Reinventing globalization<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho
\nDirector
\nThe Business Watch Indonesia<\/p>\n
If there is one word that has been the most frequently mentioned
\nby people around the world over the past three to five years, it
\nhas been globalization. Leaders would have less confidence if
\nthey did not include or address globalization in any of their
\nspeeches. Newspapers and magazines would have less pride if they
\ndid not denote globalization in their articles. Most people are
\nmore than willing to be regarded as global people rather than as
\nlocals, and that they are forcing themselves to deal with
\nglobalization's hallmarks; i.e., a global lifestyle.<\/p>\n
Having global meals at McDonald's with a Coca-Cola, enjoying
\nglobal entertainment by watching Hollywood movies and music
\nvideos on MTV, tuning in to global channels, such as CNN and BBC,
\ninstalling PCs with global applications, such as Microsoft
\nWindows or Lotus SmartSuite, communicating with global devices,
\nsuch as mobile phones and through the Internet are new ways of
\nlife embedded within the process of globalization. Of course,
\ngoing beyond this is possessing a global spirit to be rich or
\nfinancially secure. This has penetrated deeply into the
\nconsciousness of most people around the world -- young and old,
\nmale and female, urban and rural, rich and poor.<\/p>\n
It is also within this framework of globalization that the
\nmantra "deregulation, liberalization and privatization" seems to
\nhave divine power in directing economic -- and even the political
\ndevelopment of many countries around the world. As a consequence
\nmany state-owned enterprises (SMEs) are being privatized. It also
\nhas become a global trend for governments of developing countries
\nto be pushed into following the International Monetary Fund's
\n(IMF) Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and The World Bank's
\nmacroeconomic and financial policies, which shift the control of
\npublic goods and essential services provision, such as water,
\nenergy and health care, from public agencies to being privatized.<\/p>\n
But globalization is not only about that. When addressing the
\ngap between the rich and the poor -- both within and between
\ncountries -- some facts are too painful to digest. In 1960, one-
\nfifth of the world's people living in the richest countries had
\n30 times more income than one-fifth of those living in the
\npoorest countries.<\/p>\n
Thanks to globalization, by 1997 this income gap had more than
\ndoubled to 74:1 (Ellwood, 2001). One-fifth of the world's people
\nliving in high-income countries had 86 percent of the world's
\ngross domestic product (GDP), whereas one-fifth of those in poor
\ncountries received only 1 percent. The average income of a person
\nin one of the richest 20 countries is 37 times more than a person
\nliving in one of the 20 poorest. This ratio has doubled over the
\npast 40 years, mainly because of a lack of growth in the poorest
\ncountries. About half of the world's population lives on less
\nthan US$2 a day. Two-thirds of the world's illiterate adults are
\nwomen, who bear the brunt of the world's economic and social
\ncrisis (UNDP, 2002).
\nTable 1<\/p>\n
Over $1.5 trillion is exchanged every day in currency markets
\naround the world. About 95 percent of this total represents
\nspeculative transactions that fail to benefit the world's poorest
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
The real beneficiaries of globalization seem to be the
\ntransnational corporations. Of the top 100 economies, 51 are
\ntransnational corporations. The combined sales of the world's top
\n200 companies surpass the combined economies of 182 countries
\n(Hertz, 2001).<\/p>\n
These facts have shown us that globalization -- just like
\neverything else under the sun -- is inherently ambivalent. On the
\none hand, it brings prosperity, comfort, convenience in the form
\nof economic growth, technological advancement, more open and
\ndemocratic governance, and so forth. But on the other hand, there
\nare vast amounts of casualties from its progress.
\nEnvironmentally, it can also be said it is hazardous.<\/p>\n
The soil is being eroded -- nearly 2 million hectares of land
\nworldwide are eroding and some areas face sharp losses in
\nproductivity. Forests are being destroyed -- one-fifth of all
\ntropical forests have been cleared, reaching a total loss of
\nnearly 200 million hectares between 1980 and 1995. Biodiversity
\nis disappearing: one-third of all terrestrial biodiversity,
\naccounting for 1.4 percent of the Earth's surface, are in
\nvulnerable hot spots and threatened with complete loss in the
\nevent of natural disasters or further human encroachment. And the
\nworld's fish stock has been declining: 58 percent of the world's
\ncoral reefs and 34 percent of all fish species are at risk from
\nhuman activities, 70 percent of the world's commercial fisheries
\nare fully exploited or overexploited and experiencing declining
\nyields (The World Bank, 2002).<\/p>\n
In view of these facts, the promises made by globalization
\nseem hollow and subject to question. Joseph Stiglitz (2002) said
\nthat our current conditions reflect the "broken promises of
\nglobalization", in which we are urged to rethink what we
\nunderstand about globalization, how it works and where it will
\nlead humanity. And these are not easy quests.<\/p>\n
First of all, what is the very central idea of globalization?
\nIt is the "ism" in neo-liberalism, which believes in two ideas.
\nOne, that all humans are homo economicus, the economic motive in
\nhuman life is not only one of other motives, but the only motive
\nthat drives human livelihood. Two, that the free capital movement
\nis the sundering of financial capital from its intrinsic link
\nwith the survival process of a community to seek and accumulate
\nprofit.<\/p>\n
Second, globalization is manifested into three areas of
\nquests. Addressing the "what", globalization is basically a wide
\narea of transnational business practices. Thus, the "who" will
\npoint out the transnational corporations, that -- in practice --
\nare backed up by international bodies and authorities, such as
\nthe World Bank, the IMF, multilateral development banks (MDBs)
\nand other international financial institutions (IFIs). And the
\nquest of "how" explains that the underlying ideology to keep
\nbusiness practices in their roles is consumerism.<\/p>\n
Table 2<\/p>\n
Third, while the exhibits of transnational business practices
\nare fostered and supported by international regulations and\/or
\nagreements -- which are also called newly made rules -- such as
\nthe General Agreements on Tariffs & Trade (GATT), the General
\nAgreements on Trade in Services (GATS), Trade-Related
\nIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), Trade-Related Investment
\nMeasures (TRIMs), etc., the consumerism ideology is propelled by
\nthe immense power of advertisements in the form of logos, brands
\nand labels. This implants the criteria of the "pleasure,
\nprestige, status and luxury" principle in individuals. Thus, it
\nwill be easily understood that as the newly made rules are
\nimposing nations to adopt deregulation, liberalization and
\nprivatization policies, the advertised global lifestyle, culture
\nand identity is spreading all over the world.<\/p>\n
Therefore, we can grasp the idea that globalization finally
\nenters our shared-life mainly in the way our public needs should
\nbe provided: through public policies and individual preferences,
\nwhich are based on the belief that the common good is best served
\nby the uninhibited pursuit of profit. This is the so-called
\nmarket system, which is basically a reproduction of all societal
\nrelationships into a basic profit-and-loss interaction. This is
\nthe arena of the current struggle. The whole process of
\nglobalization has shown that market power has become so immense
\nthat it is endangering our societal life since it has undermined
\npublic agencies and communities. Why is it that the power of
\nbusiness practices within the globalization process is simply out
\nof our discourse on accountability and democracy?<\/p>\n
Initially, it might be started from our inability to
\ndistinguish the intended action from the unintended consequences.
\nWe usually mistake the unintended (ex post) for the intended (ex
\nante).<\/p>\n
While some measure of such confusion is inevitable in human
\naffairs, there is a serious danger of not being aware of its
\ngrave risks. The working of the neo-liberal principle is entirely
\nbased on claiming that the unintended is no different from the
\nintended. How is that?<\/p>\n
This problem involves the following line of logic: If we start
\nfrom the premise that the highest value of social life brought by
\nglobalization is growth, then malpractice or non-malpractice is
\nirrelevant. If growth can only be achieved by letting the mal-
\nexercise of power happen, so be it. The destruction of the
\nenvironment and the widening gap between the rich and the poor
\nseem to be only the unintended consequences of globalization. In
\nthis case, democracy is also irrelevant, for any type of power
\nexercise that seems to bring about growth, even if it is
\nunintentional, will then be justifiable. Of course, the
\nproponents of this perspective will shout endlessly about the
\nneed for law enforcement and legal certainty. But in fact these
\nare immaterial.<\/p>\n
After all, there might be a serious cognitive lag -- the
\ninability to understand the reality because of being entrapped in
\nthe old-fashionedness of analytical reflection, which is when
\nreality has run ahead and left our analytical reflection behind.
\nIt is a fact that the locus of power in society is neither
\nunitary nor monolithic so that it can no longer be assumed that
\nthe power over society belongs only to the state apparatus. This
\ndiscourse on globalization would make little sense unless the
\ndramatic rise of business power as a shaping force of society is
\nnot considered, whether it is for the better or otherwise.<\/p>\n
So, if democracy is a movement to make any socially
\nconsequential exercise of power accountable, we have to revise
\nthe existing notion of it to include the socially consequential
\nexercise of business power. This outdated notion seems to count
\ntoo much on the assumption that its goal can only be achieved
\nwith the state power being made democratically accountable, but
\nwhat escapes from this notion is the status of business power.<\/p>\n
This discourse on globalization should go beyond the pros and
\nthe cons as globalization might now have become inevitable. What
\nwe can control to reinvent it is the sensitivity toward its logic
\nand process. This means that the provision of any public need in
\nour shared life, which is now being overwhelmed by the euphoria
\nof globalization, in its very heart, should never confuse
\nconsumership with citizenship as well as market with shared-life.
\nWelcome to 2003, a new start for reinventing our globalized
\nworld.<\/p>\n
The writer is also a lecturer at Sahid University in Surakarta
\nand a researcher at the Social Democrat Union in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reinventing-globalization-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}