Other than there being missing pages from the "Globalization" article...did anyone else find it frustrating/infuriating?
Over all, I supposed, I was annoyed by the implicit insistence that all countries want to be a part of the global economy.
Then, at least on the pages we currently have, most of the correctives suggested insisted that developing countries make their voices heard in negotiating terms of free trade. Maybe I'm being overly cynical but I'm not so sure developing countries either have these voices or are allowed to use them.
And, finally, the conclusion basically said there is no way for countries to be equal partners or people to be equal citizens. I believe the article said it was "naive" to try to imagine such a world. But, hey, we should still try for correctives that make things less asymmetrical.
I dunno, maybe I'm just tired and cranky, but this article really rubbed me the wrong way. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, I definitely agree that there were aspects of the article that bothered me, mostly because it is framed within systems of dominance as opposed to being against them. I found it annoying that it was saying basically that globalization just needs to be done better, and with more participation, if you will.
My other beef with the article was also about how LDC's are supposed to make their voices heard. Not necessarily that I don't think it could be possible, given the suggestions, but more about what is being sacrificed in following the author's prescription. First, that it is the responsibility of LDC's to fight for themselves, as opposed to the West's responsibility to fight for those who have less power (of course, this is unlikely, but one could always dream, right?). But also that the countries are supposed to compromise on issues so that they can make a more firm stance, even though each may have to sacrifice certain things. Once again, why do they have to sacrifice anything?
To me the article definitely suggested that dominant Western culture was inevitable and that the power distribution is inevitable. I don't agree with this; however, given the circumstances of the world, perhaps the strategies might not be so bad as a *starting* point, in combination with other things that perhaps we can work on? Also, it brought up a lot of great points about the history of globalization and how it isn't just starting now but is a mimic of many things that were going on around the turn of last century, and I think much of the value of the article is in highlighting globalization's past.
So, since this is so long, I will write in two parts:
Part 1: I always wonder when I am reading the articles what the year is that they were posted. I agree that the article predominately/completely works within systems of neo-liberal capitalism and thought. The invisibility of other forms of thought leads to a 'naturalness' that is creepy and insidious. There is also a leaving out of certain peoples/situations that were present within U.S. and world history that allows for massive liberties to be taken in the name of creating a cohesive history of globalization. I also thought that Nayyar's point regarding the loosening of national borders in order to give 'developing' countries more advantage was interesting. It reminded me that the 'answer' to the problems of inequality are to let people have more access to 'knowledge, technologies, and markets'; that if labor were allowed to go where it was needed, despite cultural and traditional kinships and relationships, that the developing countries would be allowed to have greater ability to join into 'labor, technology and markets'.
Here are my thoughts/questions w/ relevant quotes:
"For globalisation requires a dominant economic power with a national currency which is accepted as the equivalent of international money." (21)
How will this world economy be reshifted/reshaped with the falling value of the dollar and U.S. markets.
"Nation states are not the key players that they were in the late nineteenth century during the first incarnation of globalisation. They remain the main political players, but are no longer the main economic players . . . In the industrialised countries, the political interests of the nation state often coincide with the economic interests of international capital. This is not so for developing countries which very few transnational corporations or international banks originate."
What I was thinking and processing was this idea that at their very nature the World Bank and IMF reflect fundamentally different cultural backgrounds, traditions and political realities than those where they end up lending large amounts of capital to and where they implement strict structural adjustment programs.
"In the General Agreement on Trade in Services, there is almost nothing on labor mobility which would allow developing countries to exploit their comparative advantage in services."
It reminded me that the 'answer' to the problems of inequality are to let people have more access to 'knowledge, technologies, and markets'; that if labor were allowed to go where it was needed, despite cultural and traditional kinships and relationships, that the developing countries would be allowed to have greater ability to join into 'labor, technology and markets'. If the solution is that people should be allowed to go where the labor is, what happens and who is blamed when people don't want to abandon their region, family, community, cultural practices to follow the money and markets?
“Is it possible, then, to modify the current process of integration to include more political equality and more partnership? A candid answer can only be in the negative. For the world is made up of unequal partners with conflicting interests . . . the object of such a design should be to provide more countries with opportunities to improve their development prospects and more people within these countries with opportunities to improve their living conditions.” (33)
Again, there is this ‘naturalness’ and inevitableness that is given to the process of globalization. There is a feel that it is uninterruptible, a beast no person, group or country can hope to dismantle. All we can do is ‘use the master’s tools’ to integrate ourselves into the ‘master’s house’. (I am taking a tiny amount of liberty with Audre Lorde’s phrases). Freedom then, is found within the complete integration and creation of self-agency within these organizations which are, at their core, structured to benefit those who already have a great deal of power. `
Lastly, I know that this is really long but this is what happens when I am unfettered by time and language within the classroom:
“from the perspective of social progress and human development, active state intervention is an important means of minimizing the social costs or the negative externalities associated with the process of globalization.” (37)
Three points: 1. Human development? Are their certain people who are less developed as humans now? Isn’t this a throwback to colonial, ‘othering’ mentalities? 2. This really reminded me of the gendering that took place between the ‘work’ world that was seen as masculine and a dog-eat-dog sort of world (what does that expression even mean? ) and the ‘home’ world which was considered feminine and protective and loving. (Let’s not go into for the moment, the racialised aspect of those gender roles and that women of color have traditionally worked outside of the home, sometimes within White homes, in order to have enough money to put food on the table but for the moment, let’s focus on the separation between work and home.) If transnational companies and organizations are now the power-players of the economic world and the governments are considered political players, and if we need to seek refugee within the walls of government as we are not powerful enough to change the wider, economic world, then where is the responsibility and accountability of transnational companies and organizations? How similar is this to the idea that the home was the safety net that was supposed to emotionally heal us from the wrongs that are done to us at work? 3. How are we continuously confining ourselves and our fates to ‘governmental liberation’? What is the danger with trusting ourselves entirely to the state? How does this ignore the fact that governments themselves are not equitable and do not necessarily facilitate an equitable division of capital, respect and agency over the means of production? When we tie ourselves to the fate of political economies, we assimilate into state created notions of what the ‘Economic man’ (Foucault and Escobar – amongst other) should look like and the easiness of governability that comes from an acceptance of this status.
Well, that’s it for now. I just wanted to thank Emiko for starting this area where we can give voice/dissect articles together in a good format and I also wanted to thank everyone who took the time to read my long rambling dissection of the text.
Peace,
Lil Milagro Martinez-Cornejo
yeah. this article made me very sad. there wasn't much room for envisioning a different game other than the one we've got. i wrote next to that line about 'only the incurable romantic' - 'we're not allowed to CONTEMPLATE this?' but i did learn a lot from the article. (i don't know much at all about economics, but i'm trying to learn quickly.)
lil milagro ~ looks like the pub date is 1998. i had the same question regarding what's going to happen with the falling dollar.
a few definition questions:
what does "declining share of wages" mean? p.21
what is "inter-sectoral" and "intra-firm"? p.25
Post a Comment