Explicar as formas e classes do sistema de comércio internacional

Princípios do sistema de negociação.
Os acordos da OMC são longos e complexos porque são textos jurídicos que cobrem uma ampla gama de atividades. Eles lidam com: agricultura, têxteis e vestuário, bancos, telecomunicações, compras governamentais, padrões industriais e segurança de produtos, regulamentações de saneamento de alimentos, propriedade intelectual e muito mais. Mas vários princípios simples e fundamentais são executados em todos esses documentos. Esses princípios são a base do sistema comercial multilateral.
Um olhar mais atento a esses princípios:
Mais informações introdutórias.
Comércio sem discriminação.
1. A nação mais favorecida (NMF): tratar as outras pessoas igualmente De acordo com os acordos da OMC, os países normalmente não podem discriminar entre seus parceiros comerciais. Conceda a alguém um favor especial (tal como uma taxa de direitos aduaneiros mais baixa para um dos seus produtos) e terá de fazer o mesmo para todos os outros membros da OMC.
Este princípio é conhecido como tratamento da nação mais favorecida (MFN) (ver caixa). É tão importante que é o primeiro artigo do Acordo Geral sobre Tarifas e Comércio (GATT), que rege o comércio de mercadorias. A NMF é também uma prioridade no Acordo Geral sobre Comércio de Serviços (GATS) (Artigo 2) e no Acordo sobre Aspectos dos Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual Relacionados ao Comércio (TRIPS) (Artigo 4), embora em cada acordo o princípio seja tratado de forma ligeiramente diferente . Juntos, esses três acordos abrangem as três principais áreas de comércio tratadas pela OMC.
Algumas exceções são permitidas. Por exemplo, os países podem estabelecer um acordo de livre comércio que se aplique somente a bens comercializados dentro do grupo - discriminando bens de fora. Ou podem dar aos países em desenvolvimento acesso especial aos seus mercados. Ou um país pode levantar barreiras contra produtos que são considerados como sendo negociados injustamente de países específicos. E nos serviços, os países são autorizados, em circunstâncias limitadas, a discriminar. Mas os acordos só permitem essas exceções sob condições estritas. Em geral, MFN significa que toda vez que um país reduz uma barreira comercial ou abre um mercado, tem que fazê-lo pelos mesmos bens ou serviços de todos os seus parceiros comerciais - sejam eles ricos ou pobres, fracos ou fortes.
2. Tratamento nacional: Tratar estrangeiros e moradores da região igualmente Os bens importados e produzidos localmente devem ser tratados igualmente - pelo menos depois que as mercadorias estrangeiras tenham entrado no mercado. O mesmo se aplica aos serviços estrangeiros e domésticos e às marcas comerciais estrangeiras e locais, direitos autorais e patentes. Este princípio de “tratamento nacional” (dando aos outros o mesmo tratamento que os próprios nacionais) também é encontrado em todos os três acordos principais da OMC (Artigo 3 do GATT, Artigo 17 do GATS e Artigo 3 do TRIPS), embora mais uma vez o princípio é tratado de forma ligeiramente diferente em cada um deles.
O tratamento nacional só se aplica quando um produto, serviço ou item de propriedade intelectual entrar no mercado. Portanto, a cobrança de um imposto alfandegário sobre uma importação não é uma violação do tratamento nacional, mesmo que os produtos produzidos localmente não recebam uma taxa equivalente.
Comércio livre: gradualmente, através da negociação.
A redução das barreiras comerciais é um dos meios mais óbvios de incentivar o comércio. As barreiras em causa incluem direitos aduaneiros (ou tarifas) e medidas como proibições de importação ou quotas que restringem as quantidades de forma seletiva. De tempos em tempos, outras questões, como a burocracia e as políticas cambiais, também foram discutidas.
Desde a criação do GATT, em 1947-48, houve oito rodadas de negociações comerciais. Uma nona rodada, no âmbito da Agenda de Desenvolvimento de Doha, está em andamento. Inicialmente, eles se concentraram na redução de tarifas (tarifas alfandegárias) sobre bens importados. Como resultado das negociações, em meados da década de 1990, as tarifas dos países industrializados sobre produtos industriais caíram de forma constante para menos de 4%.
Mas, na década de 1980, as negociações se expandiram para abranger as barreiras não-tarifárias sobre mercadorias e para as novas áreas, como serviços e propriedade intelectual.
Abrir mercados pode ser benéfico, mas também requer ajustes. Os acordos da OMC permitem que os países introduzam mudanças gradualmente, através de “liberalização progressiva”. Os países em desenvolvimento geralmente recebem mais tempo para cumprir suas obrigações.
Previsibilidade: através de vinculação e transparência.
Às vezes, prometer não levantar uma barreira comercial pode ser tão importante quanto diminuir uma, porque a promessa dá às empresas uma visão mais clara de suas oportunidades futuras. Com estabilidade e previsibilidade, o investimento é incentivado, empregos são criados e os consumidores podem desfrutar plenamente dos benefícios da concorrência - escolha e preços mais baixos. O sistema multilateral de comércio é uma tentativa dos governos de tornar o ambiente de negócios estável e previsível.
A Rodada Uruguai aumentou as ligações.
Percentagens das tarifas consolidadas antes e depois das conversações de 1986-94.

Explique as formas e classes do sistema de comércio internacional
Diferentes tipos de restrições comerciais.
Como David Ricardo nos ensinou, quando as nações se especializam e comercializam, a produção total do mundo é aumentada. As empresas produzem para mercados estrangeiros e mercados domésticos (mercados no país de origem). As exportações são os bens e serviços vendidos no mercado externo. Importações são bens ou serviços comprados de produtores estrangeiros.
Apesar dos benefícios do comércio internacional, muitas nações colocam limites ao comércio por várias razões. Os principais tipos de restrições comerciais são tarifas, cotas, embargos, requisitos de licenciamento, padrões e subsídios.
Uma tarifa é um imposto sobre bens importados do exterior. O efeito de uma tarifa é aumentar o preço do produto importado. Ajuda os produtores domésticos de produtos similares a vendê-los a preços mais altos. O dinheiro recebido da tarifa é cobrado pelo governo doméstico.
Existem dois tipos de tarifas: tarifas de proteção e receita. Tarifas protecionistas são postas em prática especificamente para tornar o bem estrangeiro mais caro para proteger as indústrias domésticas da concorrência. As tarifas de receita são estabelecidas para arrecadar dinheiro para o governo. Tudo depende da intenção do governo que implementa a tarifa. Muitas vezes, qualquer tarifa acabará cumprindo as duas metas de uma vez (às custas do consumidor doméstico e do negócio estrangeiro).
EXEMPLO: A Lei Tarifária Smoot-Hawley de junho de 1930 elevou as tarifas dos EUA para o segundo nível mais alto na história de nossa nação (a mais alta foi em 1828). A intenção original da tarifa era proteger os agricultores americanos da concorrência estrangeira após a Primeira Guerra Mundial. Quando a Europa começou a se recuperar após a Primeira Guerra Mundial e expandiu bastante a produção agrícola, um excesso de oferta de alimentos causou a queda dos preços agrícolas nos EUA. Essa tarifa deveria bloquear o comércio com os produtores estrangeiros de alimentos. No entanto, quando a Depressão chegou em 1929, a tarifa foi ampliada para incluir a maioria das importações estrangeiras. A nova tarifa impôs uma taxa de imposto efetiva de 60% em mais de 3.200 produtos e materiais importados para os Estados Unidos. As importações americanas da Europa caíram de US $ 1,3 bilhão em 1929 para apenas US $ 390 milhões em 1932, enquanto as exportações dos EUA para a Europa caíram de US $ 2,3 bilhões em 1929 para US $ 784 milhões em 1932. No geral, o comércio mundial caiu cerca de 66% entre 1929 e 1934. Isso equivalia a menos bens sendo comprados ou vendidos em uma época em que a economia mundial precisava desesperadamente de dinheiro para fluir livremente. Mais genericamente, Smoot-Hawley também não fez nada para fomentar a confiança e a cooperação entre as nações, quer no domínio político ou económico, durante uma época perigosa nas relações internacionais (os anos que antecederam a Segunda Guerra Mundial).
Uma cota é um limite na quantidade de mercadorias que podem ser importadas. Colocar uma cota em um bem cria uma escassez, o que faz com que o preço do bem aumente e permita que os produtores domésticos aumentem seus preços e ampliem sua produção. Uma cota de sapatos, por exemplo, pode limitar os calçados de fabricação estrangeira a 10.000.000 de pares por ano. Se os americanos comprarem 200 milhões de pares de sapatos por ano, isso deixaria a maior parte do mercado para os produtores americanos.
Um embargo interrompe as exportações ou importações de um produto ou grupo de produtos para ou de outro país. Às vezes, todo o comércio com um país é interrompido, geralmente por razões políticas.
Alguns países exigem licenças de importação ou exportação. Quando os importadores nacionais de mercadorias estrangeiras são obrigados a obter licenças, as importações podem ser restringidas pela não emissão de muitas licenças. As licenças de exportação foram usadas para restringir o comércio com certos países ou para evitar o aumento dos preços domésticos dos produtos agrícolas.
Normas são leis ou regulamentos que as nações usam para restringir as importações. Às vezes, as nações estabelecem padrões de saúde e segurança para produtos importados que são mais altos do que aqueles para bens produzidos internamente. Estes se tornaram uma das principais formas de restrição ao comércio e são usados ​​em diferentes quantidades por muitos países.
Os subsídios podem ser considerados como tarifas em sentido inverso. Em vez de tributar a importação estrangeira, o governo concede doações aos produtores domésticos para incentivar as exportações. Aqueles que recebem tais subsídios podem usá-los para pagar os custos de produção e podem cobrar menos pelos seus bens do que os produtores estrangeiros. Uma tarifa é paga pelos compradores das mercadorias estrangeiras e pelos compradores de produtos domésticos que pagam preços mais altos. Mas os subsídios são pagos pelos contribuintes que podem ou não usar o bem.
Aqui está um artigo da The Economist criticando nosso atual sistema de subsídios: economista / node / 7887994.
Os subsídios agrícolas também levam à superprodução de milho e, portanto, ao uso generalizado de xarope de milho barato na maioria dos alimentos que ingerimos. Como Michael Pollan aponta, isso não é saudável: michaelpollan / articles-archive / você-é-o-que-você-cresce /
Bem, existem muitas razões, a saber:
1) Para parar o desemprego na América. As empresas americanas devem demitir trabalhadores se seus bens não puderem competir com produtos estrangeiros mais baratos.
2) Proteger as indústrias domésticas "cruciais". Protecionistas (pessoas contra o livre comércio) argumentam que indústrias inteiras, como petróleo, aço, carros, etc., são vitais para a economia dos EUA e, portanto, devem ser protegidas da concorrência estrangeira.
3) Proteger novas indústrias "infantis" na América. Se essas empresas ficarem protegidas da concorrência por um tempo, elas podem crescer o suficiente para competir no mercado mundial.
Muitas vezes as pessoas culpam o nosso sistema de educação por que as empresas estão mudando seus empregos no exterior, no entanto, tem muito mais a ver com salários e custos do que com o treinamento. Assim como David Ricardo explicou há dois séculos, se um país pode ser bem mais barato do que nós, eles terão o negócio e nós não. Aqui está um artigo que explica este conceito nos tempos modernos:
No entanto, há uma quarta razão para bloquear o livre comércio que não tem nada a ver com concorrência ou preços:
4) Isolar e punir os governos e regimes totalitários que apóiam o terrorismo, o genocídio, os programas de armas nucleares ou (em alguns casos) o comunismo. A América propositalmente corta o comércio com certas nações (por exemplo, Cuba, Irã, Coréia do Norte) em um esforço para forçar os governos dessas nações a mudar seus caminhos. Aqui está uma lista de nações com as quais a América está atualmente restringindo o comércio:
1) Você acredita que a Coréia do Norte é um país do terceiro mundo? Por que ou por que não?
2) O que podemos fazer para melhorar as relações com a Coréia do Norte?
Ensaio de Comércio Livre:
Por favor, escreva um ensaio de dois ou três parágrafos - Depois de analisar os argumentos a favor e contra o livre comércio, você é a favor do livre comércio, do protecionismo ou de uma mistura de ambos? Explique sua resposta.
Embora continuemos a discutir o comércio nesta semana, você estará lendo sobre os países do terceiro mundo para o dever de casa (que discutiremos na próxima semana em detalhes).
Abaixo estão alguns artigos fascinantes sobre globalização e comércio.

Teoria do Comércio Internacional.
O que é comércio internacional?
Os indianos dirigem carros fabricados no Japão, usam VCRs feitos na Coréia. Os americanos dirigem carros fabricados na Alemanha, usam VCRs feitos no Japão e usam roupas feitas na China. Os japoneses assistem filmes americanos, os egípcios bebem cola americana e os suecos correm em tênis americanos. A economia mundial está mais integrada do que nunca.
O comércio internacional molda nossa vida cotidiana e o mundo em que vivemos. Quase sempre que fazemos uma compra ou venda, estamos participando da economia global. Os produtos e seus componentes chegam às prateleiras de nossas lojas de todo o mundo.
Bens e serviços que um país compra de outro país são chamados de importações, e bens e serviços que são vendidos para outros países são chamados de exportações. O comércio ocorre principalmente entre empresas. No entanto, governos e indivíduos freqüentemente compram e vendem bens internacionalmente.
A maior parte do comércio internacional consiste na compra e venda de equipamentos industriais, bens de consumo, petróleo e produtos agrícolas. Serviços como bancos, seguros, transportes, telecomunicações, engenharia e turismo são responsáveis ​​por um quinto das exportações mundiais.
O custo do transporte internacional e da comunicação caiu drasticamente, resultando em maior integração entre as economias do mundo. Devido a essa interdependência, as tendências e condições econômicas em um país podem afetar fortemente os preços, salários, emprego e produção em outros países. Eventos em Tóquio, Londres e Cidade do México têm um efeito direto no dia a dia das pessoas nos EUA, assim como o impacto de eventos em Nova York, Washington e Chicago é sentido em todo o mundo.
Se as ações da Bolsa de Valores de Nova York despencarem, as notícias são transmitidas instantaneamente em todo o mundo, e os preços das ações em todo o mundo podem mudar. Isso significa que os países precisam trabalhar juntos mais de perto e confiar uns nos outros para obter prosperidade.
O comércio internacional ocorre porque indivíduos, empresas e governos de um país querem comprar bens e serviços produzidos em outro país. O comércio proporciona às pessoas uma maior seleção de bens e serviços para escolher e muitas vezes esses bens estão disponíveis a preços inferiores aos da economia doméstica.
O comércio internacional é o sistema pelo qual os países trocam bens e serviços. Os países negociam uns com os outros para obter coisas que são de melhor qualidade, menos caras ou simplesmente diferentes daquelas que são produzidas em casa.
Quais são os benefícios do comércio internacional?
Para se tornarem mais ricos, os países querem usar seus recursos naturais - terra, trabalho, capital e empreendedorismo - da maneira mais eficiente. No entanto, existem diferenças entre os países na quantidade, qualidade e custo desses recursos. As vantagens que um país tem podem variar de acordo com o seguinte.
Minerais abundantes Clima adequado para a agricultura Força de trabalho bem treinada Novas ideias inovadoras Infraestrutura altamente desenvolvida, como boas estradas, sistemas de telecomunicação, etc.
Em vez de tentar produzir tudo sozinhos, os países muitas vezes se concentram em produzir coisas que podem produzir com mais eficiência. Eles então trocam os por outros bens e serviços. Ao fazer isso, tanto o país quanto o mundo se tornam mais ricos.
Considere o seguinte exemplo:
Duas economias, a Cotton Land e a Wood Land, têm os mesmos recursos e produzem tecidos e móveis.

Críticas às Formas Atuais de Livre Comércio.
Autor e informações da página.
por Anup Shah Esta página: globalissues / article / 40 / criticisms-of-current-forms-of-free-trade. Para imprimir todas as informações (por exemplo, notas laterais expandidas, mostra links alternativos), use a versão de impressão: globalissues / print / article / 40.
O surgimento do capitalismo representa uma cultura que, em muitos aspectos, é a mais bem-sucedida já implantada em termos de acomodar um grande número de indivíduos em relativo e absoluto conforto e luxo. Não foi tão bem sucedido, no entanto, em integrar todos em igual medida, e seu fracasso aqui permanece em seus principais problemas. Ele resolveu os problemas de alimentar um grande número de pessoas (embora certamente não todos), e proporcionou avanços sem precedentes em saúde e medicina (mas, novamente, não para todos). Promoveu o desenvolvimento de instrumentos tecnológicos incrivelmente complexos e fomentou um nível de comunicação global sem precedentes. Ele uniu as pessoas em atividades comuns, como não tem outra cultura. No entanto, continua a ser visto quando o balanço é calculado se o capitalismo representa o epítome do progresso que alguns afirmam.
Richard H. Robbins, Problemas Globais e a Cultura do Capitalismo (Allyn e Bacon, 1999), pp. 11-12.
Uma forma de globalização e comércio global, onde todas as nações prosperam e se desenvolvem justa e equitativamente, é provavelmente o que a maioria das pessoas gostaria de ver.
É comum ouvir falar do sistema econômico mundial atual como livre comércio ou globalização. Alguns descrevem os eventos históricos que levaram ao livre comércio global de hoje e o sistema existente como inevitável. A ex-primeira ministra do Reino Unido, Margaret Thatcher, era famosa por seu acrônimo TINA. No entanto, como discutido na página anterior do Neoliberalismo, o sistema mundial moderno quase não foi inevitável. Em vez disso, vários fatores, como decisões políticas, poder militar, guerras, processos imperiais e mudanças sociais ao longo das últimas décadas e séculos puxaram o sistema mundial em várias direções. O sistema econômico mundial atual é resultado de tais processos. O poder é sempre um fator.
O capitalismo tem sido bem sucedido na promoção da inovação tecnológica, na promoção da iniciativa e na criação de riqueza (e aumento da pobreza). Muitos economistas concordam que, em geral, o capitalismo pode ser um poderoso motor para o desenvolvimento. Mas interesses políticos e formas específicas de capitalismo podem ter resultados diferentes. O capitalismo monopolista da era colonial, por exemplo, foi muito destrutivo. Da mesma forma, há uma crescente crítica ao modelo atual de neoliberalismo liderado por corporações e sua versão da globalização e do capitalismo que resultou. Essa crítica vem de muitas áreas, incluindo muitas, muitas ONGs, governos de nações em desenvolvimento e cidadãos comuns.
Nesta página:
Ideologia Simplista; Retórica versus Realidade.
O livre comércio e os mercados livres são essencialmente sobre facilitar o comércio ao permitir que o mercado equilibre necessidades, oferta e demanda. Dentro de uma nação, pode ser um motor positivo para o desenvolvimento. Com o fim da Guerra Fria, políticos, economistas e outros têm promovido o livre comércio irrestrito e a ideologia do livre mercado, empurrando-o para uma arena internacional ainda mais ampla para facilitar o comércio internacional. (Embora, como será sugerido abaixo, o sistema atual em sua realidade dificilmente seja o livre comércio que as teorias descrevem.)
Embora essas não sejam ideias novas, seu ressurgimento nas últimas décadas levou a nomear a ideologia como neoliberalismo. Richard Robbins, citado acima, também resume (p.100) alguns dos princípios orientadores dessa ideologia, que incluem:
Crescimento econômico sustentado como o caminho para o progresso humano Mercados livres sem interferência do governo permitem a alocação mais eficiente e socialmente ideal de recursos A globalização econômica é benéfica para todos A privatização remove ineficiências do setor público Os governos devem funcionar principalmente para fornecer a infra-estrutura para avançar a regra de direito com respeito a direitos de propriedade e contratos.
Idéias como o fato de os mercados estarem se equilibrando para suprir a oferta e a demanda, enquanto aumentam a propensão para aqueles que participam livremente, soam muito atraentes, em teoria. No entanto, há preocupações crescentes que vão para o coração do próprio sistema, como,
E a realidade da atual forma de globalização, comparada com a teoria? Como isso afetou vários segmentos da sociedade em todo o mundo? Qual foi o impacto no meio ambiente? É mesmo o livre comércio? Como as funções do poder e da política (que não podem ser ignoradas) afetaram o processo de globalização? Será que os antigos poderes imperiais conseguiram (intencionalmente ou não) conceber uma maneira mais sofisticada de se apropriar da riqueza do mundo?
Muitos no mundo em desenvolvimento foram bem-vindos às ideias da globalização, mas também estão atentos às realidades. Por exemplo, em 16 de novembro de 2000, durante uma palestra no Museu Britânico, Nelson Mandela disse: “Saudamos o processo de globalização. É inescapável e irreversível. No entanto, acrescentou, para que a globalização crie uma paz e estabilidade reais em todo o mundo, deve ser um processo que beneficie a todos. Não deve permitir que os países economicamente e politicamente mais poderosos dominem e submergam os países das regiões mais frágeis e periféricas. Não deveria ser permitido drenar a riqueza dos países menores para os maiores, ou aumentar a desigualdade entre regiões mais ricas e mais pobres. Esses tipos de preocupações deram origem a muitas críticas à atual forma de globalização e deram um nome ruim ao livre comércio e ao capitalismo de livre mercado em vários círculos.
Robbins continua apontando algumas das suposições feitas para apoiar a ideologia do neoliberalismo:
Os seres humanos são motivados pelo interesse próprio, ganância, etc, expressos melhor através da busca de ganhos financeiros Ações que resultam em maiores ganhos financeiros beneficiam a sociedade mais comportamento competitivo é mais racional para os indivíduos do que cooperação, portanto sociedades devem ser estruturadas em torno deste motivo pelo aumento do consumo materialista e, portanto, cada vez mais o consumo deve ser favorecido.
Existem elementos nos pressupostos acima, que alguns chamam de darwinismo social ou outros descreveram como sobrevivência do mais apto, em um sentido literal, às sociedades humanas. Ainda,
A cooperação é também, muitas vezes, um mecanismo de sobrevivência, tal como a concorrência, e por vezes estes podem andar de mãos dadas ou mesmo sobrepor-se (por exemplo, cooperação dentro de uma espécie ou grupo, mas competição com outros). Embora não haja dúvidas sobre os elementos de interesse próprio na natureza humana, há também elementos de cooperação devido à necessidade percebida de uma sociedade estável na qual se possa viver. (E a cooperação também antecede a civilização moderna e também pode ser vista em sociedades de caçadores-coletores, como apontado por antropólogos, como Robbins, citado acima, e Jared Diamonds, autor de Guns, Germs and Steel (WW Norton & Company). , 1997).
Nota lateral sobre armas, germes e aço.
É interessante notar que o livro de Diamonds recebeu muita atenção no mainstream e até ganhou um prêmio. Seu livro foi de fato uma leitura interessante. Sua premissa básica era que a geografia era o principal determinante de como várias sociedades se desenvolveram e por que algumas foram pobres como resultado e outras cresceram. Periódicos como a revista Foreign Policy (esqueci-me da questão exata em 2001) gostaram disso, talvez porque colocassem menos peso nas críticas às configurações atuais de poder e economia e colocassem toda a culpa nem mesmo nos pobres, mas onde vivem.
No entanto, é interessante notar a pesada crítica de Guns, Germs and Steel, da Diamonds, ao tentar descrever a história do mundo e seu uso do determinismo ambiental sobre como chegamos onde temos hoje.
Para um exemplo de crítica profunda de seu trabalho, ver, por exemplo, Oito historiadores eurocêntricos, por J. M. Blaut (Guilford Press, 2000), um professor de geografia premiado. Por exemplo, entre outras coisas, ele cobra diamantes de empregar.
a má ciência geografia errada, teorias amplamente disputadas e até mesmo desacreditadas como fato usando teorias que foram rejeitadas vigorosamente pelos geógrafos antes de meados do século XX (p.15).
O livro de Blaut faz parte de um volume chamado The Colonizer’s Model of the World.
Ele detalha como nossa compreensão e interpretação da história ainda é influenciada pelo pensamento da era colonial e imperial, que em última análise mostra de várias maneiras como a Europa ou pessoas de ascendência européia foram de alguma forma dotadas de melhores qualidades ou melhor ambiente que as levou a se desenvolverem e outras a estagnar. . Seu livro acima mencionado, por exemplo, analisa os historiadores conservadores e marxistas que sustentam o que ele descreve como uma visão eurocêntrica da história mundial; que, em última análise, os avanços históricos avançam para a Europa e, em particular, o noroeste da Europa. No primeiro livro em seu volume, Difusionismo Geográfico e História Eurocêntrica (Guilford Press, 1993), ele detalha como, antes do início do colonialismo, várias partes do mundo mostraram níveis semelhantes de desenvolvimento que a Europa teve, incluindo China, Índia, partes da África, e que eles não estavam mostrando sinais de estagnação, e alguns até mostravam sinais de economias de mercado iniciais e até mesmo sinais precoces de trabalho assalariado, assim como a Europa. Ele sugere, em vez disso, consistente com muitos no terceiro mundo, especialmente, que o colonialismo e a riqueza saqueados das Américas foram a principal razão pela qual o Ocidente cresceu mais rapidamente do que outras regiões.
Mas sobre a questão da cooperação em sociedades anteriores, parece não haver críticas.
Além disso, a definição de progresso e sucesso é medida em termos materiais, e outras preocupações, como questões ambientais, ou perspectivas humanas de riqueza emocional ou bem-estar social, não são necessariamente consideradas. Por exemplo,
Culturas diferentes também têm um significado diferente de progresso e pobreza, etc., como sugerido na seção de pobreza deste site. Exportar a definição de uma cultura por meio de tal ideologia pode arriscar causar problemas à sociedade, se não for feito de maneira aberta e democrática. (Veja Stiglitz, mencionado acima, para mais detalhes de por que instituições como o FMI e o Banco Mundial não estão fazendo isso de uma forma muito democrática, mesmo que seja reivindicado. Veja também, por exemplo, o False Dawn de John Gray: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, The New Press, 1998. Gray foi um influente pensador político conservador, influenciando Margaret Thatcher e a Nova Direita na Grã-Bretanha, mas argumentou que a atual forma de capitalismo global não é um processo que ocorre naturalmente, mas um imposta pelo projeto político anglo-americano, onde o mercado se tornou tão distante da sociedade e não atende às suas necessidades, este projeto está fadado ao insucesso que ele sugere, as culturas que percebem que o mercado funciona melhor quando está embutido na sociedade a chance pelos países poderosos é provável que tenha sucesso.) Preocupações ambientais normalmente não são levadas em consideração diretamente. Argumenta-se que o ambiente se beneficiará indiretamente, porque o mesmo processo de ganância individual criará mercados que tratam de problemas ambientais. No entanto, isso cria empregos desnecessários (que também usam mais recursos) porque o desenvolvimento sustentável que não teria que afetar adversamente o meio ambiente, em primeiro lugar, seria uma forma mais eficiente de desenvolvimento. A seção deste site, que analisa mais profundamente o consumismo e o consumo, destaca como os interesses econômicos não combinam ou atendem às preocupações ambientais ou às necessidades humanas e também levam ao desperdício de trabalho.
Esses aspectos adicionais também são descritos neste vídeo criativo do autor e pensador social, Jeremy Rifkin. Ele argumenta que não somos necessariamente movidos por agressão, violência, interesse próprio e utilitarismo (que também resulta em narcisismo e materialismo), mas que somos flexíveis em relação à sociabilidade, apego, afeição, companheirismo e o desejo de pertencer.
A falta de empatia com outros seres humanos, animais e meio ambiente significa que trazemos o pior de nós, e não o melhor, ele insinua, já que somos, em última análise, todos iguais.
Além disso, e muito importante, aqueles que são mais ricos tendem a exercer mais poder e influência econômica e política. Conseqüentemente,
Líderes e elites de nações poderosas ou segmentos da sociedade são mais capazes de exercer suas influências, se necessário. Isso pode acontecer não apenas em lugares onde o Estado de Direito e instituições fortes estão faltando, mas também nas sociedades mais democráticas. a influência pode ser sutil, ou parecer distante, porque pode não afetar tanto a sociedade local quanto as pessoas do outro lado do mundo. Portanto, o que pode ser promovido no interesse de alguma elite política e empresarial pode não ser necessariamente o mesmo que os interesses da sociedade em geral e também pode distorcer os mercados Conforme explicado na seção de corporações deste site, a ascensão das corporações incluiu dar-lhes os direitos que os indivíduos comuns têm. Isso permitiu que poder e influência ainda mais concentrados fossem exercidos.
O uso de influência política inclui o uso das forças armadas também, se necessário. Esse uso e abuso de poder existe ao longo da história. A diplomacia do barco de guerra, por exemplo, era uma tática comum do Império Britânico para forçar a abertura de outros países ao comércio em termos favoráveis ​​ao Império. O poder militar também contribuiu para os processos nas atuais formas de globalização. (Veja, por exemplo, o Institute for Economic Democracy para mais detalhes sobre este aspecto.)
Influências similares de poder deram origem a políticas desastrosas do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) e do Banco Mundial, como os Programas de Ajustamento Estrutural que forçaram os países pobres a cortar gastos com saúde e educação, por exemplo, conforme discutido em detalhes sobre isso. local na rede Internet. Essas coisas, combinadas com as regras contenciosas da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), formam uma espinha dorsal da globalização atual. Como J. W. Smith, do Institute for Economic Democracy, sugere que isso mantém regras de comércio desiguais e, em última análise, continua a aprofundar a desigualdade, a pobreza e a exploração. (Para mais informações sobre essa perspectiva, consulte a seção deste site sobre ajuste estrutural.)
Antigo mercantilismo bem vestido hoje?
Argumenta-se que a forma como os países mais poderosos têm pressionado por várias políticas implica que o processo de globalização é uma repetição contínua de processos mercantilistas vistos ao longo da história.
A riqueza das antigas cidades-estado de Veneza e Gênova baseava-se em suas poderosas marinhas e em tratados com outras grandes potências para controlar o comércio. Isso evoluiu para nações que projetavam suas políticas comerciais para interceptar a riqueza de outros (mercantilismo). Ocasionalmente, um país poderoso superaria o outro por meio da interceptação de sua riqueza, através de uma guerra comercial, de uma guerra encoberta ou de uma guerra quente; mas os países mais fracos e menos desenvolvidos geralmente perdem nessas trocas. É o poder militar dos países mais desenvolvidos que lhes permite ditar os termos de troca e manter relações desiguais.
Nesse contexto, a Guerra Fria, por exemplo, pode ser vista como uma batalha sobre as diferenças em como os recursos seriam usados ​​para desenvolver um país; A maioria das colônias que se libertaram e depois da Primeira e Segunda Guerra Mundial tentavam, muitas vezes, simplesmente desenvolver suas nações. Como as potências imperiais deveriam perder, elas freqüentemente clamavam por comunismo e usavam isso como justificativas para ação militar ou embargos comerciais, derrubando regimes democráticos em potencial em favor de ditaduras mais estáveis ​​e outros regimes maleáveis.
Adam Smith, em seu clássico de 1776, A riqueza das nações, (muitas vezes considerado como uma bíblia do capitalismo) era altamente crítico das práticas mercantilistas das nações ricas:
Embora o estímulo à exportação e o desestímulo à importação sejam os dois grandes motores pelos quais o sistema mercantil propõe enriquecer todos os países, ainda assim, no que diz respeito a algumas commodities, parece seguir um plano oposto: desestimular a exportação e estimular a importação. Seu objetivo final, no entanto, é sempre o mesmo, para enriquecer o país pela balança comercial vantajosa. Desencoraja a exportação dos materiais de manufatura e dos instrumentos de comércio, a fim de dar uma vantagem aos nossos operários e permitir-lhes subvencionar os de outras nações em todos os mercados estrangeiros; e restringindo, dessa maneira, a exportação de algumas poucas mercadorias sem grande preço, propõe uma exportação muito maior e mais valiosa de outras. Encoraja a importação dos materiais de manufatura para que nosso próprio povo possa trabalhá-los de forma mais barata, evitando assim uma importação maior e mais valiosa dos produtos manufaturados. (Enfase adicionada)
Adam Smith, Riqueza das Nações, Livro IV, Capítulo VIII (Everyman’s Library, Sixth Printing, 1991), p.577.
Lendo o exposto, poderíamos dizer que políticas como o ajuste estrutural, certos tipos de regras e processos da OMC, etc, também são mercantilistas. Somos constantemente informados de que vivemos em um mundo de capitalismo global de livre comércio, e ainda assim vemos que enquanto os mercados livres são pregados (em nome de Adam Smith), o mercantilismo ainda parece ser praticado.
William Appleman Williams descreve o mercantilismo em seu zênite: o mundo foi definido como conhecido e finito, um princípio acordado pela ciência e pela teologia. Portanto, o principal modo de uma nação promover ou alcançar sua própria riqueza e felicidade era tirá-los de algum outro país.
Quando a injustiça do mercantilismo foi entendida, tornou-se muito embaraçosa e foi substituída pelo comércio livre supostamente justo de Adam Smith. Mas o livre comércio, como praticado por Adam Smith, os neo-mercantilistas estava longe de ser um comércio justo. O livre comércio desigual de Adam Smith é pouco mais que uma filosofia para a monopolização sutil e contínua do processo produtor de riquezas, em grande parte pela contínua privatização dos bens comuns tanto da economia interna quanto das economias de nações fracas na periferia dos impérios comerciais. Enquanto as nações fracas pudessem ser forçadas a aceitar os ofícios desiguais do comércio livre de Adam Smith, estariam entregando sua riqueza aos centros-de-capital-imperial de livre e espontânea vontade. Em suma, o comércio livre de Adam Smith, conforme estabelecido pelos neo-mercantilistas, era apenas mercantilismo escondido sob o disfarce do livre comércio.
Claro, hoje também é um pouco mais complicado. Temos, por exemplo, produtos sendo exportados dos países mais pobres (embora alguns enfrentem altas barreiras nos países ricos). No entanto, com o trabalho sendo pago menos do que seus salários justos nas nações mais pobres, a riqueza ainda é acumulada pelas nações mais ricas. Embora possa parecer que o livre comércio está ocorrendo, a riqueza que é acumulada pelos países mais ricos sugere que este ainda é o antigo processo de mercantilismo sendo repetido; um sistema que Adam Smith criticou muito.
As ramificações geopolíticas e econômicas são de longo alcance. Os processos de luta pelo controle e dominação da riqueza e do poder continuaram bem neste século, mesmo quando estamos acostumados a acreditar que os caminhos mais antigos desapareceram. Como mencionado na seção geopolítica deste site, e na página anterior sobre o neoliberalismo, as guerras ao longo da história tipicamente tiveram o comércio, os recursos e os sistemas políticos voltados para o jogo do poder. J. W. Smith destaca bem como, por exemplo, os EUA romperam com o domínio colonial britânico, reconhecendo a injustiça e aspereza nas políticas da Grã-Bretanha Imperial. No entanto, os EUA assumiram esse papel e estão fazendo as mesmas coisas que os britânicos fizeram aos outros:
Logo após a Guerra de 1812 ter sido travada para derrotar as práticas comerciais mercantilistas britânicas, o estadista americano Henry Clay apontou para a necessidade de os Estados Unidos desenvolverem uma capacidade defensiva citando um líder britânico,
As nações sabiam, assim como nós, o que queríamos dizer com o livre comércio não era nada mais nem menos do que, por meio da grande vantagem que desfrutamos, obter o monopólio de todos os seus mercados para nossas manufaturas e evitar eles, um e todos, de sempre se tornarem nações de manufatura.
Esse é um dos aspectos mais importantes da história e é convenientemente ignorado.
J. W. Smith, Wasted Wealth 2 do mundo, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 123
E com o sistema global mais complexo e sofisticado de hoje, talvez seja mais difícil ver esses aspectos em jogo, especialmente nas regiões do mundo que se beneficiaram do sistema atual. J. W. Smith também capta esse aspecto muito bem:
Embora nos primeiros anos os agentes do poder soubessem que estavam destruindo as ferramentas de produção dos outros (capital industrial) na batalha contínua pelo território econômico, o comércio agora se tornou tão complexo que poucos dos poderosos de hoje estão cientes dos resíduos e da destruição criados pela continuação desta luta neo-mercantilista pelos mercados. Em vez disso, eles sentem que são eles os responsáveis ​​pelos melhores padrões de vida do mundo e que eles estão defendendo não apenas seus direitos, mas os direitos de todos.
Essa ilusão é possível porque, na batalha para monopolizar as ferramentas produtivas da sociedade e a riqueza que elas produzem, o capital industrial tornou-se tão produtivo que - mesmo que o capital, os recursos e o trabalho sejam indiscriminadamente consumidos - os padrões de vida nas nações subcapitalizadas continuaram melhorar. E as sociedades estão tão acostumadas a longas lutas por melhores padrões de vida que pensar que isso poderia ser feito muito mais rápido parece irracional.
J. W. Smith, Wasted Wealth 2 do mundo, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 158
S. Brian Willson, um veterano da Guerra do Vietnã dos EUA, agora um ativista da paz destaca muito bem esse aspecto, em termos de como alguns problemas globais acabam sendo tratados pelos detentores do poder:
O mais bem decorado general do Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais da história dos EUA, Smedley D. Butler compreendeu muito bem a real natureza do Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais dos EUA e a política externa dos EUA em geral quando se aposentou em 1931 que durante seus 33 anos como oficial dos fuzileiros navais. operando em três continentes, ele serviu como um homem musculoso de alta classe para o Big Business, para Wall Street e os banqueiros ... um gangster para o capitalismo [Smedley D. Butler, Forças Armadas da América, Parte 2, Common Sense, vol. 4, n. 11 (novembro de 1935)]. Mas parece que essa compreensão é facilmente esquecida. General A. M. Gray, ex-comandante do Corpo de Fuzileiros Navais dos EUA, em 1990, identificou ameaças aos Estados Unidos como resultado da crescente insatisfação do mundo subdesenvolvido com a diferença entre países ricos e pobres, criando um terreno fértil para insurgências que têm o potencial de prejudicar a estabilidade regional. e nosso acesso a recursos econômicos e militares vitais (Marine Corps Gazette, maio de 1990). Gray compreende os problemas sociais e econômicos estruturais, mas aparentemente não lhe ocorre que a solução seja abordar diretamente as injustiças, em vez de perpetuá-las com o uso da força militar.
The ramification of all this is that the current global system, which takes on various names such as globalization, free market capitalism, free trade, etc may not actually be the free trade or free market capitalism that people like Adam Smith started promoting some 200 years back, even though various power holders and major institutions may claimed it to be.
Adam Smith was highly critical of big government , which we often hear criticism of today (some very valid, for sure). However, less common is how highly critical he was of the undue power and influence of big business as well (which is briefly introduced on this site’s corporations section).
Neo-mercantilism may be a more appropriate name for the system, rather than free trade.
This issue of the current globalization process being a continued mercantilist process of monopoly capitalism could be a significant point, on things like whether people are really anti-capitalist, or anti corporate-led globalization. It even raises the question of whether or not the current system can even be called free trade.
While many who support the current forms of globalization may genuinely believe that the globalization process is free trade, it seems to be more of the older monopoly capitalism, or mercantilism. Hence, one could still be anti corporate-led globalization but for a more cooperative or democratic capitalism. This also raises questions on the difference between free trade in theory and what is trumpeted today as free trade. A lot of criticisms from all angles of society seem to be directed more at the realities and the effects. Because free trade is preached but mercantilism/monopoly capitlism is perhaps being practised, this suggests that the theory of free trade itself may still have some valuable insights to offer that shouldn’t necessarily be rejected automatically just because the phrase free trade has gained such a negative reputation in many segments of society. There are some decent points in the free trade theories — as well as valid criticisms. This site too in places uses the term free trade in the more rhetorical sense, trying to look more at the reality. This is also partly because a lot of this section was written early on when this distinction was not made, though use of terms withstanding, the points made still hold.
Growing criticisms.
Globalisation is institutionalising a new balance of power between states that hardens the sovereignty of some while reducing the autonomy of the others. The worldwide free market accentuates the disparity between the centres of capital and the peripheries. The players with knowledge and power lay down the rules; the others fall into line.
Noelle Burgi and Philip S. Golub, The States we are in, Le Monde Diplomatue, April 2000.
There is something to be said about markets and capitalism as being positive engines. But when comparing reality and theory, they are far apart. First we will look at some criticisms we often hear, then we will see some trends in critue of these criticisms from the likes of the Economist and suggest that the reality is far from rhetoric or theory.
Blind Allegiance to Ideology.
As will be seen in the protests section on this site, there is growing vocal concern around the world at the negative impacts that the current form of globalization is having on people’s lives. The mounting criticisms against current neoliberal policies and ideology are in face of the existing realities versus the almost utopian theory.
Amongst a growing chorus of dissent are also some influential economists who have occassionally been heard in the mainstream. One example is Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, former Chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors and Nobel prize winner (basically a good authority on the issue!), and another is Paul Krugman a well-known economist who writes columns in the New York Times . On various issues, they too have been critical of numerous aspects of corporate-led globalization.
As one example of the critue, consider this lengthy quote from the Nation magazine on Joseph Stiglitz:
Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent, and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz’s stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences. In his new book, Globalization and Its Discontents (Norton), Stiglitz argues that many of the complaints voiced by protesters in recent years — that IMF structural adjustment programs have caused widespread suffering; that free-trade agreements mainly benefit the rich; that privatization has proved disastrous in many countries — have a solid basis in fact. Unless the rules of global capitalism are radically altered, he warns, the gap between the world’s rich and poor, and hence the social conditions that have fueled instability in places like Pakistan, will not go away anytime soon.
… Asked once what developing countries should do with the annual reports the IMF prepares on member nations, Stiglitz recommended picking it up, saying thank you very much and dropping it straight in the garbage can.
… To some degree, the mounting criticism from Stiglitz and other quarters has had an impact. IMF officials recently acknowledged the potential risks of capital market liberalization, and both the IMF and World Bank have begun speaking more openly about debt relief and poverty reduction. But while the rhetoric has changed, Stiglitz maintains that a doctrinaire ideology of free-market fundamentalism continues to shape policy. The IMF and World Bank are pushing developing countries to privatize their pension systems, for example, which is highly controversial in the First World. The IMF demanded fiscal austerity in Argentina, where unemployment had reached 20 percent and, in December, sparked riots that led to the government’s collapse. It preaches the gospel of free trade to developing countries--even though most Western countries built their economies by protecting certain industries and continue to subsidize some domestic producers. The blind push to privatize and deregulate has not only failed to fuel sustainable development, Stiglitz contends, but reflects an idealized vision of how markets function that neither economic theory nor concrete experience supports.
… Stiglitz has done more to damage the IMF’s reputation than any other living economist.
Eyel Press, Rebel With a Cause, The Nation, June 10, 2002.
In March 2003, the IMF itself admitted in a paper that globalization may actually increase the risk of financial crisis in the developing world. Globalization has heightened these risks since cross-country financial linkages amplify the effects of various shocks and transmit them more quickly across national borders the IMF notes and adds that, The evidence presented in this paper suggests that financial integration should be approached cautiously, with good institutions and macroeconomic frameworks viewed as important. In addition, they admit that it is hard to provide a clear road-map on how this should be achieved, and instead it should be done on a case by case basis. This would sound like a move slightly away from a one size fits all style of prescription that the IMF has been long criticized for.
As mentioned on the structural adjustment page on this web site, and as many critics have said for a long time, opening up poorer countries in an aggressive manner can leave them vulnerable to large capital volatility and outflows. Reuters , reporting on the IMF report also noted that the IMF sounded more like its critics when making this admission.
In theory there may indeed be merit to various arguments supporting global integration and cooperation. But politics, corruption, geopolitics, as well as numerous other factors need to be added to economic models, which could prove very difficult. As suggested in various parts of this site, because economics is sometimes separated from politics and other major issues, theory can indeed be far from reality.
Additional concerns and criticisms have from a variety of people for many years, and common themes include:
Increasing Unaccountable Concentration of Power and Decision-Making.
There has been growing concern at the increasing corporate power and their influence in the industrialized countries and international trade agreements, while their accountability is very small.
Furthermore, some international organizations and treaties are leading to erosion of influential decision-making from publicly elected governments to privately owned corporations. For example.
Some even call large transnational corporations and their drive to open up markets around the world as the modern form of colonialism. Specific policies such as structural adjustment are criticized for undermining national sovereignty.
Argentina is a vivid example.
Environmental Degradation.
The effect on the environment is argued to be detrimental due to the over-consumption/throw-away model of most developed nations not allowing for much sustainable development.
For more on this aspect, see also this site’s sections on.
Eroding Worker’s Rights.
The stability of jobs, is feared to continue to fall as less regulation in the pursuit of free trade means that corporations can easily move from country to country in search of cheapest costs (and labor forces are often very expensive).
This also results in first world hostility to third world people in some ways, whilst also resulting in attempts at protectionist policies.
Brain drain from poor countries to rich countries.
There is the phenomena of brain drain whereby the poor countries educate some of their population to key jobs such as medical areas and other professions only to find that some rich countries try to attract them away. The prestigious journal, British Medical Journal (BMJ) sums this up in the title of an article: Developed world is robbing African countries of health staff (Rebecca Coombes, BMJ , Volume 230, p.923, April 23, 2005.) In a way, this is a form of subsidy for the rich!
Some countries are left with just 500 doctors each with large areas without any health workers of any kind. A shocking one third of practicing doctors in UK are from overseas, for example, as the BBC reports.
And yet, this is not just a problem Africa faces, but many other poor countries, such as various Asian countries, Central and Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Caribbean, etc. Other industries also suffer this issue. Yet, at the same time, it is understandable that individuals would want to escape the misery of poverty and corruption in their own country. A lot of the poverty and corruption results from structural adjustment programs and the current corporate globalization, which then contributes to this brain drain, thus twisting the knife in the back, so to speak, as some of what little rich countries allow the poor to spend on health is now lost to the already rich, and the poor have to bear the burden. (See this site’s section on structural adjustment for more on how the rich dictate to the poor how to structure their economies and run their countries.)
See also brain drain from this site for more details and statistics.
Protectionism For The Rich, Open Markets For The Poor.
Another concern is that most developing nations complain that the western nations themselves are very protectionist but want the developing countries to completely remove barriers to free trade which would cause an imbalance in the favor of the industrialized countries. While there have been recent statements to address such concerns, nothing has really happened. This further suggests that the current world system being pushed is not free trade in the sense that is typically understood. Por exemplo,
Europe and North America have long been criticized of subsidizing their farmers billions of dollars and making it harder for poorer countries to export to these markets. Aid to poor countries is dwarfed by the effects of First World subsidies, third world debt, and Unequal Trade Recently in the I. T. industry in the U. S. and some parts of Europe, there has been a growing trend to outsource development efforts to poorer countries that have a well-educated, high technology, work force, such as India and China. On the one hand this has been because the rich countries have pressured the poor countries in past decades as well as recent years to open up their markets and liberalize further, but then protectionist policies result from the backlash in the wealthier countries as workers see the possibility of job losses and gain sympathetic senators and political leaders. For the poor countries this is hypocrisy, and for the ordinary workers in the first world, they risk their livelihoods. In the meanwhile, although companies point out they need to off source to remain competitive, in some circumstances they benefit either way, because higher costs of first world workers could be passed on to consumers if all companies face the same regulations and are forced to employ first world workers under certain conditions. This ties into the job stability issue raised further above. There are many, many more examples, some of which are discussed in the following pages on this web site: Foreign Aid for Development Assistance Deregulation or Protectionism?
Prize-winning author and Indian activist, Arundhati Roy, also captures some of the stark contradictions implying that what is called free trade globalization is hardly free trade:
In the new era, Apartheid as formal policy is antuated and unnecessary. International instruments of trade and finance oversee a complex system of multilateral trade laws and financial agreements that keep the poor in their Bantustans anyway. Its whole purpose is to institutionalise inequity. Why else would it be that the U. S. taxes a garment made by a Bangladeshi manufacturer 20 times more than it taxes a garment made in the U. K.? Why else would it be that countries that grow 90 per cent of the world’s cocoa bean produce only 5 per cent of the world’s chocolate? Why else would it be that countries that grow cocoa bean, like the Ivory Coast and Ghana, are taxed out of the market if they try and turn it into chocolate? Why else would it be that rich countries that spend over a billion dollars a day on subsidies to farmers demand that poor countries like India withdraw all agricultural subsidies, including subsidised electricity? Why else would it be that after having been plundered by colonising regimes for more than half a century, former colonies are steeped in debt to those same regimes, and repay them some $382 billion a year?
Christian Aid produced a video looking at how the current form of free market globalization affected Bolivia. It is an example where the playing field became unequal by introducing privatization of key resources that the poor could not afford otherwise (e. g. water, which, under privatization saw bills skyrockets).
In other areas, such as natural gas resources, multinationals were able to make enormous profit while the nation saw little benefit.
The other aspect, which also questions reality vs. theory is that under the guise of free market economics, the result was monopolization by multinationals in many of these sectors that excluded the enormous poor population and led to the massive popular uprising and eventual ousting of the government.
Free Trade Agreements Often Say Very Little About Trade.
Lori Wallach, Director of Global Trade Watch points out in a video clip (5 minutes, transcript ) that free trade agreements often include very little on trade. Many non-trade issues include patent laws, foreign investment, land purchase rights and many more. Furthermore, the way these agreements are enforced, they provide a kind of protectionism for large companies against poorer countries in particular:
Lori Wallach, Free Trade—How Free Is It?, April 13, 2005, © Big Picture TV.
Increasing Poverty and Inequality For the Majority.
Also argued by many is that only the wealthy nations will benefit, while the poorer ones will suffer the most in this. It will not just be poor people from developing nations, but poor people in industrialized countries too. For example, corporations will be freer to move around and avoid substantial taxes.
The way that the global financial system is structured benefits the core , compared to the periphery . George Soros for example, is worth quoting at length:
The international financial system is broken down in the sense that it fails to provide adequate capital to countries that need it most and qualify for it.
Global financial markets suck most of the world’s savings to the centre, but fail to pump money back out to the periphery. Indeed, since 1997, there has been a reverse flow of capital from countries on the poor periphery of the world economy to those in the wealthy centre.
…In practice, of course, international financial markets never have been left to their own devices. Rich countries, led by the US, are in charge. Their primary task is protecting their own interests. When these nations get into trouble, their authorities intervene forcefully.
Countries that cannot borrow in international markets in their own currency lack that power. They must turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the fund is more concerned with international financial stability than with enabling developing countries to pursue the countercyclical policies needed to avoid recession.
George Soros, The Will to Act Can Save Global Financial System, Business Day (Johannesburg), October 4, 2002 (Reposted by AllAfrica)
Inequalities and gaps between those who have and those who do not is already shown to be rising in these early years of globalization. Former Chilean President, Patricio Aylwin summarizes an aspect of this quite fiercely:
Only poverty has been truly globalized in our age. … The over-praised neo-liberalism and the omnipotent market is a mistaken vision and it is the root cause of some of the most serious problems that afflict us.
Patricio Aylwin, in an address at a U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization conference, November 2001, (quoted from this Yahoo! News report, 5 November 2001)
Neoliberal proponents, including the World Bank and IMF have reports suggesting that globalization is good for the poor.
While some points are obvious, such as that growth improves income for poor people, there are many unquestioned assumptions, some of which include the fact that IMF and World Bank are supposed to be the drivers of these policies (these economic policies and the group that has promoted and pushed them internationally are known as the Washington Consensus), and that the one policy fits all situations. The World Bank for example, reported in March 2000 that globalization is good for the poor. Growth generally does benefit the poor and that anyone who cares about the poor should favor the growth-enhancing polices of good rule of law, fiscal discipline, and openness to international trade, it noted. However, there have been many criticisms about the report for making far too many assumptions and not considering many interrelated issues. (For an example of detailed critue, this following link points to a responding article from the Center for Economic and Policy Research , called Growth May Be Good for the Poor — But are IMF and World Bank Policies Good for Growth?)
In reporting on the March 2002 UN Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, the New York Times described feelings of some leaders on the effects of globalization:
Globalization, or the fast-paced growth of trade and cross-border investment, has done far less to raise the incomes of the world’s poorest people than the leaders had hoped, many officials here say. The vast majority of people living in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East are no better off today than they were in 1989, when the fall of the Berlin Wall allowed capitalism to spread worldwide at a rapid rate.
Rather than an unstoppable force for development, globalization now seems more like an economic temptress, promising riches but often not delivering, in the view of many of the leaders at the United Nations conference.
The reforms that rich countries forced on Africa were supposed to boost economic growth. However, the reality is that imports increased massively while exports went up only slightly. The growth in exports only partially compensated African producers for the loss of local markets and they were left worse off.
A Level Playing Field That Gives More Advantage to the Wealthiest.
Another aspect related to the above is how western nations, want their multinational firms to be treated the same as domestic firms in the foreign countries which they may enter. At first thought, this sounds fair and equitable. However,
When considered from the view that this would mean that a much more established multinational corporation would be able to get treatment that allows them to outsmart the smaller domestic firms, this this sounds less fair and equitable. The discourse of level playing fields are those settings that allow the multinational corporations to dominate; hence, they are the massive proponents of such clauses in international trade and investment agreements. It is not level as such. It would imply that the balance is actually tipped in the favor of these transnational corporations. And, it would make it harder for a nation to help its industries develop (as throughout history, even during neoliberal eras, large government involvement has always been needed to nurture and protect growing industries.) Most mainstream media is dominated by multinationals themselves, so the major source of information for the general public can also be subtly distorted.
Positive or Negative Form of Interdependence?
One of the arguments made for globalization is that the world should move further towards becoming interdependent on one another.
This way, no one will want to war with others, because they depend on each other to keep their economies alive. This sounds like a wonderful solution to prevent future horrors such as the previous two World Wars. The argument probably bears some merits, if there was a truly free trade system which was fair. As argued above, the current global system appears to be more mercantilist. Furthermore, what is often overlooked is that given the current international institutions in place (WTO/IMF/World Bank, etc) who would benefit from the interdependence within the framework of the current form of globalization? It is the large multinational corporations and their governments. The governments of more influential and powerful nations have the ability to impose certain types of interdependence and easily force dependence in their favor if needed, using economic or military pressure. This helps explain why for some nations, even thought the Cold War has ended, their military budgets remain roughly the same. In fact, as pointed out by the Institute for Economic Democracy, many wars throughout history, hot or cold, have had trade, resources and related expansion at their core. History shows us that the more powerful nations have devised international economic agreements that promote more dependency upon those wealthier countries. In a twisted sense then, such an interdependency as implemented would be good for stability of the status quo. Real interdependency on the other hand, that deals with equity and cooperation as well, may have more likelihood of being good for all, but that would be less likely to happen because it would threaten to reduce the influence and power of the wealthier nations and multinational corporations.
Far from some altruistic motive to see those in poor countries improve their lot and thus narrow the gap between rich and poor, globalisation therefore merely serves as an efficient, low-cost method for TNCs [transnational corporations] to take advantage of low taxes, weak regulations and vulnerable labour whilst penetrating the economies of developing countries.
John M. Bunzl, The Simultaneous Policy, An Insider’s Guide to Saving Humanity and the Planet, (New European Publications, 2001), p. 48 For more about the dependencies of the developing countries and how it has come about, visit this site’s structural adjustment section.
Cultural Uniformity and Effects on Other Societies.
There are other subtle, but important impacts, to peoples, societies and cultures. While the current form of globalization has its benefits such as helping open otherwise authoritarian or restrictive societies, the ways in which cultures and societies may be opened can also have an impact, as summarized from this following quotation:
In order for free markets to be free, the exchange of labour, land, currency, and consumer goods must not be encumbered by elements of psychosocial integration such as clan loyalties, village responsibilities, guild or union rights, charity, family obligations, social roles, or religious values. Cultural traditions distort the free play of the laws of supply and demand, and thus must be suppressed. In free market economies, for example, people are expected to move to where jobs can be found, and to adjust their work lives and cultural tastes to the demands of a global market.
Bruce Alexander, The Roots of Addiction in Free Market Society, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, April 2001.
As mentioned in this site’s mainstream media section, in India, for example, one important aspect of globalization, the liberalization of media, had seen some negative effects along side positive. For example, many women found that they faced more violence from their husbands, and lost more of their savings as their husbands bought things they saw on TV rather than save for their children’s education, for example. For companies, marketing got easier: in the past, in terms of demographics, it did not make much sense to talk about the average Indian . Now, with the introduction and dominance of a few large companies there is a significant proportion of Indians who fall into this category. While there appears to be more freedom of material choice, perhaps socially there is a reduction in diversity and an increase in conformity, as a result.
(Also check out this extensive speech from Noam Chomsky on many of these factors. While this speech was delivered in 1994, it is still relevant today.)
The rise in criticisms has created political opportunity for progressive critics of globalization, which, up to September 11, 2001, was certainly growing strongly. Side Note For a while following September 11 and the resulting War on Terror, criticism had been subdued somewhat, both as mainstream politics talked less about globalization and more about terrorism, but also as civil rights were beginning to be clamped down on more so under the cover of this war on terror . For more on this angle, see this site’s section on the war on terrorism.
However, in addition to a rise in progressive criticism, there is also a risk that a reactionary backlash will gain ground from extremists on both the Left and the Right.
Pressure by the wealthier classes to liberalize too quickly.
Often, in countries trying to develop more, in order to maintain equality to some extent, and to offset inflation, various controls are often needed. However, this may often affect the consumption patterns of the wealthier classes. As the affluent members of society face some controls, they and the institutions and corporations that they own will increase the pressure on their government to remove or reduce these controls, increase liberalization (in industries other than their own, of course), open the economy to access a larger variety of goods and so on. Together with western nations encouraging this, it often occurs prematurely. When and if this happens, the majority often lose out. To keep up then, often, large debts are also incurred. (And as debt increases, the measures and adjustments made to repay them affect the poorer further.) As with the global financial crisis when major international institutions reduced their loans, capital flight is a risk.
Ha-Joon Chang, the assistant director of development studies at the prestigious Cambridge University in England has consulted for numerous international agencies at the UN, the World Bank, and the Asian Bank. He makes an observation worth quoting at length:
It would be wrong to describe the advance of neoliberalism in the developing world purely as an imposition from the outside. Neoliberal reforms in these countries had their local defenders from the beginning; over time their number has multiplied and their influence has increased. An increasing number of developing-country companies have carved out positions as subcontractors or intermediaries of transnational corporations (TNCs) based in the developed countries. Moreover, neoliberal reforms have created a vast army of a new professional class that derives a large part of its wealth and power from its ability to understand and articulate the idioms of neoliberalism. This does not simply include the usual suspects , such as fund managers, international lawyers, accountants and management consultants. It also includes those who are working for NGOs financed by the rich country governments and international financial institutions, journalists with foreign links, government officials with experience in the IFIs and, last but not least, academic economists.
Reflecting these developments in the international and national politics of money and power, neoliberalism has established a near-total worldwide intellectual dominance during the last 25 years. In political debate, critics of neoliberalism are routinely dismissed as economically illiterate or worse, as those who are trying to defend their vested interests to the detriment of society—even when they are, say, garment workers in Mexico resisting plant closure or urban poor in Indonesia protesting against cuts in food subsidies. In this way, serious debates are avoided and dissenters systematically excluded.
Ha-Joon Chang, Rethinking Development Economics, (Anthem Press, 2003), p. 2
Defending Free Trade.
In 2001, during the height of free market protests and support, the Economist argued in favor of free markets by looking at some of the points from whom they call anti-globalists (even though some of the criticisms they looked at were not necessarily from those against globalism per se).
Fair wages for the poor will eventually be bad for everyone.
In an Economist article, Globalisation and its critics, September 27 2001, the following is offered in discussion of the issue of quest for profits, regulation, fair wages, etc:
For example, suppose that in the remorseless search for profit, multinationals pay sweatshop wages to their workers in developing countries. Regulation forcing them to pay higher wages is demanded. The biggest western firms concede there might be merit in the idea. But justice and efficiency require a level playing-field. The NGOs, the reformed multinationals and enlightened rich-country governments propose tough rules on third-world factory wages, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that do not comply. Shoppers in the West pay more—but willingly, because they know it is in a good cause. The NGOs declare another victory. The companies, having shafted [British slang for something like betrayed ] their third-world competition and protected their domestic markets, count their bigger profits (higher wage costs notwithstanding). And the third-world workers displaced from locally owned factories explain to their children why the West’s new deal for the victims of capitalism requires them to starve.
What is wrong with this? The answer depends on how you look at it. From one perspective, the economist is right; if we do manage to get fair wages for the exploited, then we risk affecting everyone due to passing on these extra costs to consumers. But, does that suggest we should therefore resign ourselves to continue this exploitation? After all, it does pay those people, even if it is a small amount.
Well, in short, NO! Yet, that is what the Economist and possibly extreme versions of the liberalism ideology seem to hint (although it may be politically incorrect to actually ever say it explicitly).
So how can this seemingly be right and seemingly be wrong? Well, it is the range of discourse within which a point is made that affects how you view this. That is, the assumptions, etc affect perspectives:
If we talk about these wages within the confines of the current implementation of the globalization system, this is perhaps how it has to be. However, let’s just take a tiny step outside and just ask some simple questions such as: why do these corporations have to go outside their own region? why should the poor produce sneakers or other products mostly for export? What good is that going to do them to earn so little money? What good is that money going to do when there is not much else to buy? And so on. We start hitting a major difference in perspective that is at the heart of this.
That is, when we start asking things like why the poor don’t create their own industries, rather than be an extension of multinational’s, then we start to hit a key issue. Por exemplo:
The poor countries ideally have to build their own industries, with their own internal markets etc. With that, they will have their own distribution networks. Right now, they are a source of cheap resources (such as all those cash crops, the export-oriented economies—or mostly resource export-oriented, etc). With poorer nations selling resources and commodities elsewhere such as to wealthy nations, while buying from them the finished products made from those resources and commodities means the poor pay more than what they got! If products can be easily produced within the same region, it leads to better growth in those regions due to multiplying and circulation of wealth. It is worth quoting J. W Smith, again, on what was mentioned on this site’s structural adjustment page:
[I]f a society spends one hundred dollars to manufacture a product within its borders, the money that is used to pay for materials, labor and, other costs moves through the economy as each recipient spends it. Due to this multiplier effect, a hundred dollars worth of primary production can add several hundred dollars to the Gross National Product (GNP) of that country. If money is spent in another country, circulation of that money is within the exporting country. This is the reason an industrialized product-exporting/commodity-importing country is wealthy and an undeveloped product-importing/commodity-exporting country is poor . (Emphasis Added)
Developed countries grow rich by selling capital-intensive (thus cheap) products for a high price and buying labor-intensive (thus expensive) products for a low price. This imbalance of trade expands the gap between rich and poor. The wealthy sell products to be consumed, not tools to produce. This maintains the monopolization of the tools of production, and assures a continued market for the product. [Such control of tools of production is a strategy of a mercantilist process. That control often requires military might.]
J. W. Smith, The World’s Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), pp. 127, 139. A multiplier effect of their money would be created as it circulates around their economy, not around someone else’s (i. e. the TNCs, and other countries) Wealth in the poor country would be created more rapidly. Much of the production and distribution we now see are wasteful of resources, capital and labor in this way because they are largely owned by foreign investors, or influenced heavily by foreign actors. Poorer countries are dependent on export-oriented economies, and much of the production flows to the wealthier regions. (And the effort that goes into maintaining these disparities and keeping real competition from the poor countries at bay is also wasteful.) Addressing this could eliminate much in terms of environmental degradation from distribution (although perhaps be offset by new local (national or regional) industries, which must be countered with alternative/sustainable/less wasteful use of resources, etc.) Free—but somewhat managed—trade between like nations, within regions etc would be beneficial to all involved. Free trade in its current form between unequal nations is itself unequal and continues inequality as a result. Furthermore, the freeing up of labor in wealthy countries through elimination of wasted distribution and wasted capital, combined with efficient job-destroying technologies that we have today, means there would be more unemployment—but that should be used to society’s advantage: we should share remaining productive jobs—that would reduce the workweek for all. This is detailed much more in this web site’s section behind consumption and consumerism.
Of course, other issues will arise and the above glosses over numerous other issues (which links below will address in more detail, or point to sources with much more detail.) Local populations will have to continue to demand fairness and just actions from the new capitalists in the poor countries—such as demanding wages are fair, that environmental and other social standards and concerns are observed and respected, there is no concentration of ownership in land, technology, money and so on, like there currently is in the global sense (which also needs to be addressed).
Some might fear these suggestions, thinking they are communist or something, but they are not. These are all capitalist theories. There is nothing anti-capitalist about this. Instead, it is addressing a key issue of enhancing rights (economic rights) to all . Of course, this is not saying that there should be no international trade whatsoever, but that at least for the development of the current third world, the international setting should be something along the lines of the first world assisting by trading tools that help create industry (what some call tools of production) in those countries. Adam Smith, Henry George and others have all pointed to aspects of this. Of course, politics has meant that some of these theories have been distorted from original intent, or there may even be problems within the original theories. J. W. Smith for example, highlights well that philosophically much of this is possible:
Elimination of poverty is simple:
The impoverishment of the developing world is understandable once one learns how plunder by trade locks the world into violence and war.
Eliminating poverty is not philosophically complicated; Eliminate the monopolization of land, technology, and finance capital and equalize pay for equally productive work, both within internal economies and between trading nations. Once all nations and all people have access to technology and their labor is paid equally for equally productive work, the buying power of labor in different nations, and within nations, will equalize. Eliminating those monopolies will instantly distribute a share of the wealth to all members of society even as economic efficiency increases and produces more wealth. This is a more cooperative and democratic capitalism that will assure all rights for all people.
(J. W. Smith quote above, describes in detail over 800 years of history of plunder by trade that is mentioned above, and how at the world level, the subtle monopolization of land, technology, capital etc have all come about, including the waste of wars and other factors to maintain such systems. Furthermore, he provides details on how society has unwittingly supported what has amounted to plunder of the poorer regions of the world.)
(For more about the waste aspect, also see the latter parts of this site’s section on behind consumption and consumerism, especially the page on waste.)
So, one might naturally ask, if it is this simple why haven’t the poor done this? There is in some respects, a simple answer but one that demands a lot of explanation! The simple answer to this can be found in in things like politics, greed, dominance-politics, etc. For example, international economic institutions like the World Bank and IMF, with the influence of economically and politically powerful nations, have been able to push through policies, which are known to be destructive (as even admitted by former Chief Economist of the World Bank and Nobel prize winner. (See this web site’s section on Structural Adjustment Policies or SAPs, for more including links to article from Joseph Stiglitz (that former Chief Economist) and others on how SAPs creates poverty and destroys any real chance of developing one’s own nation.)
In fact, instead, things like SAPs open up poor countries economy for Foreign Direct Investment , for constructive engagement etc. But these are often constructive for the multinationals, not always for the host country, because there is investment to create sweatshops, constructive engagement to extract resources, and so on. There is little constructive investment in helping these countries build their own industries. So, such investments might look like they create jobs in the poor countries, but compared to the real potential of what the poor countries could achieve, this is very little, and much potential for poverty alleviation instead is lost. And while some mainstream commentators may not like to talk about it, the effects of colonialism etc are still felt—the same countries are still poor; their resources are still plundered away (instead of through force it is now largely through unequal trade). (See also this site’s section on corporations and human rights for more on this issue of constructive engagement.)
Furthermore, the above argument from the Economist lends well to corporations who do not actually wish to engage in competition that will threaten their current success:
Because people everywhere are pretty much equally productive, then factors like access to industry, technology, education etc can enhance that productivity. Structural Adjustment is almost an assault on such things, and the poor are not only poorly paid for the work they already do, but are denied technology, industry, education, health etc, to build their own industries and economies. Furthermore, you get companies closing off in the first world and establishing in the third world, where they can say they are being constructive because they bring technology, know-how etc. However, this is a con; it is not to really and effectively help the poor build their own industries, their own buying power, and their own wealth. Instead, it is a way for companies to reduce costs but with social effects on all sides—the workers of the wealthy country lose out, while workers of the poor get exploited. Because on both sides then ordinary people lose out, and the poor cannot build their own industries etc, as a result, the threat of real competition leads to what J. W. Smith describes aptly as capital destroying capital.
In fact, Adam Smith, who criticizes both big government and concentrated big corporations in his 1776 classic The Wealth of Nations , what some regard as the free trade/capitalism bible, is worth quoting here:
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their good both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, (Everyman’s Library, Sixth Printing, 1991), pp. 87-88.
There are numerous other political factors, and geopolitical/military factors as well, related to the historic struggle and control for resources, and the wars that have revolved around that to maintain such disparities. (The poverty section on this web site introduces many of these angles, with many links to other sites and sources.)
The Economist article doesn’t really consider political aspects in this, and instead uses only some aspects of these capitalist theories, which, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, are not magical or natural forces without alternatives! Regardless of whether or not the theories themselves are sound, or not, or partially, (which is a huge topic unto itself!), they are heavily manipulated by political interests as has always happened throughout history. Hence, while in theory there may be many good points, in reality politics (power play) leads to supporting only those aspects of those theories that fit one’s interests and so rhetoric and reality are far apart.
Effects or Influence on Culture?
In the Economist article, Is globalisation doomed?, September 27, 2001, there is the following mentioned in addressing the impact on culture:
But what about the view that globalisation is a kind of cultural conquest? This too is plainly wrong. Under a market system, economic interaction is voluntary. This is the market’s greatest virtue, greater by far than its superior productivity. So there is no reason to fear that globalisation itself threatens traditional non-western cultures, such as Islam, except in so far as individual freedom threatens them. McDonald’s does not march people into its outlets at the point of a gun. Nike does not require people to wear its trainers on pain of imprisonment. If people buy those things, it is because they choose to, not because globalisation is forcing them to.
What does free choice in this context mean? In a narrow range of discourse , yes, this is a choice one makes. However, in a wider sense, it is not really that much of a choice, because in a wider discourse and debate we would see that other real choices have been denied. For example, think of all those non-choices because there is no internal market allowed to develop, as suggested above; no industry of their own for their own people etc. The WTO, IMF, WB, SAPs, etc. have all help create economic policies have in effect limited the possible choices a nation/region/peoples can make. Hence, within the confines of a limited choice, you have a choice.
There is also the interesting point about McDonalds not using a gun. Again, this depends how you look at it. Of course, McDonalds does not have an army, so in that respect, they are right. But it is of course oversimplified.
For globalism to work, America can’t be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is.… The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. — What the World Needs Now , by Thomas Friedman, New York Times, March 28, 1999.
(Thomas Friedman is a popular columnist in the New York Times , and a very staunch advocate of the current form of globalization.)
Yet, war or, using the old phrase of gun boat diplomacy , can be conducted in many ways — political, economic, and military. That is, the gun has been used by a company’s parent country (part of the foreign policy to help enhance one’s own country). These means have included military, IMF/WB, WTO or some other means. The historic plunder by raid or, now increasingly, by trade, has led to the same effects for the poor. As pointed out in the structural adjustment page, there is immense dependency created upon the poor. Hence, their choices are limited, but within those confines, they have a choice .
Defense Secretary William Cohen, in remarks to reporters prior to his speech at Microsoft Corporation in Seattle, put it this way, [T]he prosperity that companies like Microsoft now enjoy could not occur without having the strong military that we have. … The defense secretary is making the case that conflicts in faraway lands such as Bosnia, Korea and Iraq have a direct effect on the U. S. economy. The billions it costs to keep 100,000 American troops in South Korea and Japan, for example, makes Asia more stable—and thus better markets for U. S. goods. The military’s success in holding Iraq in check ensures a continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, concluded the Associated Press dispatch reporting on Cohen’s Seattle appearance [February 18, 1999].
As mentioned above, one cannot separate politics from economics; to do so would be naive. Politics in this respect includes institutional abuse of power, which affects the purpose for which economic policies are carried out, as well as their effectiveness. (See also the military expansion page on this site for far more on the economic links and purpose of military expansion, and how this has a direct effect on people’s choices far away from us.)
Because most of us in the wealthy world are fortunate to have far more choice, and our politicians keep reminding us that, we instinctively think that what we are therefore doing in other countries has to be offering them a choice as well, because we as individual people are decent at heart. Yet, we often don’t see that our own leaders and institutions will be involved politically around the world to help enhance our national interests which may or may not be in the interests of others. A classic example of this is food charity in non-emergency situations, which has increased world hunger, as detailed on this site’s section on food dumping.
This is a good example of the ideology of neoliberalism taken to an extreme and shutting off the complexities from the discourse. It is naive to assume that politics isn’t a factor. In that light then, choice can be seriously affected.
So, in a way, that people choose the products they purchase, etc. But that choice is not as free as it initially seems; it happens in the surrounding context; what choices have been made available, what choices have been denied or forced out the market (by both market and non-market forces). The Economist used the example of McDonald’s and Nike, two global cultural icons, but didn’t mention any brands from developing nations. It could be argued that they are not mature enough but it can also be added that various international policies, under the name of free markets, have prevented them from competing even-handedly with the established powers. There’s also the geopolitical angle which can be seen on the resource struggle page on the Middle East section on this site. While in a slightly different context, the support of dictators, overthrow of democracies etc is discussed here with links to numerous sources and books for more details.
Is Globalization in its current form imposed on the poor?
In another article by the Economist , All too familiar, September 27, 2001, there is the following in describing similarities and differences in the 1920s for globalism and today where:
One resides in, as he [Harold James, author of The End of Globalisation: Lessons from the Great Depression , Harvard University Press (June 2001).] writes, the difference between an order imposed by treaties and an order built in sustained reflection about appropriate policy — and the gains to be derived from it. In the 1920s internationalism was imposed; after the 1960s it developed, in the main, spontaneously, as a result of calculations about advantage . That seems right, though today’s anti-globalists would deny it. In their view, the Washington consensus is also imposed, selfishly and undemocratically, on unwilling victims. If that were true, the portents really would be bleak.
One can only respond to this by saying that later on, when we look at the protests page, we will see that protests at the effects of the current forms of globalization have occurred around the world for years. Many people, not just what the Economist defines as anti-globalists, but many others have protested because they face the brunt of these policies, and can often see right through them, by virtue of being the recipients of these. (Just as people of ethnic minority will see through policies that are racist, for example, whereas the instigators of that policy may not realize, and where it genuinely may not have been the intention for the policy makers to be racist.)
As mentioned above, SAPs, and other such policies are imposed on the poor. For the wealthy, it might not need to be so imposed, as it is beneficial to them and therefore there may be less need to impose it in the same way, so to speak. (Though some will even point out that in the wealthiest of nations, there are similar policies causing high disparities within those nations as well.) Just because in one culture or a class of people we might not see so much imposition, doesn’t mean that there isn’t that imposition in other cultures or classes (from that dominant culture or class). The previously mentioned page on the resource struggle in the Middle East section on this site, while in a slightly different context, talks of the support of dictators, overthrow of democracies which has gone in hand with globalization, and from that perspective can be seen as examples of imposition.
Economics helps the environment.
In the Economist article, Economic man, cleaner planet, September 27, 2001, the point is made that economic theories, market systems etc are good for the environment.
The title of being economical meaning better environment is almost too obvious. Indeed, Shocking as it may seem to most anti-globalists, market forces can help the environment , says the Economist . Of course, market economies may help create incentives for doing various things too, including incentives to reduce environmental degradation, if appropriate policies are in place, if concerns of people are respected by the large pollution-causing industries, and so on.
But as well as helping, it often does not. climate change and global warming is perhaps the ultimate example where markets have contributed to this problem rather than help the environment. The U. S., the ardent promoter of free markets has also historically been hostile against the Kyoto Protocol to deal with threat of climate change and global warming. For a long time it refused to accept what its own scientists had told the world. Numerous cases appeared where big business interests of the threat of profit loss was found to be influencing decisions affecting the planet. The value of the planet’s biodiversity has rarely been factored into prices, for example, even though the price signal is very important to our functioning economies. To be fair, in these examples, maybe it could be argued that this was a failing of free markets because they weren’t really free markets: free markets perhaps unleashed powerful forces (because they helped some entities become unduly powerful and influential beyond their democratic accountability) and it was these entities that are the problem, not free markets per se.
But, as stated before, power politics directs economic functions, because while economics can be about how best to use money, politics is about the control of that money. Given the earlier points made about political influence, the following also highlights this very well:
In 1991, then Chief Economist for the World Bank Lawrence Summers, (and US Treasury Secretary, in the Clinton Administration, until George Bush and the Republican party came into power), had been a strong backer of structural adjustment policies. He wrote in an internal memo:
Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]?… The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that… Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City… The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand.
Lawrence Summers, Let them eat pollution, The Economist, February 8, 1992. Quoted from Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000) p.65; See also Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 233-236 for a detailed look at this.
Even what appeared in an Economist article, by a foremost pusher of Structural Adjustment, neoliberal globalization, etc we see that politics can affect markets to help or worsen environmental issues.
Furthermore, this gives a further excuse for corporations to prevent refitting factories in the first world with the costly environmentally oriented measures and protections (put in by democratic governments and environmentally oriented citizen pressure — not necessarily free markets by themselves), and move elsewhere where regulations have been reduced or removed. As a result, we may see a relatively cleaner environment in the industrialized world, but it is not all explainable by those nations and their industries being cleaner.
On this site’s section on consumption and consumerism, it has been detailed how many industries use resources efficiently to produce profits. However, if measured from an angle of how well the environment has faired, the efficient use of resources has led to a lot of environmental degradation. Measures like GDPs don’t fully factor in such angles (and are treated as externalities ). Hence, as described on that section, there is a lot of waste in the economy that isn’t accounted for.
What we are seeing here then is economists, politicians, business leaders, etc offering such critue as the above but falling back to their theories , while anti-globalists are generally (not always) crituing the realities . So, in some respects, sometimes, neither are really talking to each other. And yet, there is some critue to be made of some of the anti-globalists too:
First though, it should be pointed out (as we will also see later on in the protests page in this section of this web site) that anti-globalists are not necessarily against globalism and internationalism.
That is, they are not anti-globalists in a strict definition of that term. More accurately, it would seem that they are mostly against the current forms of globalization due to the observed (and in many cases, predicted) effects. This means that some, especially many in academic and intellectual circles, including many from the developing world, may be for capitalism, or at least market-based economies to varying degrees.
While capitalism could be argued as a good way (some may say the only, or the best), there are many forms of capitalism. So, at the least, the current form which is seen as overly corporate-led and/or over competition oriented (i. e. destructive rather than healthy competition) may be criticized, and people may in effect be demanding a more cooperative or democratic capitalism. As mentioned above, it is even suggested that the current form of globalization is a more predatory form of capitalism, such as mercantilism/imperialism, but just nicely dressed up.
But there are also other types of anti-globalists . For example (and not limited to)
Some many indeed be anti-internationalism, isolationist, xenophobic, etc. Others, notably extremist/alarmist environmentalists are often anti international trade for often legitimate (sometimes alarmist) environmental concerns. Other forms of extremism may want to go to pre-agricultural civilization (Although the insights into how pre-agricultural civilizations really lived etc are interesting, and useful to learn from and even apply, but conclusions to go back to it is an extreme conclusion). Others wish to do away with capitalism and may prefer instead communism, anarchism and so on. These all have some valid points and also some questionable ones, just as the current system has such a mix.
Other protestors see the current system being so bad for the poor around the world, and most people in general, that they are passionate enough to raise their voice. But, because it is difficult to read into so many issues it is hard to always offer alternatives that take in all these aspects. Hence, such people may either only offer critue (which is still valid, even if there was somehow no alternative) or may go with whatever organizations they turn to offer them.
Others will also critue capitalism to the core, which may be very valid, while others will critue different aspects.
The point is that not all anti-globalists will even agree on the points above which the Economist tends to say either most, or indicate that all, anti-globalists have as certain beliefs. It is easy to try to break complex issues into more tangible black and white issues, which is a problem, as discussed in the mainstream media section on this site, as well as the protests page later on here. It is a problem because it affects the debates, which in turn risks polarization and animosity, rather than dialogue and understanding. It also influences a large segment of society’s views and opinions.
Of course it is hard to quantify and views and perspectives will continue to change. But one thing noted here is that in all those articles from the Economist , many critues from developing countries were not included. Some of these critues are very, very good, and differ with those from the North in various ways. One can go on and on to show differences, various perspectives, etc. The point then is multi-fold — that for protestors/activists etc, to read as widely as possible and from diverse cultures as well, not just widely within one culture, and for mainstream to listen in detail to these voices, especially from the South. (And, not just governments and other political/business leaders from the South, as many have their education in the Western universities, that teach the same theories. Of course, that is not to say because they got that education they have no credibility, but just that diverse perspectives need to be understood. The education can have an effect on perspectives, such that talking to someone else from another part of the world but who may have studied at the same or similar university, might have the same perspective.)
Another aspect all this touches upon is hinted to when I mentioned the narrow range of discourse . This occurs from cultural and ideological premises etc and is an issue for all societies. In the West, there is a common culture, even though there are differences between countries, and a common ideology to varying degrees is of liberalism, (from where we get powerful concepts such as individual rights etc). An ideology can be taken to an extreme, liberalism being no exception. Individualism can be at the expense of society, rather than combined, for example. In such contexts then, differing explanations can occur.
As a small example, what the Economist doesn’t recognize here are complex things such as excessive and concentrated property rights and monopolies (in a global sense) combined with all the waste that accompanies this in order to maintain the inequalities this results in.
As a result, when the range of discourse debated is limited in the mainstream, it can affect the views of society in general. If the education system itself has this problem as well as mainstream publications, then we get a strange situation where many educated people are more indoctrinated (paraphrasing Noam Chomsky) into these views more easily than those who are not. Noam Chomsky offers an explanation of why this may be so; that they are more exposed to other aspects of mainstream politics, media, newspapers, publications that fortify each other. (Of course, those without appropriate education risk getting criticized for talking about economics) In addition, this glosses many issues, but the links below provide more insights, as does this quote:
One cannot separate economics, political science, and history. Politics is the control of the economy. History, when accurately and fully recorded, is that story. In most textbooks and classrooms, not only are these three fields of study separated, but they are further compartmentalized into separate subfields, obscuring the close interconnections between them.
J. W. Smith, The World’s Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 22
Dr. Nancy Snow, an assistant professor of political science describes one of her previous jobs as being a propagandist for the U. S. Information Agency. She is worth quoting here, in discussion of propaganda and belief systems, which are an integral part of political aspects of economics:
The USIA [United States Information Agency] targets the educated elite [in other countries], despite some negative sentiments, because propaganda is thought to be most effective on the small minority of powerful influential peddlers. As Noam Chomsky explains, One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read more, so they receive more propaganda. Another reason is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia, and therefore work in some capacity as agents of the propaganda system — and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large they're part of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
Nancy Snow, Propaganda Inc; Selling America’s Culture to the World, (Seven Stories Press, 1998), p. 31.
I am only scratching the surface here, of a very deep and large subject matter; the critue or understanding of the culture and ideology of neoliberalism and how this impacts the way various issues such as poverty, economics, other cultures, etc, are understood and articulated to others. I have hardly touched on this topic on this site, although a section will come soon. However, the following links cover aspects of this issue, as well as provide a lot more depth and perspective than what I have offered here in terms of critue:
Poverty section on this site, which includes pages on SAPs, food dumping, hunger causes (related to economic policies and the issue of choice etc) Behind consumerism and consumption looks at the waste in the current system and how elimination of waste and addressing related issues would actually allow more rights to all around the world while also reducing environmental degradation, etc. Mainstream media on various factors that lead to a concentrated ownership in the media which then affects the range of views we get. Struggle for Resources; Supporting dictators and overthrowing democracies from the Middle East section on this site (while slightly on a different topic, a lot of relevant information as well.) Noam Chomsky Archive provides many articles and online books written by Noam Chomsky, a prominent political analyst. He is a professor of linguistics at MIT. Institute for Economic Democracy provides a detailed account of the last 800 years or so of the battles over the control of resources and the causes of poverty world wide (as well as ideas on how to solve them based on a more democratic and cooperative form of capitalism). There is much deep criticism of the current forms of free trade here, and in detail points out how the rich nations today never got their wealth by following Adam Smith principles, but instead followed protectionsit policies, while preaching Adam Smith to everyone else. Food First has published many books and articles that describe the political, economic and social aspects of hunger, poverty, and related development issues. Peter Gowan, Global Gamble , (Verso Press, 1999), has much on political economies, and good insights into the ideology of liberalism. ZMagazine provides a vast number of articles on all sorts of issues. In particular, look at their Global Economics section which offers many articles from various people around the world. Walden Bello, Shea Cunningham, Bill Rau, Dark Victory; The United States and Global Poverty , foreword by Susan George, (Food First, Pluto Press, 1994, 1999) is a great book on the impacts of Structural Adjustment on the majority of the poor nations. Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism , (Allyn and Bacon, 1999) has a detailed look at the success and problems of capitalism, covering a multitude of issues.
Effects on political parties and political diversity.
Globalization in its current form, which is overly corporate-led, as mentioned above, reduces decision-making capabilities from peoples and governments and places more influence on corporations. If there are concerns or attempts to legislate regulations, the opened up markets mean that corporations can simply threaten to move elsewhere, because globalization in its current form has allowed them to be free to do so. It then means that even if a government has good intentions, it cannot always implement them. Or, as is often common, corrupt government officials often have much to gain by opening up their economies even if it is detrimental to most people.
In the mid-1990s, Europe saw a wave of social democratic parties come to power, such as UK’s Tony Blair and the Labour Party, the Green coalition in Germany, social democracy in France and similar happenings elsewhere. Yet, when looking at their policies, they have been almost the same as their former right wing counter parts. Take just the following as an example:
Tony Blair has been considered by many commentators to be another Thatcher (or even worse, as he has gone further in some policies). In that respect, the New Labour approach seems similar to the Old Thatcher policies from an economic and political perspective. In the United States, (ignoring the debacle of the 2000 elections and what would in other countries be labeled all sorts of things, from fraud, to illegitimate, to a farce etc!) the actual policies of Gore and Bush were very similar — they only diverged on how to carry them out. And, if their foreign policy claims during their election campaign are anything to go by, they even openly agreed on the same policies, without any debate between each other at the televised debates ! In Germany, Oskar Lafontaine attempts to control corporations by increasing their taxes and giving the population a break by reducing theirs, resulted in so much ridicule by the respectable institutions and mainstream press, such as the Financial Times and others, as well as threats from major corporations to pull out etc., that he was forced to resigne. People lost out.
