From Where We Sit




Why Isn't Globalization Working?

     The term globalization, meaning worldwide in scope or application, was first coined twenty or so years ago, and is one of the chief by-products of the internet age. Indeed, the concept of globalization couldn't have emerged without the lightning communication networks that the internet made possible.

     As a language specialist who worked both inside and outside of the United States, globalization had an instant, intrinsic appeal to me. I had witnessed how EFL programs and student exchanges had fostered international understanding, and making the world smaller seemed to be intuitively constructive in building a more just and peaceful planet.

      The reality, however, has been protests, sometimes violent, from Doha to Seattle to Hong Kong. Vast coalitions of socio-economic outliers see collusion and conspiracy, an orchestrated effort of developed countries to defraud their poorer neighbors with the WTO being the Trojan horse.

      Many of these groups trumpet the class warfare leitmotif which is a dead-end issue, birthed by Marxism, a failed ideology. And many of the protesters are interest groups, often unions grown bloated and weak on their monopolies, who are most at risk in a globalized world. While these groups must realize that globalization entails free markets and competition, and the creation of “winners and losers,” they must also realize that, unlike pre-20th century Europe, socio-economic conditions aren't fixed; that is, today's winners could be tomorrow's losers and vice versa. And while the demonization of capitalism has little rationale on its own merits, objective observers currently see globalization going terribly wrong. The rising tide that was supposed to lift all boats is only lifting some and swamping the others, the result being increased income disparities which lead to political destabilization.

      While the Korean farmers and American textile workers may have some legitimate grievances, it's the truly poor of the world—sub Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America—which are really poised to suffer from globalization.

      The whole idea of globalization fueled by communications technology is designed to benefit the haves, not the have nots. The efficiencies that are nourished by the internet— instantaneous communication between branch offices, rapid money transfer, convenient and cheap data storage, quick and thorough information gathering, to name a few—need physical, legal, economic, and educational infrastructures to flourish. You need the telephone and cable systems. You need commercial laws. You need businesses, schools, and organizations that can reap benefits, and you need an educated citizenry that can operate and develop the networks. South Korea, Canada, and Germany have the requirements, Bolivia, North Korea, and Haiti do not.

      The basket cases of the world took generations to arrive at their sorry condition, and it will take a generation or more to right them. As for blame, there is enough to go around. Former colonial rulers were more often focused on exploitation, not development. The United States is guilty of allocating money to corrupt political allies with little thought of accountability or social consequences. Current third-world status countries don't have clean skirts, either. Many of them produce homegrown autocrats who terrorize citizens and rob treasuries.

     The anti-global drum beaters favor a failed Marxist solution—income redistribution—but simply throwing money at a problem often results in a few pockets being lined and little improvement. Zimbabwe and the New York City public school system serve as examples. Economic resuscitation must be paired with a total cultural overhaul, something like the evolution of the Britons from the Middle Ages to today. This re-shaping means the wealthy regions (Western Europe, North America, East Asia) still subsidize the poorer regions, but more than that, they supervise, on site, the cultural renaissance of the countries. First comes infrastructure, for as Orwell said, “How right (the working classes) are to realize the belly comes before the soul, not in scale of values, but in point of time.” Then the economic, educational, and judicial infrastructures, everything from banks to schools to a general legal system, including laws governing commerce and a school curriculum built on present day realities. This type of nation building takes a generation or more and involves the industrialized world planting a new set of values in the third world. Of course, this smacks of cultural imperialism, but if successful regions can't be used as models and trainers for unsuccessful regions, then there will be no reasonable hope for the Haitis of the world. The current attempt to do this in Iraq has been labelled an occupation, but the responsibility of the wealthy nations to furnish capital and to direct change is partnership, not imperialism. Without this long-range commitment, the widening income gap between rich and poor will continue and along with it worldwide political instability.

     

Spring, 2006
© Schackne Online