Hi
This
is just a book promotion content posted along with the lecture notes.
My
two books focusing broadly on various themes and issues related to
social media and society in India is published and started appearing on
online outlets such as Amazon and leading book stores across the
country.
It
is available for order on Amazon.
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/Politica
2.
Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially
Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017),
Biju P R
Author, Teacher and Blogger
Assistant Professor of Political
Science
Government Brennen College
Thalassery
Kerala, India
An
accurate definition of globalization is elusive, but it is widely accepted that
the world is becoming increasingly interconnected in terms of its economic,
political and cultural life and that information technology (IT) is deeply
implicated in the change process altogether.[1] But the ongoing process of globalization is
exceedingly economic and the economic content of globalizations set the agenda
for political action. This economic globalisation is managed by neo-liberal
ideas, the pale shadow of Keynesian Economics – World Bank (WB), International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO), multinational
corporations and “Davos Citizens”. (Those who are participating in the annual
meeting of G-8 Groups). Nowadays,
we live in a global society. It is not a unitary society, nor is it an
ideological community or state, but it is a single power network- says Mann (1993).
Globalization' is both an historical fact and a political football says Toulmin
(1999). Globalisation is a fairly broad term that describes the phenomena of
the ‘local’ turning into the ‘global’, or the coming together of different
aspects of the world into a single and identifiable state. David Held (1999) says
globalization can be thought of as a process (or set of processes) which
embodies a transformation in the spatial organisation of social relations and
transactions - assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and
impact - generating transcontinental or interregional flows, and networks of
activity, interaction, and the exercise of power .Albrow says globalization refers to all
those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a
single world society, global society. International Monetary Fund -defines globalization as the growing
economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and
variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, free international
capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology.
The Forces behind Globalization
The spread of globalization has
been fed by many factors. One of the
most important has undoubtedly been the ever compliant pro-globalization
decisions made by the world’s governments. Another important one has been institutions
created by the economic globalization.
Also of crucial importance has been the technology that allowed
globalization to happen. Last but not
least engine of globalization was global market.[2]
Transnational Corporations
Transnational corporations (TNCs)
operate across borders based in several countries at once. The reduced trade
and investment barriers of economic globalization created vast new markets and
almost limitless expansion possibilities for these companies. In the 1970s there were about 7000 TNCs in
the world. By 1997 the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimated 53000 of them with
448000 foreign affiliates.[3] The
area where TNCs wield some of the greatest influence is trade. Today the largest 500 TNCs control nearly 70
percent of global trade.[4]
About a third of world trade is conducted between different arms of the same
TNCs.[5] Seven TNCs control 85 percent of the world’s
trade in grain, eight controls up to 60 percent of worlds trade in coffee seven
account for 90 per cent of world trade in cocoa and three control 80 percent of
the global trade in bananas.[6] Despite the substantial global benefits from
such trade, the adjustment pressures created on importing countries could
provoke a protectionist backlash.[7]
Large TNC finance and software companies were involved in getting devastating
side deal of the Uruguay round on the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS)[8].
This relentless influence of the
TNCs was most responsible for the collapse of World Trade Organization (WTO)
talks at Cancun, Mexico in September 2003.[9] The trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which award global TNCs patent control over
broad range of strategic goods and services sold around the world. Agitation for the TRIPS agreement followed
lobbying of the Reagan administration by a number of large American software
and pharmaceutical companies during that time.[10]
Like economic globalization, in general, the TNCs can be both negative and
positive for domestic economy. If it
brings in new technology, new employment and a significant level of foreign
exchange, it can be a positive influence.
If it crowds out existing business in a country, transfers little
technology or know-how and ends up having an insignificant net influence on
country’s foreign earnings, it can have a negative influence.[11]
The
World Trade Organization (WTO)
Just as powerful as TNCs in
influence over the global economy are three international financial ‘sister’
institutions. The International Monetary
Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization. All have their origins in international
economic talks held at the end of the Second World War.[12] Since the Second World War, there have been
eleven round of world trade negotiations, of the first eight rounds, the last
three have been particularly influential in shaping world trade. The Uruguay
Round, negotiated between 1986 and 1993 ended up having a massive influence on
the pace of economic globalization.
After Uruguay Round, the WTO stands for ‘rules based’ international
trade where all countries are supposedly equal.[13] The
Uruguay Round of International trade negotiations embraced many new areas that
hadn’t been touched by earlier rounds.
Consequently the WTO overseas and enforces new global trade rules in
areas previously unaffected by Uruguay Round were agriculture, textiles, patent
rights services and trade related investments.[14]
Another area that the Uruguay Round
pushed into economic globalization was services. The new services trade rules were enshrined
in an agreement called the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS agreement was aimed at a progressive
liberalization of the global trade in services, starting in February 2000.[15] There remain loopholes that can be taken to
the advantage of big countries. The
Market Access Commitments of WTO Members as well as the provision of ‘Listed
Services’ are still unclear and unsound.[16]
This attempt also ventures to unfold the implication of trade in service clauses
with respect to global offshoring of services.
The
Bretton Woods Twins: World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Created in 1945, immediately after
the Second World War, the Bretton woods institutions have pursued specific
economic and development concerns, growth, poverty reduction, and trade and
finance. The creation of Bretton Woods
institutions should be seen in the context of the depression of the 1930s. Deep and persistent slumps erupted – trade
barriers, the collapse of the international monetary system and termination of
international lending.[17] Like
the WTO, the IMF and WB are also catalysing the ongoing expansion of the world
economy. The IMF is concerned with the
short – term stabilization of countries experiencing balance of payment
difficulties while WB is concerned itself with the long-term development
through specific project loans.[18]
The IMF is seen as a pale shadow of
Keynes original vision, while the WB was for the expansion of global growth and
employment rather than for deflationary policies.[19] The start of Third World debt crisis in 1982
kicked off new roles to IMF and WB. It
began to increase lending. By this time
IMF ceased to be a short – term currency crisis lender. It began to start extending conditional long-term
loans with titles like Extended Fund Facility.
The WB similarly began to operate beyond its original narrow ambit of
project based lending that the variability of its loans were necessarily
connected to the long-term economic health of its poor – country debtors.[20]
The IMF/WB standard formula brought
on even lower growth just when higher economic growth was needed. It prescribed huge cutbacks in government
spending higher interest rates and continuing over valued currencies. As a result of the dented reputations of the
two institutions some changes have taken place.
Both institutions even admitted to some minor failings during the Asian
melt down. The big body blow to the IMF and WB have been growing agreement
between the left and the right of politics, particularly in the United States,
that the policies of neither institution are working. The net result of their dubious policies and
ever diminishing support is that both became unpopular now.[21] Underpinning
the influence of the WTO, IMF, WB and TNCs is what is known as the “Washington
Consensus” or the ‘Wall Street Treasury Complex’. These are the labels for the
common free market ideology. Several
factors reinforce the influence of the Washington consensus. Historically it perpetuates an Anglo Saxon
free market view. Much of the current
economic liberalization ideology pursued by the Washington consensus was
originally drawn from the philosophies of a high profile free market economist,
Milton Friedman. He in turn was inspired
by free market contemporary John Keynes and Austrian economist Friedrich Von
Hayek. Their philosophies were championed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan. These influences are reinforced
by the decision-making structures of the IMF, the WB and the WTO.[22]
The
Technological Engines of Globalization
It was the technological change
that allowed economic globalization to happen in the first place. Politicians facilitated economic development
to happen, but technology has given it the means. Technological change, especially since the
Second World War, has massively shrunk the world, making it more able than ever
before to converge into one giant world supermarket and bank. In 1956, it was possible for only eighty nine
simultaneous telephone conversations to occur via the cable that linked Europe
to North America, today it is possible to have up to a million simultaneous
conversations taking place through the satellite and fibreoptic communications
link that now exist between two continents.[23] Computers
have similarly shrunk the world. In 1993
there were only about one million Internet hosts around the world, within just
six years the number had increased twenty fold to about forty two million.[24] An
equivalent revolution has taken place in transport technology. According to the Boeing aircraft corporation,
world air traffic cargo trebled between 1985 and 1997 and is predicted to
treble again by 2015.[25] All
these technological changes mean that both money and goods can be moved
anywhere around the world less expensively than ever before. There has been no shortage of business people
eager to exploit the new opportunities this had created.
Free
Trade and Global Market: Supreme Institutions of Globalization
In the contemporary phase of
globalization which began around 1980, a group of developing economies stopped
being on lookers from the sidelines and began to participate in the global
economy. They harnessed their abundant
human resources, produced labour intensive manufactured goods and services in
which they had comparative advantage and exported them. This worldwide movement
of global interaction, which enabled developing economies to participate
intensively, was free trade and global market.[26]
Global Market
Global market is another powerful
engine of globalization. It is the
venerable innovation of the new global transnational economic order. In the global village, the market takes up
all the space. It encompasses everything
and tends to dominate all other institutions, particularly governments and the
United Nations.[27]
The global market is totally dominated by transnational corporations. Global
market is also private market. This market has predominance over all other
social or political institutions. It has a permanent ambition to convert
everything in to commodities including currencies, culture, information,
education, health, services, water and air.
It integrates all countries into a single homogenized model of
development and trade.[28] In
the global market financial capital dominates all other sectors of the economy.
This is the result of the predominant
influence of banks, insurance companies, institutional sectors, hedge funds on
the distribution of capital, mergers, acquisition and competition. Financial markets have become the judge and
jury of all economic policies.[29]
The so-called free trade is done on this global market. It cannot be touched, smelled, sighted or
percepted but all forms of transaction, from pharmaceuticals to even
outsourcing contracts are done on this.
Free
- Trade
Free trade is another catalyst of
economic globalization. In simple terms,
trade that is the buying and selling or the exchange of goods initially came
about when certain resources and commodities could not be acquired locally or
within specific societies. As societies
grew and came into close contact with one another, barter and trade became a
fundamental form of economic interaction.[30] Trade
is the most obvious manifestation of a globalizing economy. This international trade came about when
essential raw materials were not available or it was not economically efficient
to manufacture goods domestically. At
the end of the Second World War, interest, enthusiasm and commitment to trade
liberalization was exceedingly high among the major trading countries. This had persuaded more developing countries
to integrate in to world economy, attracted by the possibilities of global
market.[31]
The general decline in trade barriers, such as tariffs and import quotas, help
further explosion in international commerce.
The economic opening of countries that have traditionally been minor
players in the world economy such as China and Mexico was another reason for
intense international trade. But one
force behind the import-export boom has passed all but unnoticed - the rapidly
falling cost of getting goods to market.[32]
With the rise of globalization
steered by neo-liberal ideologies, pro-globalisation decisions of world’s
governments, MNCs, TNCs, WTO, WB, IMF, Technology, World Trade and free Market;
now the world has come to a peculiar situation where no one can escape globalisation
because it is like a gravitational pull.
[1] Andrew
Heywood, Political Theory: An Introduction, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp.
106-110.
[2] Greg
Buckman, op. cit., no. 11, p. 35.
[3] Robert
Went, Globalization: No-liberal challenge, Radical Responses, London: Pluto Press,
2000, p. 18.
[4] Colin
Hines, Localization: A Global Manifesto: A History of Developing Consciousness,
London: Zed Books, 2003, p. 198.
[5] John
Madley, Hungry for Trade: How the poor Pay for Free Trade, London: Zed Books, 2003, p. 91.
[6] John
Madley, Food for All: The Need for New Agriculture, London: Zed Books, 2002, p. 122.
[7] Matoo and
Wunsch, op. cit., no. 1, p. 2.
[8] Ann
Capling: Australia and
the Global Trade System: From Havana
to Seattle,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 149.
[9] Greg
Buckman, op. cit., no. 11, p. 40.
[10] Vandana
Shiva, Protect or Plunder? Understanding Intellectual Property Rights,
London: Zed
Books, 2001, p. 19.
[11] Kevin
Watkins, Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalization and the fight
against Global Poverty, Washington
DC: Oxfarm International, 2002,
p. 190.
[12] Greg
Buckman, op. cit., no. 11, p. 43.
[13] Ibid., p. 44.
[14] Ibid., p. 48.
[15] Greg
Buckman, op. cit., no. 11, pp. 49-50.
[16] Mattoo and
Wunsch, op. cit., no. 1, p. 2
[17] Walden
Bello, Deglobalization: Ideas for a new World Economy, London: Zed
Books, 2002, p. 38.
[18] Carol
Sherman, A look Inside the World Bank, Sydney: Envirobook, 1990, p. 4.
[19] Sumit Roy, op. cit., no. 12, p. 39.
[20] Greg
Buckman, op. cit., no. 11, pp. 52-53.
[21] Anna
Willard, “World Bank Poll Finds Bank Arrogant Tied to Us”, Published by Deb Foskeg via WTO watch email list, (debt@webone.com.a4),
19 June 2003, p.
1.
[22] Bello, op. cit., no. 32, pp. 59-60.
[23] Robert Went,
Globalization: Neo – liberal Challenge, Radical Response, London: Pluto Press, 2000, p. 18.
[24] World Bank, World
Development Report, 1999/2000, New
York: Oxford
University Press, 2000,
p. 4.
[25] Wayne
Ellwood, The No Non Sense Guide to Globalization, Oxford: New Internationalist Publications,
2001, p. 18.
[26] Dilip K Das,
The
Economic Dimensions of Globalization, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p. 54.
[27] Gelinas, op. cit., no. 3, p. 26.
[28] Ibid., p. 30.
[29] The
Economist, 7 October 1995.
[30] Spyros
Economides and Peter Wilson, the Economic Factor in International
Relations, London:
I.B. Tauris, 2001, p. 85.
[31] Diana Tussie
and Nagaire Woods, “Trade Regionalism and the Threat to Multi Culturalism: in
Negaire woods, the Political Economy of Globalization, London: Macmillan, 2000, p. 54.
[32] The
Economist, Globalization: Making Sense of an Integrating World, London: Profile Books,
2001, p. 79.
No comments:
Post a Comment