|
|
Perspective
The Real Problem
with Globalization
by
Aruni Mukherjee
 If you utter the word ‘globalization’ among educated circles
these days, you get a overtly enthusiastic response- either making
sweeping statements about the possible environmental degradations and
inequities that it precipitates, or listing its boost to
entrepreneurship and upward social mobility in developing countries.
Both these arguments miss the key issue. The most potent and
long-lasting effect of globalization as it stands today has been on the
realm of ideas that has been straitjacketed into a certain mould, which
reduces options for weaker countries to devise their own solutions to
the various perplexing problems that they face.
Stephen Gill has defined knowledge as “the principle form of production
and power resource”. Following on, it can be argued that particular
ideas which have been privileged in the globalization discourse must
hold sway over the policy processes in poorer countries which
increasingly look for models to emulate from the developed world. Being
in possession of most of the knowledge circulating in the public policy
realm, the developed countries on the whole are in a unique position to
control the ideologies and mentalities of the global ideational system.
We are often fooled by the façade of relative power. China, we are told,
exports a humungous amount of goods to the world, and it is a developing
country. However, it is not the export of toys and machines that make a
state fundamentally powerful. The World Trade Organization is the agency
that exports transnational regulatory institutions to its member states.
We know that the WTO is dominated by a narrow set of ideas and
attitudes. The world economic system is set up in such a manner that to
maximize gains from trade, a state has to go via the WTO policy regime.
And therein lies the “structural power” of supposedly global- but in
fact ideationally very local- institutions like the WTO.
The ideological reach of this predatory globalization is not limited to
concrete policy propositions between states alone. There are what many
label “soft transfers” between non-state actors such as multinational
corporations and non-governmental organizations. Therefore, the various
management models and corporate structures that are being emulated by
companies in the developing world are equally part of this hegemonic
discourse as the ideological imports of the NGOs that protest against
these very companies. The power of the British Broadcasting Corporation
and Cable News Network should not be ignored too.
In other words, your laptop may have a “Made in China” label on it, but
the various technologies that have been mastered to manufacture it, and
the production techniques and management structures followed by the
manufacturing company are invariably “Made in USA” or “Made in Japan”.
The undisputed status of English as the lingua franca of the world is
also part of this standardization process. Linguistic theory since the
1980s has argued that the language we use can shape the structure of our
thought and the terms that we debate in. This power of globalization
goes largely unnoticed.
The antithesis to this argument has been pointed out by Samuel
Huntington who has pointed out that “drinking Coca Cola does not make
Russians think like Americans.” Similarly, it is often said that
globalization in reality leads to ‘glocalisation’. For example,
multinational companies often have to alter their marketing strategies
according to the cultural tastes of a particular country. However, this
ignores the fact that the hegemonic presence of Western brands not only
homogenizes the structure of the market globally, but also creates an
illusion of superiority for such products. The newfound consumer culture
in China and India and the hankering for foreign goods is a good example
of this tendency.
The state as the monopoly of political power within defined borders is
undergoing broadly similar transformations across the world as a result
of globalization, and this reduces space for individual states to shape
their own political systems. For example, austerity programs of the
International Monetary Fund often forces states to adjust their
political and economic system to a neo-liberal model in order to receive
financial aid in a crisis situation. Prior to the Asian Financial
Crisis, the IMF forced the countries in the region to liberalize their
financial systems, despite savings rates being 20-22% higher in these
countries vis-à-vis Western Europe and the United States. On the other
hand, the developed world- through the WTO- often influences the trade
policies of developing countries that have few choices but to join the
global system. China and India were markedly different- both
economically as well as politically- prior to their enmeshing in the
global economic system. Now both China and India have a broadly similar
economic system, and they are converging even further.
So-called ‘international norms’ play a major role in states across the
world altering their policies to the ‘global’ practices of governance.
The Heritage Foundation publishes an annual Index of Economic Freedom,
while Freedom House publishes an annual Freedom in the World survey.
