Is Globalization a Positive Development for the World Community?

The springboard for the article is Issue #14 of "Taking Sides: Global Issues," where Thomas Friedman supports globalization and Christian Weller, Robert Scott and Adam Hersh argue against it.

Friedman's approach is to attempt to define globalization against the framework of its "global system" predecessor: the post-cold war era. He points out the defining characteristics of globalization and highlights the similarities and differences between globalization and the post-cold war world system. Friedman's primary positive support for globalization lies in his assertion that this new world system empowers the individual.

Weller, Scott and Hersh, on the other hand, refute the notion that globalization brings about positive development worldwide with the outlining of "The Unremarkable Record of Liberalized Trade." They criticize globalization, pointing out the ever-growing disparity between the rich and the poor, and arguing that unregulated capital and trade flows contribute to rising inequality and impede progress in poverty reduction. (Harf and Lombardi 251-264)

Though the debate over globalization and its impact on the world community has been present for at least 20 years, rapid changes in technology, commerce, and so on has complicated the issue and magnified its relevance to the business community as well as the individual. The articles in Taking Sides were written in 1999 and 2001. So much has happened to shape the global landscape, yet the issues remain the same.

The Update

Two things became evident in the research phase of this writing. First, there is no universal definition for globalization. Proponents and critics alike are predisposed to generalizing the particular issue or topic they are examining under the greater "globalization" umbrella. Because of this, the debate as covered in this reflection, (as it was in Taking Sides) will focus on one aspect for the positive side and one for the negative.

The other thing I discovered in the early stages of research is that the issues have become so complex, and the debate so all-encompassing, that it is difficult to find academic scholarly writings that stand firmly on one side or the other. For example, Growth Strategies, a trade publication providing coverage and analysis of economics has traditionally supported the arguments in favor of globalization over the years. Yet in December of 2004, the publication supported Aaron Bernstein's writing in Business Week (6 December 2004) that "the long-held consensus among trade theory economists that globalization is always a good thing for all parties is starting to break down. Whether the problems leading to this thought are ones that affect the white-collar elite - as described in the Growth Strategies article, or the world's poor majority - it has become increasingly clear that globalization brings up a host of challenges. ("The New Globalization Debate")

Based on my research and the readings I've come across, I would venture to theorize that one of the most significant and important updates (since the time of writing of the articles featured in Taking Sides) in the globalization debate is the realization of both sides that the issue is too complicated to be all for it or all against it. The consensus seems to be that globalization may very well be a positive thing for the world community - but not without some change in the way it is being carried out.

The Arguments

In favor of globalization

The article I chose to represent the positive view of globalization is titled "Globalization & Culture: Americanization or Cultural Diversity?" by Radley Balko. Balko starts out with what seems like a neutral enough look at the globalization question. Though he explores each of his points from each perspective, it is evident that he is on the side of globalization. He emphasizes a point made in a Pell's Chronicle of Higher Education essay which basically states that if the U.S. has been successful in garnering trans-national appeal, perhaps that's due to America's diverse, immigrant population, which is able to produce universally appealing goods and services.

Balko also explores the arguments presented in Jihad vs. McWorld, arguing that American cultural imperialism conforms to local cultures. He counters this notion by stating, "in most communities, in fact, the McDonalds has conformed to local culture, not the other way around." (Balko)

Another argument in favor of globalization chimes in with Friedman's original statement: globalization has brought about personal empowerment. Communication experts have suggested that emerging media, including the internet, have given even the smallest, most remote groups a vehicle to communicate more effectively and promote their respective interests. Perhaps more prudently than Friedman, Balko fails to explore the danger in empowering individuals and groups with less than noble intentions.

Balko goes on to say that because of emerging technology, developing countries that quickly embrace borderless trade can quickly make the jump to the other side of the dual economy. He doesn't, however, explore the challenges that these developing countries face in order to get to that point.

