The following newspaper articles, "The real reason developing countries stay poor" (February 23, 2007) and "Trade Liberalisation must not be to the detriment of the region" (February 23, 2007) were interesting and instructive commentaries on globalisation.
The first article discusses issues regarding "gangster" capitalism and a campaign for the non-repayment of some foreign loans by developing countries. In the second article, against the background of the outcome of the recent election in St Lucia (my emphasis), the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda warned that "trade liberalisation must not be to the detriment of the region". The prime minister is not alone regarding concerns about the backlash of globalisation. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has produced "Trade Liberalisation Statistics", a report providing data on some of the negative consequences of globalisation.
According to the report, "the following facts are culled to demonstrate that current trade liberalisation rules have led to increased poverty and inequality, and have eroded democratic principles, with a disproportionately large negative effect on the poorest countries". Activists and researchers in the USA, England and Australia have recorded their findings on the impact of globalisation on education. There is also discussion on the new regimes emerging in South America and other parts of the world as responses to globalisation, and also the need for new directions in politics of the coming of the "New new world order".
Researchers have argued that to date there are no clear links between liberalisation and economic growth. "This means that the projected benefits (of liberalisation) are merely hypothetical. Globalisation has features common to the past junctures of "free-trade" emergencies. In looking at studies of Imperialism by JA Hobson, VI Lenin, H Madgoff and particularly Johan Galtung's Structural Theory of Imperialism, it is reasonable to label globalisation as a new form of imperialism. From my observations, globalisation is an Anglo-American construct which emerged after George HW Bush (Transforming US Security Environment) and Margaret Thatcher (A European Magna Carta) had their meeting in Aspen, Colorado, in the early 1990s (Aspen Quarterly, Spring 1991). The New World Order by Paul Nitze was one of the major presentations to the conference (Aspen Quarterly Spring 1991). It was indeed the manifesto of things to come. It was this combined "axis ideas" from Thatcher and Bush Snr that formally ushered in the era of globalisation.
Thatcher expressed with clarity the idea that it is the politics of the developing countries "which have led the economics astray". International regimes were now empowered to help some countries "govern". Prior to this meeting, we were taught about the "rust belts of America" and the "declining and industrial and mining activities" in England. The system was set to ensure prosperity for the Anglo-American axis.
Studies associated with the WTO illustrate how these "untested hypotheses" have eroded "democratic principles", and led "to increased poverty and inequality". According to the report, the number of people living "on less than US$2 per day has risen almost to 50 per cent since 1980" and that the "UN estimates that poor countries lose about US$2 billion per day because of unjust trade rules. trade liberalisation is negatively correlated with income growth among the poorest 40 per cent of the population." and ". if rich nations opened their markets to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), increased opportunities would generate an estimate of $700 billion of additional trade for the developing world".
Developing countries "face higher tariffs on processed goods than on commodities". Most developing countries are dependent on commodities in a world in which "commodity prices have fallen dramatically, by some two-thirds over the past 30 years." Rural underdevelopment and an ever increasing rural unemployment generate new forms of poverty. It is this new form of poverty, new culture of individualism and greed in a world of "high consumerism" that is of great concern, particularly as factors associated with new and very high levels of crime. There was a clear example of how the negative consequences of globalisation in St Lucia deepened inequality and poverty, resulting in very high levels of homicide.
Opposition leader Bruce Golding spoke about "anaemic growth" in Jamaica in spite of the significant amount of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to this country. But according to WTO data and analysis, "There is no causal link between foreign direct investments and poverty reduction. Eighty per cent of FDI is in the form of mergers and acquisitions, little in the form of productive investment that creates jobs and exports". The majority of LDCs with strong import liberalisation "have experienced anaemic or negative growth over the past 20 years".
It is "dangerous in general to depend on theoretical benefits which are unlikely to occur when human life is at stake, for example with water privatisation". It has been proved that privatisation of utilities to "gangster capitalists" has resulted in higher cost to consumers, poorer quality and even the absence of services where citizens of those countries were unable to pay. This has been the case in areas such as Puerto Rico, Bolivia and Argentina. Studies by Peter McLaren, Meg McGuire and Glen Rikowski and Geof Hattam et al inform on the negative impact of the WTO and GATS on education in England, Australia and the USA, respectively.
There was a sustained demonstration by students in Greece against "the conservative government's plan to reform higher education" in recent months. Many of the calls to reform education, today, are responses to WTO and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
The new regimes emerging in South America are manifestations of people seeking for new directions in politics and society. There are also clear indications of a type of "indecisive politics" in Europe. According to Drezner (2007) in "The New New World Order", with the shifts in the global distribution of power" the idea of unipolarity is a thing of the past because new forces in the world are shaping the future. Where will we stand in the "new new" scheme of things? What is the nature of our foreign policy with respect to the changing forces in international relations? If we stay in the same place all the time, we will not get anywhere.