Rating agencies like Standard & Poor and Moody’s ‘mark’ individual
countries on their policies. The criteria for judging the policies of
all these markedly different countries is rather inflexible, and no
country would want to risk bad press, since they are falling over each
other to attract foreign direct investment.
There have been some suggestions- notably by Randall Germain- that the
developing states had re-instated themselves in lieu of the Asian
Financial Crisis of 1997, and that in turn has forced the transnational
forces acting on them to adjust to their changed stance. As an example
we can look at the increasingly assertive stance of the Group of 20
(G-20) countries at the WTO negotiations. Moreover, the World Bank has
been forced to amend its Comprehensive Development Framework after the
crisis to be more sensitive to social needs of countries. This power
shift, however, is relative merely. The “decision-making structures of
the global economy” have not changed significantly, and the developing
countries operate within the framework set for them by transnational
commercial interests and international institutions which are heavily
influenced by developed countries.
Immanuel Kant once spoke of the “moral unity of mankind”. However, unity
is achieved through the equal consent of all participants and their
equal contribution. Globalization – in its current avatar – does not
offer developing countries the chance to make their own choices about
major economic and political policies. Ardent neo-liberals would counter
the above-mentioned argument by suggesting that poor labor standards and
inadequate environmental regulations are in fact a source of negative
marketing for countries, and hence they would not do it. Marxist
critiques, on the other hand, would present a diametrically opposite
argument.
What is forgotten in this quibble is that the poor countries have no say
in this ideational battle- they are obliged to accept the dominant ethos
of the time- in our case neo-liberalism. Orthodox Marxists often espouse
Antonio Gramsci and argue for a counter-hegemonic discourse to be
launched against neo-liberal structures of knowledge. The problem for
them is that they too are working within a Foucauldian discourse. In
other words, inexplicitly they are part of the very discourse they are
trying to wriggle out of. The terminologies used to criticize
neo-liberalism have nothing to do with the ideologies of the developing
countries. They are stuck between two world views- the neo-liberal and
the Marxist/radical. Their policy processes, in the meantime, get
continuously compromised due to influences by the all-encompassing
globalization process that brings the dominant ideology with it.
August 20, 2006
Image under license with
Gettyimages.com
Top
|
Perspective
The Week of August 20, 2006
The Telgi Saga : Why Exposure Always Ends in
Closure by Rajinder Puri
Coming Chaos in Afghanistan by Gaurang Bhatt, MD
India's Independence Day 2006: Striking
Observations by Dr. Subhash Kapila
Manmohan's Win-Win Argument by Col. Rahul K.
Bhonsle
Human Power: A Divine Gift by TA Ramesh
The Real Problem with Globalization by
Aruni Mukherjee
A Parable on Proactivity by PGR Nair
Hair Loss Prevention through Ayurveda by Dr.
Savitha Suri
When the Earth Trembles! by VK Joshi
Vanishing Tropical Forests by Kusum Choppra
Health Hazards by Dr. Prasenjit Maiti
Smart Wi-Fi by Ruchi Gupta
Sons as Lovers by Julia Dutta
Blame it on Blue by Prakash Pathre
The Witty Side by Melvin Durai
Are we an Inconsiderate People? by CR Gopalakrishna
An Evening in Haridwar by Ragini Puri
Velvety Velavadar: Weekend Rendezvous in the
Black Buck National Park,
Bhavnagar by Dr. Sutapa Chaudhuri
Story of the Two Khans Fiction by CR
Gopalakrishna
Indo-Pak Conflict: 'Ripe' Enough to Resolve? a
Book Review by Manjari Sewak
Indian Novel in English: A Sociolinguistic
Study a Book Review by Dr T.S. Chandra Mouli
Superwomen Need to Eat Well by Priya Sahai
Shirali
Maximum City, Minimal Shelter by Usha
Ramanathan
Four Mothers Against War by Anat Cohen
The Power to Choose by Stephanie Hiller
Marriages are Made in Goa by Lionel Messias
The Gambler Girls by Yvonne Barlow
Pub Management: Gay Versus Lesbian by Rajesh
Talwar
Dilli Hat Glitters with their Jewellery by Debi
Prasad Sarangi
|
|
