cook or clean for us in a hard day's night. There are many arguments for and against globalization, but as Professor Stiglitz explains, the main problem is that through globalization development is possible, yet is not inevitable(I personally prefer "not likely"). Wolf has every right to praise the market economy as it actually does work(Yep, I said it) and does fit the human nature, yet it provides no equality, instead providing tools such as the Gini coefficient to measure the existing inequality and analyze it. 'Tis true that many people do benefit from globalization. India's economy, having a huge boom thanks to the outsourcing, and China of course are examples. Yet the benefits are never to be equal, as the rules of the market support the "developed" players only, as the US has so many carrots to force growing economies such as China to cooperate, yet if the carrots don't work and the necessity arises the whole market can turn into a big stick in which case cooperation will become inevitable. The WTO, not even existing until 1995 is now seen as crucial for the world. But while it forces China to stop fixing their exchange rates to keep Yen weak against Dollars and increase their exports(though overheating on exports is not so healthy for China, It provides rapid growth), the WTO does not provide adequate tariffs to protect the third world farmer; as the thirld world cannot support their farmers with as much subsidies as the US does. Punishing China for create unfair advantage against the US producers, but not punishing the US
for creating unfair advantage against the third world farmers..hardly fair.
4 comments:
If you think fairer globalization is nbot possible to achieve, what do you thinikk will happen in the future as more globalization gets underway? What would happen to developing countries and their attitude towards developed countries?
Stiglitz is pretty effective in making this "market power" argument in his chapter, I think. Using the examples from Burkina Faso's cotton farmer and the subsidy per cow in the EU.
Let's discuss.
Your concluding sentence makes a very solid point about one of the most blatant and primitive problems of the WTO- fairness. Everyone has a strong idea of fairness. No one (that I can think of, although this does lend itself to some pretty warped definitions of fairness) thinks fairness is trivial. One idea that kept popping up during class today was that there appears to be some sort of paradox in the developed world’s treatment of developing countries. It is partially because of this paradox that the globalization debate draws such heat from both the right and the left.
Nations are treated, by WTO leadership, as “adults” with regards to much dirty work - (theoretically) giving them the same “number” of votes in the WTO but effectively leaving it up to them to financially establish a base in Geneva what enables any actual participation in the organization. Metaphorically, while developing nations do get invited to the party (as supposed equals), much of this hospitality ends with the invite. They are not granted “adult” independence in matters of governance, both within their borders and with other nations. The WTO mandates conditions be met in exchange for their aid and support (in much the same way that a parent mandates a made bed in exchange for a cookie). The developed world, headed by the WTO, undermines the sovereignty of these budding states in exchange for the boost that they need to kick off. They tell them how to run affairs, rather than mentoring and fostering independent development from experience or simply allowing for self-governance. In effect (to keep with the party metaphor), these countries are expected to make it to the bus stop and pay their own bus fare, but not permitted to cross the street to go to the party, develop new relationships and mature without their WTO parent holding their hand and telling them what to say and when to say it. This is the price they must pay for the “beneficial” inclusion in the WTO and global economy- their name on the guest list maybe some free hors d’oeuvres if they jump through hoops. Yet if developing member nations raise an issue with this state of affairs, especially those that benefit industrialized powerhouses, they are given great incentive to become suddenly satisfied with their situation (or at least to “stop whining”).
I do not aim to even suggest that globalization carries no benefits- far from it in fact. The move toward a global market economy has brought with it widespread benefits too numerous to name. I am simply pointing out that we, as perfectionists, are far from satisfied with the current state of globalization and our attempts at managing it. As the global economy, WTO member nations, technology and the world evolve, so must our ideas about them. Because we see imperfections and are blessed with the gift of logic, we can only improve. If we bury these problems, however, we will not move forward. Every criticism of globalizations cannot be simultaneously addresses and corrected; yet, if every issue is vocalized, at least once, we are that much more aware and capable of improvement. It is for this reason that your final sentence resonates… if we cannot all question one another, great problems (and opportunities to correct them) will remain overlooked.
I really believe fairness is a very important concept for globalization. And I do believe fairer globalization is possible, but for globalization to be effective our understanding of self interest should also be a little more global. I can not help but think that the unfairness in the system makes the citizens of developing countries (as I am one) feel like they are being pulled up a little more just so that somebody else can climb on them to get even higher.
Post a Comment