The first article discusses issues regarding "gangster" capitalism and a campaign for the non-repayment of some foreign loans by developing countries. In the second article, against the background of the outcome of the recent election in St Lucia (my emphasis), the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda warned that "trade liberalisation must not be to the detriment of the region". The prime minister is not alone regarding concerns about the backlash of globalisation. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has produced "Trade Liberalisation Statistics", a report providing data on some of the negative consequences of globalisation.
According to the report, "the following facts are culled to demonstrate that current trade liberalisation rules have led to increased poverty and inequality, and have eroded democratic principles, with a disproportionately large negative effect on the poorest countries". Activists and researchers in the USA, England and Australia have recorded their findings on the impact of globalisation on education. There is also discussion on the new regimes emerging in South America and other parts of the world as responses to globalisation, and also the need for new directions in politics of the coming of the "New new world order".
Researchers have argued that to date there are no clear links between liberalisation and economic growth. "This means that the projected benefits (of liberalisation) are merely hypothetical. Globalisation has features common to the past junctures of "free-trade" emergencies. In looking at studies of Imperialism by JA Hobson, VI Lenin, H Madgoff and particularly Johan Galtung's Structural Theory of Imperialism, it is reasonable to label globalisation as a new form of imperialism. From my observations, globalisation is an Anglo-American construct which emerged after George HW Bush (Transforming US Security Environment) and Margaret Thatcher (A European Magna Carta) had their meeting in Aspen, Colorado, in the early 1990s (Aspen Quarterly, Spring 1991). The New World Order by Paul Nitze was one of the major presentations to the conference (Aspen Quarterly Spring 1991). It was indeed the manifesto of things to come. It was this combined "axis ideas" from Thatcher and Bush Snr that formally ushered in the era of globalisation.
Thatcher expressed with clarity the idea that it is the politics of the developing countries "which have led the economics astray". International regimes were now empowered to help some countries "govern". Prior to this meeting, we were taught about the "rust belts of America" and the "declining and industrial and mining activities" in England. The system was set to ensure prosperity for the Anglo-American axis.
Studies associated with the WTO illustrate how these "untested hypotheses" have eroded "democratic principles", and led "to increased poverty and inequality". According to the report, the number of people living "on less than US$2 per day has risen almost to 50 per cent since 1980" and that the "UN estimates that poor countries lose about US$2 billion per day because of unjust trade rules. trade liberalisation is negatively correlated with income growth among the poorest 40 per cent of the population." and ". if rich nations opened their markets to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), increased opportunities would generate an estimate of $700 billion of additional trade for the developing world".
Developing countries "face higher tariffs on processed goods than on commodities". Most developing countries are dependent on commodities in a world in which "commodity prices have fallen dramatically, by some two-thirds over the past 30 years." Rural underdevelopment and an ever increasing rural unemployment generate new forms of poverty. It is this new form of poverty, new culture of individualism and greed in a world of "high consumerism" that is of great concern, particularly as factors associated with new and very high levels of crime. There was a clear example of how the negative consequences of globalisation in St Lucia deepened inequality and poverty, resulting in very high levels of homicide.
Opposition leader Bruce Golding spoke about "anaemic growth" in Jamaica in spite of the significant amount of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to this country. But according to WTO data and analysis, "There is no causal link between foreign direct investments and poverty reduction. Eighty per cent of FDI is in the form of mergers and acquisitions, little in the form of productive investment that creates jobs and exports". The majority of LDCs with strong import liberalisation "have experienced anaemic or negative growth over the past 20 years".
It is "dangerous in general to depend on theoretical benefits which are unlikely to occur when human life is at stake, for example with water privatisation". It has been proved that privatisation of utilities to "gangster capitalists" has resulted in higher cost to consumers, poorer quality and even the absence of services where citizens of those countries were unable to pay. This has been the case in areas such as Puerto Rico, Bolivia and Argentina. Studies by Peter McLaren, Meg McGuire and Glen Rikowski and Geof Hattam et al inform on the negative impact of the WTO and GATS on education in England, Australia and the USA, respectively.
There was a sustained demonstration by students in Greece against "the conservative government's plan to reform higher education" in recent months. Many of the calls to reform education, today, are responses to WTO and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
The new regimes emerging in South America are manifestations of people seeking for new directions in politics and society. There are also clear indications of a type of "indecisive politics" in Europe. According to Drezner (2007) in "The New New World Order", with the shifts in the global distribution of power" the idea of unipolarity is a thing of the past because new forces in the world are shaping the future. Where will we stand in the "new new" scheme of things? What is the nature of our foreign policy with respect to the changing forces in international relations? If we stay in the same place all the time, we will not get anywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment