Pete’s blog

“… globalization can create as many solutions and opportunities as it can problems …” (Thomas Friedman). But can globalisation lead to development? Discuss.

Globalisation, according to Thabo Mbeki, is like the weather, we are just going to have to live with it. Globalisation is now completely part of our lives, no longer can we look at countries in isolation. Much vilified, globalisation has become synonymous with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Is this a fair reflection of globalisation, will globalisation only benefit the rich? Can globalisation only exploit and not develop? Is globalisation not perhaps just a tool, that like nuclear fission, can do great harm as well as great good.

The most important question that needs to be asked is “what exactly is globalisation?” Prioritised in company boardrooms, debated at summits, denounced by activists, and yet experienced every day by every person in the world in some way. Most of the discussion and anger is directed at the international capitalism aspect of globalisation, the “integration of national systems of production and finance[1]” and “the removal of barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national economies[2].”

But there is far more to globalisation than just business. As Marx prophesises in the Communist Manifesto:

In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production.[3]

Globalisation is also about the global integration and interconnection of intellectual capital and information. Globalisation means that we can watch a war in Iraq live through an American TV network, debate the war in an English internet chat room, and email our friends in Dubai for their experiences, all from our homes in South Africa. Globalisation is about the linking of people and the elimination of boundaries, so that location is no longer relevant.

The next question is, what is meant by development? No-one can dispute that globalisation has led to unprecedented growth and wealth generation for America and the ‘developed world.’ World trade has grown on average by 5.6% per annum from 1985 to 1994 and by 6.2% from 1995 to 2004[4], and world output (real GDP) by 3.2% and 3.6% per annum for the same periods. Interestingly the growth in real GDP for developing countries has exceeded the world growth, growing on average at 5.1% per annum from 1985 to 2004[5]. So has globalisation not also generated growth and wealth in the developing world?

The problem with this growth is that it has not been equal. The advanced economies account for 55.7% of the world’s GDP, but only 15.4% of its population.[6] A great disparity between a rich North and a poor South has emerged, one that has resulted in a very strong ‘us and them’ and ‘haves and have-nots’ view of the world. It is at this divide that most of the anti-globalisation sentiment is aimed.

The type of development that is sought after, is that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This slogan was born out of the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, which resulted in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg 10 years later. This event was a true reflection of globalisation – 191 governments and groups attended, and 82 heads of state addressed the gathering. They were there to discuss issues that affected their countries, but could not be tackled by one country alone. The summit was an acknowledgement that some issues can only be addressed by the cooperation of many countries. Globalisation not only creates global problems, but demands global solutions.

Even the anti-globalisation protestors are globalised. Through emails and the internet, the movement is a global one, identifying and protesting abuses in all countries in the world. The have even started organising global protest marches, protests synchronised in cities around the world. Naomi Klein recalls the “first-ever Global Street Party” on 16 May 1998, which involved 30 events in 20 different countries[7]. Protest marches against the war in Iraq in February and March 2003 involved hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. The awareness of the people around the world of the impending war in Iraq, and the speed at which protest marches were organised can only be attributed to the globalisation of information resources.

This globalisation of information has pushed the boundaries of intellectual development. The Internet has made information freely and easily available to anyone with access to a computer. Scientists all over the world are able to collaborate and share information like never before. Faster connections are being developed in order to handle to amount of information being shared by the scientific community[8]. Cooperation between nations has allowed scientific programmes like the International Space Station to be developed, projects that push the boundaries of human experience.

So why are so many people being left behind? Although globalisation has led to massive development for those using it and leading it, it has passed by many people. Zygmunt Bauman identifies a divide between people who are becoming more globalised by the changing world, and those who are becoming more localised (and so being left behind)[9]. Countries are experiencing globalisation that they cannot control, that do not have the resources to manage, and that is not reaching all of their people equally. Countries are being devastated by global diseases, global corruption and global competition. They are measured against global standards and are condemned if they do not meet them. Thomas Friedman’s “electronic herd” roam the global markets, speculating in currencies and leaving entire economies at their mercy[10]. This is globalisation at its worst – uncontrolled and unmanaged.

Criminals and terrorists are also at the leading edge of globalisation. The international drug trade is arguably the most globalised industry in the world, showing no respect for border controls or local governments. Terrorist organisations, like al Qaeda, recruit and operate in several countries, attack targets all over the world and consistently evade capture.

Globalisation, however, not only contains the solution to the problems, but demands that the solutions are global. Global criminal organisations can only be combated by global organisations like Interpol and global legislation like the recent anti-money laundering bills. Global terrorism can only be stopped by the cooperation of all states, and more importantly the development and stability of every state. The North-South divide is no longer in the interests of the wealthy, since unstable, impoverished countries are a haven and a breeding ground for terrorists and criminals.

Environmental issues, like the over-fishing of the sea, the destruction of the rainforests and global warming, are global issues, that require global solutions. Although the rainforests are being cut down in Brazil, the effects are felt in America. The only way America can stop Brazil from cutting down the rainforests is to educate them and develop their country, so that they no longer have to resort to the easy and cheap tactics of slash and burn. Globalisation has allowed the plight of poor countries to become an international imperative, and global initiatives like the Millennium Development Goals[11] and the Kyoto Protocol have been created.

At an economic level, countries are forced to either become globalised or forever remain a ‘developing nation’. Once they become connected to the global economy, demands and changes are imposed by the global system. Thomas Friedman calls it globalution[12], whereby countries are forced by global pressures to reform, to become more transparent and less corrupt. In time, these more accountable governments may perhaps join the ranks of the ‘developed world’.

So can globalisation lead to development? Undoubtedly it has already led to unprecedented development in trade, technology and human development. Can it lead to development for everyone? I believe that if it is managed correctly it can, and globalisation itself will ensure that it will eventually be managed correctly. Because globalisation means that every country and every person is more interdependent, the plight of any one country will affect every other country in the world, and so the development of every other country becomes essential to your own development.

[1] Mbeki, T. Addressing the Backlash against Globalisation…, Davos, 28 January 2001.

[2] Stiglitz, J. Preface to Globalization and Its Discontents, Allen Lane The Penguin Press, London, 2002, p ix

[3] Marx, K. “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, in Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p 112

[4] World Economic Outlook, IMF, Washington DC, 2003, p 199

[5] Ibid, p 171

[6] Ibid, p 161

[7] Klein, N. No Logo, Flamingo, London, 2001, p 319

[8] Whitfield, J. “Software breaks data-transfer record,” http://www.nature.com/nsu/030324/030324-7.html, 27 March 2003

[9] Bauman, Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1998

[10] Friedman, T. The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Harper Collins, London, 2000, p 112

[11] United Nations Millennium Declaration, New York, September 2000

[12] Friedman, T. The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Harper Collins, London, 2000, p 167