Pete’s blog

Globalisation is often depicted as a drama in which the goodies (Africa and the rest of the developing world) are pitted against the baddies (the West). Is this a useful understanding of globalisation? Discuss this with particular reference to South Africa’s place and role in the world since 1994. Have we or have we not benefited from globalisation? If we have, how so? If we have not, how have we not?

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 is often depicted as the greedy rich stealing from the poor, making the rich richer and the poor 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.

So is globalisation good or bad? Is it only a means for the rich countries to exploit the developing world? No-one can dispute that globalisation has led to unprecedented growth and wealth generation for 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 North becoming the exploitative ‘baddies’ and the South the poor, helpless ‘goodies’.

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)[7]. 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[8]. This is globalisation at its worst – uncontrolled and unmanaged.

But, even with globalisation running rampant around the world, the criticism levelled at the developing world by the IMF is that they are not globalising enough. They argue that “Sub-Saharan Africa is less open to international trade than other developing regions…” and “that liberalization should improve the region’s trade performance significantly and thereby spur the growth of productivity and incomes[9].” At an economic level, countries are being forced to either become globalised or forever remain a ‘developing nation’. Once they become connected to the global economy, they become subjected to the demands and reforms imposed by the global system. Thomas Friedman calls it globalution[10], whereby countries are forced by global pressures to change, to become more transparent and less corrupt.

But is this globalution a good thing? The biggest criticism is over who is forcing the changes. The ‘developed’ world, those countries with all the capital and all the big multinational corporations, are the ones driving globalisation, free trade and economic reform in the developing world. Countries are forced to accept Western principles, ideas and practices, Western-style governments, Western economic policies, and are measured by Western standards. The cost of not becoming ‘Westernised’? Denial of international financing, refusal of Western countries to enter into trade agreements, economic and political isolation, and disinvestment by the “electronic herd”.

Globalisation is therefore strongly resisted by people, cultures and countries, who struggle to preserve their identities, and the right to make their own mistakes and decisions. But their defiance, without any power behind it, only results in marginalisation and disdain.

Africa is the continent that has most acutely felt this marginalisation. Years of internal conflict, huge debt burdens, corrupt and ineffective governments, minimal capital and infrastructure, and a massive incidence of HIV/AIDS has led to Africa being shunned by most Western investors. How much of this is the fault of globalisation? The internal conflict and poor government could be blamed on the arbitrary division of Africa by the colonial powers, and more recently by the ideological battleground that Africa became during the cold war; the huge debt burden can be attributed to the global Bretton Woods organisations (the IMF and World Bank) and the oil price crisis of the 1970s; the minimal capital and infrastructure is a result of these factors and the marginalisation by the ‘developed’ world; and the spread of HIV/AIDS has been made possible by globalisation. Globalisation and the West therefore have a lot to answer for in Africa, and could very easily be labelled as the ‘baddies’ in the situation.

But globalisation may also hold Africa’s salvation. According to Trevor Manual, “South Africa has, among developing countries, done quite well in trying to resolve some of the tensions brought about by globalisation[11].” South Africa is undoubtedly the most successful and most globalised country in Africa. South Africa’s GDP is more than double the next highest GDP, being that of Nigeria. Our infrastructure and telecommunications network is largely first world. Our economy is export based, with free trade agreements in place with the European Union and currently under negotiation with America. Our leaders participate in global affairs, Thabo Mbeki being the previous chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, and global conferences are held in South Africa, for example the World Summit on Sustainable Development. This has all been to South Africa’s benefit, giving us international recognition and the ability to trade on the international markets.

But what about Africa and the rest of the developing world? Can South Africa share their relative success with them? Instead of the Western ‘baddies’ globalising Africa, Mbeki has a “vision of South-South cooperation[12].” South Africa hopes to use its leverage and experience to create cooperation amongst the developing world and more particularly in Africa. This too is globalisation, increasing the interdependency and integration amongst developing states. The fact the leaders of Africa and the South are able to meet, discuss and cooperate on these issues is only possible because of globalisation. The very solution to the problems of globalisation is contained within globalisation itself. Inter-country initiatives like the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Union and NEPAD are an assertion by the developing world that they want to be free to learn their own lessons and help each other, rather than being Westernised. Mbeki says “the African Renaissance is possible because we have entered into a new partnership with the rest of the world on the basis of what we, as Africans, have determined is the correct route to our own development[13].” The peer review mechanism of NEPAD is a defence against the harsh globulation of Friedman – Africa will govern itself and not be forced into any potentially harmful decisions by the “electronic herd”.

Globalisation is like fire – if it is uncontrolled, it can consume and destroy, but if it is harnessed and used, it has the potential for great benefit. To judge globalisation as being good or bad is not possible. To condemn the West as being the ‘baddies’ for using globalisation to their advantage is not completely fair. Hopefully South Africa’s plans for an African globalisation will bear fruit and the North and South, and East and West will be able to work together as equals. So that “globalisation becomes one of integration and community rather than one of division and marginalisation[14].”

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

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

 [9] Fischer, S. “The Challenge of Globalization in Africa”, http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2001/011901.htm, 19 January 2001

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

 [11] Manual, T. Globalisation, income distribution and the role of the state, Geneva, 24 March 2003

 [12] Mbeki, T. Address at the opening of the 13^th summit conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, Kuala Lumpur, 24 February 2003

 [13] Mbeki, T. Address to the joint sitting of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, Cape Town, 31 October 2001

 [14] Manual, T. Globalisation, income distribution and the role of the state, Geneva, 24 March 2003