BusinessWorld | By Elfren Sicangco Cruz | March 19, 2002
There are many terms that are being used to describe the present era. Some people say we are undergoing an In formation Revolution or a Knowledge Revolution. The most popular term seems to be the Age of Globalization.
Today, goods and services produced in one part of the world can become available throughout the world. Information, money and personal communications can easily flow across national and geographical boundaries. There are both strong advocates and opponents of globalization. Here are some interesting views on both sides of the debate. Among those who advocate globalization are the following:
Razeen Sally, London School of Economics: "Globalization, then, is growth-promoting. Growth, in turn, reduces poverty ... the liberalization of international transactions is good for freedom and prosperity. The anti-liberal critique is wrong: marginalization is in large part caused by not enough rather than too much globalization."
Jonah Goldberg, National Review: "Agreements like NAFTA and the WTO force nations to respect contracts which encourage responsible investment and, hence, economic growth. And you see, economic growth creates a middle class and a middle class eventually demands democracy. That is the story of the 20th century and, God willing, it will be the story of the 21st century."
James C. Bennett: "I believe that the ultimate logic of globalization will eventually win out; and most, perhaps even all nations will eventually cross the threshold of democracy and transparent market economies. However, I also believe this will be the work of generations, and that there may be substantial backsliding in the process."
There are those who accept globalization but express the need to address its ill effects on the poor:
Clare Short, UK Secretary of State for International Development: "Globalization is generating great wealth. This could be used to massively reduce poverty worldwide and to reduce global inequality. The world's richest 225 people have a combined wealth equal to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world's people. We must try to manage this new era, in a way which reduces these glaring inequalities and that helps to lift millions of people out of poverty."
World Bank: "Globalization has helped reduce poverty in a large number of developing countries but it must be harnessed better to help the world's poorest, most marginalized countries improve the lives of their citizens according to the report 'Globalization, Growth and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy.'"
There are, however those who have expressed strong sentiments on the ill effects of globalization:
Robert Wade, London School of Economics: "The evidence strongly suggests that global income inequality has risen in the last twenty years. The standards of measuring this change, and the reasons for it are contested - but the trend is clear. The 'champagne glass' effect implies that advocacy is not enough; international organizations need to move beyond integration into the world economy as the primary goal of policy."
Robert Fatton, Jr., University of Virginia: "Obscene patterns of poverty and inequalities amidst ostentatious wealth are thus the very stuff of our global system. They raise basic issues of morality and ethics for the prosperous areas in the world. We need to be asking whether the current inequalities are legitimate and just. Can something be done to achieve some degree of human decency?"
Friends of the Earth: Neoliberal economic globalization encourages the pursuit of profit regardless of social and environmental costs. It is associated with increasing levels of inequality, both between and within countries; the concentration of resources and power in fewer and fewer hands (resulting in an erosion of democracy); economic, social, and economic exclusion; economic instability; spiraling rates of natural resource exploitation; and a loss of biological and cultural diversity."
Thomas Friedman, in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, advocated a point which, to my mind is the right formula to adopt, in this Age of Globalization, for countries like the Philippines.
He welcomes globalization because he thinks it is good and inevitable and should be actively promoted "so that we can ultimately have global integration twenty-four hours a day, across twenty-four time zones and into cyberspace."
However, Friedman also believes that globalization will be sustainable only if it is democratized, in both the political and economic sense.
Economically, this means designing safety nets "that don't simply try to cushion the fall of the left-behinds, know-nots and turtles but actually try to bring them into the system by helping them acquire the tools and resources to compete."
In the final analysis, it is the Third Way or Social Democracy that he offers as the only real solution. Accordingly he says that: ".....you dare not be a globalizer in this world - an advocate of free and unfettered trade, open borders, deregulation and the Internet for all - without being also a Social Democrat. Because if you are not willing to spend what it takes to equip the have-nots, know-nots and turtles in your society to survive in this new system, they will eventually produce a backlash that will choke off your country from the world. You will not be able to maintain the political consensus you need for openness. At the same time, we believe you dare not be a social democrat, or safety netter, today without being a globalizer because without integration with the world you will never generate the incomes you need to keep standards of living rising and to take care of the left-behinds."
Elfren S. Cruz is a professor of Strategic Management at the De La Salle University Graduate School of Business. E-mail comments to: cruzes@info.com.phBusinessWorld:
