Some Basic Introductory Articles
Read the following articles and make comments on any one or all of the articles. You are also welcome to engage, respond to and critique the entries made by your colleagues. You can make more than one posting.
1. Defining the Third World/Developing WorldThis is a good discussion of the characteristics of the Developing World.
2. Defining GlobalizationWhat do you think of the 3 Ps of Globalization?
3. YaleGlobal: Provides useful articles on globalization and the developing world. Read atleast three articles from this source.
2. Defining GlobalizationWhat do you think of the 3 Ps of Globalization?
3. YaleGlobal: Provides useful articles on globalization and the developing world. Read atleast three articles from this source.
32 Comments:
The technical definition of a Third World Country is that of a nation that neither aligned with the West or the East during the struggle for political hegemony between America and the U.S.S.R. (Cold War). Many of these countries have later come to share characteristics of high population growth, widespread poverty, and extreme underdevelopment. These Third World nations have been in a constant struggle for economic modernization, including development, redistribution of international resources and transfers of technology, as well as increased political power to set the international agenda or “metapower”. However, most of these sovereign states have not been able to make much progress in the international metapower “totem pole” because, as the Third World Traveler article states, outright exploitation severely limited the accumulation of capital within the foreign-dominated countries. This proposition is similar to the Marxist theories of the Global North and the Global South stating that the Global North buys the raw materials produced in the Global South to turn them into finished products only to sell them back to the Global South at an inflated price. For Third World countries to continue to grow and provide decent standards of living for the majority of their citizens, this exploitation must be stopped; how, exactly, to go about this in a way that will not require the Global North to relinquish international power or make significant sacrifices in foreign policy (something that they are unwilling to compromise about) is still a question that remains unanswered.
I disagree with Tom Friedman’s label of Islamic fundamentalists as Islamo-Leninists. He justifies this label with his belief that someone like Osama bin Laden would have been a Marxist or Trotskyite if he had been at Yale, simply because they all had a “utopian vision.” Yet Friedman goes on to contradict himself by then saying that Islamic fundamentalists want to create a “kingdom of heaven,” not a “kingdom of class” as a Marxist would. Furthermore, why would he use the term Leninist if he is comparing Islamic fundamentalism to Marxism, which is not exactly the same as Leninism. If anyone knows a different reason why Friedman would label Islamic Fundamentalists as Islamo-Leninists, I would appreciate it.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I just wanted to put the link for the United Nations Human Development Reports on here in case anyone wanted to check out the statistics for some developing countries. I find the “build your own table” option especially helpful for comparing different First and Third World nations.
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/
In response to E-Waste@Large by Elizabeth Royte (NY Times, Jan 2006):
E-waste is more than a technological buzz word. Unlike "byte," "wi-fi," and for that matter, "blog," electronic waste is a term that has relevance for everyone everywhere. Royte's article describes the reality that the fruits of the age of computer technology are already rotten; the problem of how and where to lay old computers to rest has inevitably found a shameful solution on the soil of people who will probably never use a computer for more than its basic elements (literally, copper, gold, and aluminum.)
In the dialogue about globalization, the e-waste dilemma surfaces as an example of how global-minded citizens can use the duality of globalization to their advantage. Globalization has brought barges of e-waste to the shores of developing nations, but along those same unequal routes of trade, globalization can also bring change. Consumers who demand corporate accountability, governments who take responsibility for "cradle to grave" recycling programs, and international forums with open lines of communication are key players in ensuring that the Third is not forced to eat the scraps of the First.
I agree with Professor Khan and Tom Friedman that globalization is inevitable. A few individual countries might be able to isolate themselves from the world, but this would not stop the rest from interacting with each other. Furthermore, in order for a state to isolate its people, it would not only have to close all borders, but also stop the flow of information and ideas with the outside world. Since it is difficult to regulate the use of telecommunication technology such as the Internet, the state would have to destroy all such technology to completely isolate its citizens. Having destroyed major technologies, the state would now be at a serious disadvantage; other countries would have technology that it now lacks. Thus the state jeopardizes its security by making itself weaker. This result helps to deter countries from choosing isolation and ends up forcing them to globalize. What other choice do they have but to globalize or be left in the dust?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Forced globalization is a very scary phenomenon. Although globalization is inevitable, each nation should be allowed to do so at their own pace. Globalization is about bringing understanding and unity across the world. However, it seems that to some, it is about forcing beliefs down their throats. It is one way to say that the United States is fighting against terrorism. Is it another way to say the Iraq is fighting a war against globalization? I think that could be true. As stated by Professor Khan's article, "Those on the right favor the spread of free markets and investment flows. Those on the left support the emergence of a truly global culture." Is bringing democratic government to Iraq a way to force American beliefs to a people before a country is ready to do so on their own and destroying their unique culture? or are we helping helpless people? I believe globalization is inevitable, but should it be forced by the stick of democracy? I hope others will comment.