Against globalization

In "Imperialism and Globalization" by Samir Amin, we are taken through a journey that explores imperialism in three phases. The first revolves around the conquest of the Americas and the trade system of Atlantic Europe at the time. The second phase has to do with the industrial revolution and the beginning of the overwhelming and growing disparity between the rich and poor. The beginning of the third phase of imperialism, which is taking place today, is depicted by the author as "devastation of the world by imperialist expansion." (Amin)

The objectives of today's imperialism are 1) control of the markets, 2) looting of the earth's natural resources, and 3) exploitation of cheap labor by the marginalized. The excuses and justification for this type of imperialistic globalization, according to Amin, lie in "democracy," the "rights of peoples," and "humanitarianism." These justifications give people in imperialist nations a clear conscience.

Samir Amin ends the article by asking what the relation will be between the overriding conflicts. " Will the social struggles be subordinated, contained within the larger global-imperialist context of the conflicts, and therefore mastered by the dominant powers, even mobilized for their purposes, if not always manipulated? Or, on the contrary, will the social struggles win their autonomy and force the powers to adapt to their demands?" (Amin) It is clear whose side he is on.

The Political Perspectives

When I first found Radley Balko's article, I thought it was clever that he presents both points of view. He even gives credit to both. I never doubted that his support, however, lies in favor of globalization. His message, though ambiguously presented, is supportive of Americanization as a form of spreading cultural diversity. Though typically this imperialistic philosophy is applicable to certain political ideologies, Balko didn't quite fit the mold. He is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a biweekly columnist for FoxNews.com and luckily, publishes a daily blog. Somewhat surprisingly, he describes himself as a "classical liberal, or libertarian."

The Institute for Humane Studies defines a Libertarian as follows:

"The libertarian, or "classical liberal," perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary." (What is Libertarian?)

But the most accurate and detailed description of Balko's political view can be quoted from the FAQ's section of his website:

"I'm a "libertarian," not a "Libertarian." "Libertarians" are sometimes nuts. Many of them, anyway. But "libertarians" I think are probably closer to the values most people hold than either Republicans or Democrats. We believe in free markets, limited government, low taxes, free trade, individual rights, personal responsibility, and peace. On fiscal issues, we generally side with the right. On cultural and social issues, we generally side with the left. We don't like Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson. Enron bothers us, but so does Ralph Nader. We're not big fans of war -- the Iraq thing irritates most of us. But the United Nations bugs us too. During the Iraq war, I for one was mortified to be on the same side as France -- on anything" (The Agitator)

This goes to show that not everything is black and white, and it's not always the same old parties with the same old agendas.

To confirm this theory, Samir Amin is of the Neo-Marxian school of thought. He is Egyptian-born and Paris-trained. I thought it appropriate to include an international perspective in a conversation about globalization. In a nutshell, the Neo-Marxism School can be defined as "Radical Political Economy." It stems back to the early writings of Marx, but focuses on a non-physical, psychological revolution. This political ideology is far more libertarian than Marxism, and related to strains of anarchism. According to Wikipedia, this political perspective emphasizes the evils of global capitalism. New Marxism comes under the umbrella of "New Left Thinking" and is frequently used to describe the opposition to the inequalities suffered by lesser developed countries in our modern globalization system.

Conclusion

No matter what the political perspective of philosophical influence, it is evident that that the larger "globalization" term has different meanings for different people. These degrees of connotations, both good and bad, can not be considered complete in the scope of an article - maybe not even in a book. The reason for that is that the conversation about and the debate over globalization and its various sub-topics is a rapidly changing one. Every day there are twists, turns, technological innovations, environmental disasters, economic successes, and much more that help to shape the definition of globalization as we know it - or don't know it.

Works Cited

Amin, Samir. "Imperialism and Globalization." Monthly Review 53(2001)

Balko, Radley. "FAQ's." www.TheAgitator.com. 06/25/2006. 25 Jun 2006 .

Balko, Radley. "Globalization & Culture: Americanization or Cultural Diversity?"

A World Connected .

Harf, James, and Mark Owen Lombardi. Taking Sides: Global Issues. 2nd ed. Guilford, CT: McGraw Hill, 2003.

"The New Globalization Debate" www.FindArticles.com. Growth Strategies. 12 Dec 2004

"What Is Libertarian." www.theihs.com. The Institue for Humane Studies. 25 Jun 2006