I see both a promising and dangerous similarity between the emerging inevitability of globalization and the developing normative belief in democracy. As Chao stated in his comment, globalization is emerging as an inevitable force. I feel that this is a close reflection to the increasingly normative ideal of democracy across the globe (as described in Section 4 of JKK chap. 1). JKK describes that although authoritarian governments can suppress demands for democratic participation, the costs of doing so are high. These costs of isolation tie in directly with globalization. Kathleen described in her comment a similar ability for countries to isolate themselves from globalization. She stated that it is possible to attempt, but parallel to the suppression of democracy, it comes at a high cost. That cost, as Kathleen stated, is the jeopardizing of the isolated state's security. This inevitably makes the state weaker. Just as a country can attempt to segregate itself from the spread of globalization and try to suppress the sentiment of globalism among its people, it can also refuse to conform to the increasing ubiquity of democracy. Yet, in the environment of today’s world, both of these instances would without doubt weaken the isolated country both domestically and internationally.
This double standard is what connects the ideas of globalization and democracy. A country can chose to conform to and integrate with the rest of the world as it pleases, yet the choice to do so will indisputably render an unfavorable outcome. This connection can be seen in both a positive and negative light. It is promising in the sense that globalization and democracy engage in a symbiotic relationship, each promoting and providing for the existence of the other. However, this also brings about a danger when the relationship between the two exceeds simple promotion and leads to a forced combination. As Chao stated in his comment, the problem arises when globalization is, “forced by the stick of democracy”. This delicate balance is one that is being both kept and interrupted in the world today. As the individual processes of globalization and normative democracy progress independently, their relationship with one another will undoubtedly grow and develop. The world must be wary when the relationship between the two begins to grow quicker then the ideas themselves.
In response to the article “Defining Globalization”…. After reading the article “Teaching Globalization,” I realized that many times authors discuss Globalization purely as an international phenomenon. We are always talking about international organizations and multinational corporations in the context of their influence on the global community. Perhaps this is because scholars who speak of “Globalization” are usually international relations scholars and professors. However, as a Democrat, I feel that it is equally important to talk about Globalization and its effect on the United States, domestically. It is because of Globalization that we see a tremendous increase in trade deficits with third world countries, like China. Globalization has lead to an ever increasing outsourcing of U.S. jobs and has probably, in my view, done more harm than good to U.S. businesses and our economic standing. This becomes even more obvious when companies such as Wal-Mart try to force American companies like Rubbermaid to produce their products in other countries so that profit margins will be higher. The idea of a global community presents very similar problems to the U.S. as the formation of the European Union did to the more prominent countries in Europe. Will labor be outsourced to countries that allow for harsh working environments and low wages? In general, I think that more time and energy need to be put forth thinking about the toll that globalization may take on the economy and corporations of the U.S. and figuring out how to reverse this trend.
I think it is important to keep in mind at the beginning of this semester that the term “globalization” is, according to Yale Global, “a relatively new term used to describe a very old process.” It is important to understand that globalization as a phenomenon, philosophy or process describes fundamental human practices that have occurred since the first exchange of goods, ideas or human location. If these exchanges broadened the participants conceptual or physical world globalization was in action. This is not an “emerging” phenomenon, nor is it a manageable force that should be feared or praised. It is simple a “leitmotif of human history.” It provides a framework for discussing the causes and effects of basic human practices such as the search for prosperity, desire to ensure security, proselytizing, or exploring the unknown.
Globalization has become a hot topic in relatively recent history for good reason. Technological advances have effectively collapsed time and space for a large portion of the earth’s population. As Prof. Kahn writes, studying globalization should not be focused on individual disciplines which portray conflicting images, but instead stress should be put on the intricate interconnection among people and their surrounding environment.
Read the quotes in the “Third World Travel” link!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reading "Teaching Globalization," I felt that the various definitions given for globalization (as seen by various professions) help to create a coherent explanation for globalization. It seems that the term globalization is tossed about as an academic buzzword with little evidence as to what is truly meant by the word. Using the four given definitions as a unified explanation for the term, one can see that globalization is a multi-faceted phenomenon, with economic, cultural, political, geographical, social, environmental, and governmental aspects. I also thought that the breakdown of globalization into a philosophy, phenomenon, and process was helpful in further clarifying a rather abstract term. It also allows the many aspects to be examined together as Professor Khan mentions- rather than looking only at the economic aspects, one can view mutiple tiers of globalization simultaneously. Furthermore, I agree that the Internet is an extremely important tool in the process of globalization, and that efforts to make sure that all people have access to this resource (as opposed to just those in wealthier countries or areas) are necessary. This will encourage a more equitable process of globalization, allowing people access to information about other governments, cultures, and societies as well as providing a forum in which the concerns and ideas of a wide range of people are heard.
As many have already mentioned, globalization provides us with a sort of catch-22; the more countries that feed into it the faster and more uncontrollable it becomes, and yet by abstaining from it, countries put their economic future in jeopardy. This is clearly an issue of understandably considerable concern. However, there are also cultural components to this global phenomenon that are arguably as significant as the economic element.
There have been a number of beneficial results of globalization; the ability for Amnesty International, other NGOs, and countries like the US to find, publicize, and solve human right violations has dramatically improved with communication technology and the “opening” of countries’ borders. Thanks to increased interactions among countries, nations have also experienced a new and wide variety of international food, ideas, music, art, clothing, etc. that had never before reached the global market.
However, there are some negative consequences of this trend. Professor Khan mentioned in his article that many feel “globalization at once underscores the celebration of diversity as well as the convergence of social preferences in matters of lifestyle and social values.” However, by allowing globalization to continue at such a break-neck pace, we run the risk of gradually "Americanizing" the world, transforming it into a Super-Size-Me-Wal-Mart. Will there come a time when the quaint cafes of Paris and Italy must entirely surrender to the impersonality of Starbucks? I fear that our heads are spinning so quickly in this age of “more, better, faster” that by the time we regain our balance, we will look at our streamlined, homogeneous efficiency and wonder, nostalgically, where happen to all of our options.
In Nayan Chanda’s article Coming Together…, he asserts that “It is no wonder many around the world see and resent globalization as a euphemism for Americanization.” This is partly due to the ever-increasing gap in growth and development between the technologically advanced, highly industrialized United States and poorer, developing nations which lack the means to progress, industrialize, and globalize their economies. Thus, for many poorer countries which have not been able to reap the benefits of globalization, it is easy to view the phenomenon as imbalanced and partial to highly advanced Western nations, such as the U.S., who possess the capabilities to further their status as leaders of technology and economic expansion. In return, resentment toward the U.S. and American ideals results and globalization is seen in a negative light, and to some as a gradual “Americanization” of the world.
As Americans, we are quick to view many poorer nations as “backwards” or even as potential terrorists, because of their anti-globalization/Americanization sentiments. But, we must realize that these nations merely have different cultures and are based on different types of ideals than us. At the same time, one must realize (as many have said) that globalization is inevitable and these nations, although slow to develop, will eventually “go global.” But, we must allow them to do so at their own pace without trying to impose our methods/ideals upon them.
So long as everyone agrees that globalization is inevitable, whether it be "forced" or complied with agreeably, I wonder at what cost it would be to the world if certain countries are left to themselves to become part of the global community at their own speed. For instance, if every country in the world is eventually going to become part of the global community, then wouldn't make sense for the first world countries to take the initiative to lend a helping hand to the developing third world countries that would other wise take decades upon decades to reach the global status. I'm not advocating forcing the developing against their will to globalize, but I feel there would be a certain cost to the entire world if any country is left behind. Moreover, I feel there would be an even graver cost to any country that refuses to join the global community. Certainly there are several ways in which first world countries help developing nations already as in the form of foreign aid and so on, but I feel the world owes it to itself to do more. So if globalization is inevitable and if there be only one road to globalization, let us all take it together.
Another problem I'm having is with the use of the label of the third world. I know originally the term third world was meant to show the plight of the poorer nations, but now I fear it will only lead to some sort of inferiority complex in which countries won't strive to better themselves because they know they are already labelled as the third world. I'm definitely not one for being politically correct but there can be no third world in a globalized world. Another reason why I don't like the label of the third world is that I feel like even the US has several third world aspects and some third world countries have many first world aspects. For instance, I think the US's health care and judicial systems are shit. I think our president is third rate. Nevertheless when I was in Mexico City, which has upwards of 25 million people, I wonder how a "third world" country can manage that kind of urban center successfully, despite its ungodly filthiness.
I definately agree that countries which are more fortunate should try to help third world countries- but only if they welcome it. As stated in the JKK, globalization is "the global diffusion of investment, trade, production, and extraordinary communication technologies." These are all good ways so called "first world countries" can help. But is destroying many years of culture to enforce a new one globalization? I think not. I also think that although globalization is inevitable to the majority of the world, there are certain societies which may well be very content without it. Certain bush tribes, and even certain small countries for instance in Africa who have survived for thousands of years on their particular culture, and may not want to accept certain technologies yet. I think Arley said a lot when he said the graduel "Americanization" of the world. As many have already stated, americans often view less fortunate countries as "backwards." But that doesn't always mean they need or want our help. Thus i think it is important we allow countries to globalize at their own pace.
I also agree that globalization is inevitable and I feel that Tom Friedman offers the best explanation for it. He mentioned in his 2003 interview that "the first era of globalization was really built around falling transportation costs... This era of globalization is ... built on falling telecommunications cost, and the transfer of voice, and data, and information, in an era of service economies."
I feel that today's globalized economy is the result of newly available technology that instantly connects people regardless of their distance apart. The ability to do business beyond one's immediate proximity coupled with the strong capitalist system forms a globalized economy in which ambitious people will seek new areas in which to open factories, or even practice medicine as Professor Khan mentioned in class.
I agree with Kathleen that nations would be at a serious disadvantage to reject globalization altogether, as they would find themselves in a sort of "dark age" by reverting back to a closed border society. In addition, as Professor Khan points out, some issues, such as environmental deterioration and disease would not observe a nation's closed-door policy.
WIthout a doubt, the globalized world is fragile, as one nation's pitfalls can send ripples around the world. This phenomenon has occured since the great depression and few could argue that nation-states' impact on one another has decreased since then. The issue of exploitation of the Global South by the more developed nations is the largest threat to globalization because it causes friction between nations which is a detriment to both nations. I think it is important that the Global North realize that the Global South nations have more control over the global economy than it seems. Although the Global North holds financial dominance, the less developed nations are home to a vast majority of the world's population and natural resources.
I would have to disagree with Nayan Chanda in his article “Coming Together” that globalization is a word that is “abused” and “cliché.” I think that it would be more accurate to say that the problem lies in the fact that the implications of the word globalization are not completely understood. Although the concept of globalization has been around long before the term was invented, and the effects of globalization have shaped the world as we know it today, many people think of globalization in terms of very specific contexts. The fact that the term is so general and so commonly used today allows the term to lend itself to many different connotations and interpretations. An individual who views globalization as “nirvana” or someone who views it as “chaos” is merely extracting the negative or positive effects of globalization that have the largest impact on themselves. Since globalization is such a commonly used word, I believe it is very important for people to understand the definition and numerous effects of globalization. It is important to view globalization from a historic, economic, and cultural viewpoint to fully understand its past, present, and future effects. Although the broad definition of globalization allows people to use the term in many different contexts to support different arguments, heightened understanding of the effects of globalization will allow people to make rational arguments as well as lessen the divide between negative and positive sentiments towards globalization.
Chaliand: Reading this article on the characteristics of third world countries really makes it apparent how they got the short end of the stick. Their populations are growing at an unsustainable rate, poverty is pervalent, the goods or crops that they do produce still have imperialistic elements of foreign control, they have very little power on the international level, and the first world countries make pathetic attempts to right their wrongs by designating 1% of their gdp to help these countries back on their feet.
Some countries have been resourceful enough to utilize their natural resources and gain collective power (OPEC), therefore getting more capital and emerging from the high poverty and low development cycle. For countries to do this they need willpower and some sort of resource, which every country possesses in some form. For example, OPEC had oil, India has huge human resources. Costa Rica, a country with very limited natural resources and marginally profitable agriculture, utilitized their natural beauty through tourism over the last few decades, which now makes up nearly 60% of its gdp and has helped them develop. What I'm getting at is that 3rd world countries aren't doomed to fail, but they need to be inventive and strive to be successful. They need reform in their governments, schools, in order to give the people of these countries something to look forward to; a future. We, as first world country citizens, need to start treating these countries in a fair manner, to start equalizing the income gap. Globalization is a big driving force in this process and time will tell whether it will be able to 'develop' these countries.
"Some dislike the term developing countries as it implies that industrialisation is the only way forward, while they believe it is not necessarily the most beneficial."
I think thats a very important quote. Even 'developing countries' is a pejorative term in the sense that it dictates what our world should be like. When we talk about a country as being underdeveloped we imply that it is behind us, lesser that us, because of the lack of its technology or standard of living, and also that it needs to improve. This is a very ethnocentric idea, assuming that the way we do things is definetly the best way for the rest of the world. What if that culture doesnt want to participate in our developed world? Should we force indigenous groups (the few that remain) to convert to a 'developed' lifestyle because we think its better? Yes, maybe development or globalization are inevitable, but that doesnt mean we've got to force it down other culture's throats. That type of approach can leave a bitter taste in the recipient's mouth, lead to backlash, and furthermore its just morally indefensible.
The notion of the third world is an interesting one, notably because it mostly has a negative connotation but also speaks to an opportunity for advancement. In our brief discussion of the third world to date, we have included India and China, two of the world's fastest growing and soon to be powerful economies. These countries are in fact on the rise, and perhaps it is only a matter of time before they make an impact culturally as well. Think of the sheer size of these countries. Their potential is nearly unlimited. They have been restricted by poor economic policy and lack of technological advancement, however globalization has in effect shrunk the world and spread ideas to all reaches of the world. India and China also have rich histories, as do the Islamic Near-Eastern countries. Despotic rule and poor economics aside, the world as a whole is slowly but surely coming into its own (save perhaps Africa) coinciding with the technological revolution. Nayan Chanda's article and Arley's post make reference to the Americanization of the world, and the perceived superiority complex we, as Americans exhibit. This is due to our ability to sell our culture, or commericalize it. For better or worse, our country is relatively young and in truth a mix of varying people and cultures and histories. Our culture is constantly growing and evolving. Part of the culture is our commercialization. Our "Mc-World" as it were. It is just part of globalization that this commercialism should spread. Think of it as economic competition. The tide may shift as the "third world" grows in economic influence. Money talks.
Concerning the article "teaching globalization," I was most intrigued by the statement highlighted in the sidebar. "Those on the right favor the spread of free markets..." I found this interesting; upon hearing the term "globalization" one tends to think of it as a liberal idea. Considering the fact that the right can benefit from and contribute to globalization is important. Thinking about globalization in this context gives it a broader and all-encompassing view with which it is not usually associated. Knowing this, we can better study why some states put endorsement and confidence in specific organizations (UN, WTO, etc) while others do not.
The YaleGlobal article "Why the US Malaise Over China?" raises some important issues about the future of globalization and its consequences. China is a unique problem for the First World, especially for the US. But how much of the issues surrounding China are actually problematic versus perhaps irrational fears held by the West?
It is interesting that when a developing country begins to be successful economically in the global market it is not always seen as a good thing. For a small country that has an impoverished population and not much of an effect on the overall global market you would be hard-pressed to find many people who are not enthusiastic for the country. However, once a large country begins to develop a substantial economy in the global market there are suddenly many fears. It seems paradoxical for the First World to claim that it wants the Third World to be better off while at the same time cursing foreign competition and being unwilling to accept a decrease in its own competitive edge.
The issue of China is particularly salient because not only is China becoming an economic rival, but it is also not a clone of the West. Therefore, the US combines its economic superiority complex with its political/ideological superiority complex. This has increasingly created an almost Cold War type of a feeling between the US and China.
It is often hard to step outside of one's own existence, circumstances, and "common" knowledge. However, in order to better handle globalization, the international market, and improvement in Third World countries it is important to keep an open mind. Countries can be successful without becoming a clone of the West, and rather than discouraging this notion and increasing fear and tension, the West should be mature enough to respect the decisions and policies of other nations... and possibly even learn something! There has never been a time when any country has been completely correct, so why discourage other countries from trying to discover their best possible system and policies based on their own ideas, cultures, practices, economic realities, and the like?
Another YaleGlobal article, "Unpopular Globalization: Why So Many Are Oppressed," raises an insightful argument about the First World and its relationship with globalization. It has become popular throughout the First World to use globalization as a scapegoat and ignore internal, independent problems. It is easier for people to accept the fact that globalization is the problem, and complain about it, than to admit that there are serious flaws in their own society that need to be addressed even if that means a sacrifice period of difficult transition. The article notes that the US needs to save more in order to decrease its current exorbitant level of debt. However, this involves the unpopular actions of increasing taxes and reducing spending. Europe's current situation of a strained welfare state needs reforms that would decrease taxes and benefits, and increase labor flexibility. However, politicians who support these agendas are too often nto awarded a position where they can improve the situation. IT is unfortunate that these shortcomings in the First World are being unjustly blamed on globalization and development in the Third World.
To add to the general articles, I found an article in the New York Times entitled "The Case for Fewer but Stronger Currencies". (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/business/yourmoney/19view.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin) This article discusses the fact that many developing countries are unwilling to give up their national currencies, seeing them as a symbol of their independence and culture. However, many economists believe that developing countries can improve their economies by moving to a stable, widely used currency such as the dollar or the euro. In a study done from 1950-1993, economists found that that dollarization led to higher growth and lower inflation, at least in many cases. It also reduces the need for currency exchanges, making global transactions simpler. In order for it to be truly successful of course, the switch of currencies must be accompanied by solid economic processes. Furthermore, countries can certainly stabilize their economies with their own currency, say the authors.
I found this article to be an interesting perspective on an economic aspect of globalization. While in many ways it seems more practical (and according to the article, often more economically efficient) to reduce the number of currencies worldwide, it is understandable that many countries would be hesitant to give up their own currency, with which they are familiar and regard as a symbol of their country. It seems that if it was suddenly proposed that the US adopt the euro, there would be many protests. Currency is another globalization complication with both economic and cultural considerations. Thoughts?
Nayan Chanda’s article “Coming Together” presents both the negative and positive sides of globalization. He starts off by describing how globalization will bring people and cultures together in a global community. I thought it was interesting that he writes about the Columbian Exchange as a “reconnection” and something to be “celebrated.” He describes it as an event that brought together “peoples who had been separated for over 10,000 years,” making it sound like a reunion of separated friends. Only later does he go into the negative aspects of globalization, and the fact that the arrival of the conquistadors during the Columbian exchange was a devastating event for the indigenous people of Latin America, killing the majority of the them and destroying their cultures.
At the end of the article, Chanda offers advice on dealing with the inevitable advancement of globalization. He says that everyone in the world must work to understand globalization so we can embrace the positives while minimizing the negatives. This is an important message, because as this article makes clear there are many consequences of globalization, and it affects different groups of people in very different ways. For example, a developing country which enters a free trade agreement with a developed country may not have the opportunity to develop their own industries and advance technologically. Globalization has the potential to change some people’s lives in a very positive way, but it also very negatively affects others. It is essential to try and work towards solutions which do not merely help the “haves” and hurt the “have nots.”
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
As we have this ongoing discussion about globalization and it’s effects on the global society, a perfect story appears before me on every news station in the US. Ironically, the Presidential administration has allowed a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to control our sea ports (which, by the way, have been highlighted among one of America’s largest national security threats as only one in every twenty of the 20,000 containers is cleared by law enforcement officials).” Now, Instead of being responsible for our own borders, the President is now advocating allowing third world nations to take over that responsibility. I find it awfully ironic how the era of globalization has caused the "most powerful nation in the world" to outsource its national security needs to 3rd world countries. Next thing you know, we’ll leave the Mexican government to single handedly guard the Mexican-American border. I feel like this is equivalent to allowing mercenaries to fight our wars. It wasn’t a good idea during the crusades, and it certainly isn’t a good idea now.
In response to Laura Yayac’s post:
I think a distinction needs to be made between pegging a country’s currency and the unprecedented “project” of the common currency in the European Union. I agree with Laura that dollarization – when a country pegs its currency to the dollar or replaces its currency with the dollar (or any foreign currency) – is a manifestation of globalization. Dollarization is a stable safeguard for a country’s economy and a nod to the ideal of an open and efficient world market.
The euro project, on the other hand, is quite a different undertaking than dollarization. Never in history has there been a binding strategy of economic integration like the one we are seeing unfold in the European Union. More importantly than a loss of national identity, member countries in the “Eurozone” lose control of monetary policy. Yet, twelve countries have so far adopted the euro despite its inherent risks. I think it’s important to question the implications of the sacrifice these countries have already made, as well as the limits they have already set (there are strict rules for adopting the euro, not to mention joining the Union – e.g. Turkey). Is the euro a move toward globalization? Or is it perhaps an indication of regionalization, a phenomenon we have not yet detected?
Forget for a minute all this talk about movement of McDonalds, alpaca hats, Friends reruns, and Anime films across national borders. In all of this globalization clutter, have we forgotten the most tangible and detectable mobilization of all – people? Immigration, legal and illegal, is especially relevant to the study of development, as Leif Brottem points out in his article in Foreign Policy in Focus, “Immigration’s Role Often Overlooked in Global Economy.” (Find it in YaleGlobal’s Society and Culture section). Moved mostly by economic forces from the global South to the prosperous North, immigrants from Africa, Central and South America have established their own global networks and in many cases are making more progress for the developing world than the so–called “First World” nations.
Read Brottem’s article. Tell me if you find anything ironic when a young sub–Saharan man living in urban France, confident in his universal “right to migrate,” texts his friends (on a cell phone, mind you) to give the all–clear to make a money transfer directly to his family thousands of miles away, while legislators in Spain, the U.S. and elsewhere hem and haw over how many more layers of fence to build and how many more border vigilantes to deploy.
It looks to me like the immigrants are ahead of the game. Maybe they could teach us a few things about globalization.
"Dollarization is a stable safeguard for a country’s economy and a nod to the ideal of an open and efficient world market."
I do not necessarily agree with this statement. While it may be true in some cases, it is definitely more complicated than it seems. I agree more with Laura Yayac’s point that “In order for [dollarization] to be truly successful of course, the switch of currencies must be accompanied by solid economic processes.” In some cases, it is most certainly not a safeguard because it affects the economy in both positive and very negative ways. For example, Ecuador dollarized from the sucre in 2000 in order to stabilize the hyperinflation, which reached a record high of 91% in 2000. Some of the effects have been positive; the inflation rate has stabilized somewhat, the economy has grown, and Ecuadorians spending power has become stable. The negative consequences, though, have been serious. Industry has fell since the economy is now focused in the service sector and not the manufacturing sector. This could be a long term problem because production is important to economic growth. Also, prices have skyrocketed while salaries have remained low, increasing poverty. The GNI per capita in 2004 was only $2,180 which is much lower than the US GNI per capita of $41,000 in 2004 (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf). However, if you go into a grocery store, basic name brand products like shampoo or paper towels are more expensive than they are in the US because trade isn’t completely open.
Dollarization in Ecuador has helped the country’s economy in some ways, but has also had many negative consequences. At first glance it may seem as if dollarization would only stabilize and help a developing country’s economy, but with a closer look it is clear that the issue is much more complicated than it seems.
In reference to Clifford Bob’s article, “Marketing Humanitarian Crises,” it is very unfortunate that groups involved in humanitarian crises that do not have access to good marketing tools, groups that are not in high-profile countries, and crises that fail to catch the attention of special interest human rights organizations are all at a major disadvantage in terms of getting aid. This accounts for the success of Mexico’s Zapatista rebellion and the failure of wars in the Congo to grab global attention. As a result of the selectivity of the foreign aid process, some of the crises that require the most attention and some of the countries with the least resources are overlooked.
The special attention given to select humanitarian issues also creates misconceptions on many levels. On one hand, as Bob mentions, some humanitarian issues that are not as threatening or urgent as others gain extreme amounts of media coverage while the other issues are left with little attention and little aid. Thus, people view some of the less important crises to be some of the most urgent. Other misconceptions arise when groups of people in conflict gain the wrong kind of media attention. When special interest NGOs become involved, oftentimes they extract out certain aspects of a conflict, such as religious or environmental concerns, and highlight these problems in order to benefit the organization. When the media coverage tailors to the interests of these NGOs, people in other parts of the world fail to see the main concern of the crisis.
Post a Comment
<< Home