John Bunzl, of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation is worth quoting at length concerning the effects on political parties and electorates of the drive for over-competition:
By their inability to deviate from these policy constraints, governments of whatever party and their electorates must now submit to what are, effectively, permanent political conditions. Conditions in which whatever party elect, the policies we receive inevitably conform to market and corporate demands and not necessarily to what the electorate desires.
Certain electorates around the world still generally believe they live in truly democratic countries, a misapprehension which is leading to a marked and increasing mis-match between voter expectations and political-economic reality. Voters are led to believe that in selecting a particular party they are voting for a particular political approach. But they become confused when, once in power, their party fails to deliver what they might have expected.
Once in power, therefore, politicians of whatever party effectively have no choice but to remain confined within the policy parameters dictated by global markets and competition. Now subject to pseudo-democracy, the simple conclusion we must reach is that it no longer matters much for which party we vote . This predicament and resulting voter ambivalence consequently presents our political parties with a distinct problem: how to make themselves and their policies different from those of other parties when in fact the markets allow no such differentiation. How can they maintain to the electorate the illusion that they have the power to improve society, or preserve what is best in society, when the markets preclude such value judgements ? In a vain and desperate attempt, they are forced to employ increasingly elaborate rhetorical tricks and stunts commonly known as spin . Hence the rise to prominence of Spin Doctors. For centre-left governments, attempting to reconcile their traditional social democratic values with free-market realities is resulting in the most pathetic exercises in rhetorical hair-splitting in an attempt to distract traditional left-of-centre supporters from the reality of having to submit to the liberal dictates of world markets. (Emphasis added).
Since our politicians and their parties must now position themselves according to what free-market competition dictates and not necessarily to what the electorate desires they have, to a great extent, ceased to represent a mechanism through which political choice can be expressed. Instead they have become puppets of the quasi-dictatorship serving principally to preserve among the electorate the false illusion of political choice; the false illusion of democracy. …
The electorate too, has been infected by this paralysis. Voters are not stupid. They understand only too well what competition means. … Whist they may not be able to precisely identify what is argued here, they certainly know that their nation cannot ignore world markets on the wider international economic environment. They know that their jobs depend to an increasing degree on their nations’s competitiveness in world markets. … real political choice … is abandoned to the unstable and insecure forces of competition whilst believing its fate to be inevitable, unavoidable or simply, perhaps, as just a sign of the times .
John M. Bunzl, The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol), An Insider’s Guide to Saving Humanity and the Planet, (New European Press, 1999), pp. 17 - 21.
Prize-winning author and activist from India, Arundhati Roy, also captures this in an article that made front page of the Indian daily, The Hindu :
No individual nation can stand up to the project of Corporate Globalisation on its own. Time and again we have seen that when it comes to the neo-liberal project, the heroes of our times are suddenly diminished. Extraordinary, charismatic men, giants in Opposition, when they seize power and become Heads of State, they become powerless on the global stage. I’m thinking here of President Lula of Brazil. Lula was the hero of the World Social Forum last year. This year he’s busy implementing IMF guidelines, reducing pension benefits and purging radicals from the Workers' Party. I’m thinking also of ex-President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. Within two years of taking office in 1994, his government genuflected with hardly a caveat to the Market God. It instituted a massive programme of privatisation and structural adjustment, which has left millions of people homeless, jobless and without water and electricity.
Por que isso acontece? There’s little point in beating our breasts and feeling betrayed. Lula and Mandela are, by any reckoning, magnificent men. But the moment they cross the floor from the Opposition into Government they become hostage to a spectrum of threats - most malevolent among them the threat of capital flight, which can destroy any government overnight. To imagine that a leader’s personal charisma and a c. v. of struggle will dent the Corporate Cartel is to have no understanding of how Capitalism works, or for that matter, how power works.
Will Corporations Rule the World?
For all the vivid examples of modern corporate power, such as the annual income of Motorola being equal to the annual income of Nigeria's 118 million people, it is folly to believe that big business on its own is shaping the new world order. This allows the argument against globalisation to be depoliticised, reducing it to single issues of ethical trading and codes of conduct , and inviting its co-option. Above all, it misses the point that state power in the west is accelerating.
A common perception is that due to the enormous influences and power of many major multinationals, corporations are therefore going to rule the world ; that corporations will reduce the need for a government and will dismantle the state. Yet, this is not completely true.
Corporations still require the state to provide them the environment conducive to their needs. The state may reduce its functions and obligations and thus roll back its commitment to its people, but that doesn't mean that they won't be needed and become obsolete. Such rollback will also enable decision-making (and therefore control) to be further concentrated. This rollback happens both in the North and the South. The South has been structurally adjusted to open up the economy and roll back the functions of the state, and even concentrates further the decision-making. That is, these IMF-, World Bank-prescribed policies have reduced democracy. (See this web site's section on SAPs for more.) In the North, in countries ranging from New Zealand, to the United Kingdom, and most aggressively in the United States, the functions of the government have been constantly rolled back. Less is spent on health, education etc, while more on military, policing and so on. (See Walden Bello, Dark Victory , (Food First, 1994, 1999 Second Edition) for more on this.) Yet governments will still be required to provide repressive functions to keep the rabble in line so to speak, as described by Noam Chomsky. They will also be required to help create or open up markets, or even provide military support for such things (as described in the military expansion section on this site). Also, an interception of society's wealth is sometimes provided to large businesses to just survive. Western nations provide a lot of protectionism to their industries, while forcing the poor countries to completely open up. If there was true free trade and fair competition, many wealthy western corporations might not be able to survive, as John Pilger suggests. (See also the corporate welfare and evasion of responsibilities section on this site.
So, while corporate influence increases and continually drives many aspects of our lives, from influencing and even buying elections, public policy and so on, they still require a government that functions to serve their needs as well. International institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization, are also needed. The irony is that by often using tax payer money, the tax payer unwittingly supporting a process that is leading to more exploitation of tax payers. For the poor countries, the multinational corporations of the west are seen as further extensions of those western nations.
As the post September 11, 2001 corporate scandals have shown in the U. S., even U. S. multinationals are not exempt from all issues. Corporate accountability has come to the fore especially for shareholders due to accounting and other scandals (though there are still concerns of corporate welfare going on by using the war on terror as an excuse -- sometimes legitimate, sometimes not). As one example, the L. A. Times reported that In a setback for multinational corporations, a federal appeals panel ruled [18th September 2002] that they can be held liable in U. S. courts for aiding and abetting human rights violations committed by others abroad. A number of multinationals have been accused for gross human rights violations around the world, as briefly discussed in various sections on this site, and as that L. A. Times provides an example of.
It is possible therefore, that with the drive for real democracy and accountability at all levels of society that the interests and influences of big multinationals and others that are currently regarded by many as having a negative impact may perhaps be checked appropriately, though history has shown that this is no easy task. The above example from the L. A. Times is just one small step.
Increasing charities are a sign of fundamental, structural flaws.
We hear more and more about philanthropic organizations set up by mega-successful business elites, where millions of dollars are donated to seemingly worthy causes. However, the fact that such donations are needed also serves as an indication that development policies and globalization policies in their current form are not sustainable. The following quote summarizes this notion quite well:
It is all very well for Bill Gates to charitably donate $750m to pay for immunization programmes for certain diseases, as he recently announced he would do, and for James Wolfensohn to urge transnational companies setting up in poor countries to contribute financially directly to local education services. Societies which depend on such largess to meet their basic health and education needs are neither sustainable, democratic nor equitable — yet new dimensions of power are ceded to large companies.

International Relations - PS 140 through 154.
140A. International Law and Organizations (4)
International law and organizations are central to the efforts to create a world order to limit armed conflict, regulate world economy, and advance programs for economic redistribution among nations, and set minimum standards of human rights. This course explains the theory of international law and organizations that is accepted by diplomats and compares this viewpoint to the analysis of social scientists concerning the past record and likely future of world order concerning conflict, economic redistribution, and human rights.
140B. Concepts and Aspects of Revolution (4)
Introduction to the analytical and comparative study of revolutionary movements and related forms of political violence. Topics include: the classical paradigm; types of revolutionary episodes; psychological theories; ideology and belief systems; coups; insurgencies; civil wars; terrorism and revolutionary outcomes.
140C. International Crisis Diplomacy (4)
A survey of international peacekeeping and peace enforcement in civil conflicts with a simulation of international diplomacy. Prerequisite: upper-division standing.
140D. International Human Rights Law: Migrant Populations (4)
Conflict between international legal obligations and domestic politics of citizenship, immigration, asylum, and human trafficking.
142A. United States Foreign Policy (4)
United States foreign policy from the colonial period to the present era. Systematic analysis of competing explanations for U. S. policies-strategic interests, economic requirements, or the vicissitudes of domestic politics. Interaction between the U. S., foreign states (particularly allies), and transnational actors are examined. Prerequisite: PS 12 or consent of instructor.
142D. Weapons of Mass Destruction (4)
This course provides an overview of the challenges posed by chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Students will learn about how these weapons work, why states week them, and attempts to prevent proliferation. We will delve into technical and policy challenges related to these weapons, and address how CBRN weapons shape national and regional security dynamics. Efforts to restrict the proliferation of these weapons will be discussed. We will also analyze CBRN terrorism.
142I. National and International Security (4)
A survey of theories of defense policies and international security.
142J. National Security Strategy (4)
A survey of American strategies for national defense. Topics may include deterrence, coercive diplomacy, limited war, and unconventional warfare.
142K. Politics and Warfare (4)
This course offers an exploration of general theories of the origins of warfare; the impact of the state on war in the modern world; and the micro-foundations of combat and compliance in the context of the costs of war and military mobilization. The course should be of special interest to students in international relations and comparative politics.
142L. Insurgency and Terrorism (4)
"Terrorism" uses "illegitimate" violence to achieve political goals. This course uses philosophical, historical and contemporary material from distinct cultures to understand which actions are defined as "terrorist," who uses them, why and when, as well as the determinants of their effectiveness. 
142M. U. S. Foreign Policy/Regional Security (4)
Lectures and readings examine US foreign policy in Europe, Latin America, and East Asia with attention to current problems with specific nations (e. g., Bosnia) and issues (e. g., terrorism). This course integrates historical, comparative, and foreign perspectives on regional security dynamics.
142N. American Defense Policy (4)
An introduction to analytic technues for assessing policy options in the field of national security. Prerequisite: upper-division standing.
142O. International Terrorism (4)
(Same as SOCD 177.) This course covers the definitions, history, and internationalization of terrorism; the interrelation of religion, politics, and terror; and the representation of terrorism in the media. A number of organizations and their activities in Europe and the Middle East are examined. Prerequisite: upper-division standing.
142P. Crisis Areas in World Politics (4)
This course examines the most critical areas in contemporary world politics. While the emphasis will be placed on American involvement in each crisis, an effort will be made to acquaint the student with its historical and political background. Credit will not be allowed for students who have taken POLI 154 "Crisis Areas in World Politics" in the following quarters: SP01; SP02; SP03; SP04; SP05; WI06; SP06; SI06; FA06; WI07, SP07, SI07. Prerequisite: upper-division standing .
142Q. Cold War (4)
This course explores the way in which the  international rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States affected relationships between the two powers their allies, the Third World, and above all, each other's internal, domestic affairs and development.
143A. War and Society (4)
How has warfighting evolved over the centuries? How has it varied across cultures? What has war been like for soldiers and civilians? How do societies mobilize for war, and how do they change in the short and long term from fighting? Prerequisite: upper-division standing.
144. International Political Economy (4)
This course serves as an introduction to the study if international political economy.  We will examine the evolution of international economic relations in trade, finance, and economic development and discuss different explanations for its likely causes and consequences. 
144AB. Selected Topics in International Political Economy (4)
This course will consider major theories purporting to explain and predict the workings of the international order from the point of view of political economy. An extended discussion of one aspect of the economic order (e. g., the multinational corporation) will serve as the test case. PS 144AA and one quarter of economics recommended. Prerequisite: PS 12.
144D. International Political Economy (4)
Examination of effects of national policies and international collaboration of public and private international financial institutions, in particular management of international debt crisis, economic policy coordination, and the role of international lender of last resort. Prerequisite: upper-division standing or permission of instructor. Previous background in economics strongly recommended.
144E. The Politics of International Trade (4)
Examines theories of trade and protectionism, focusing both on relations among advanced industrial nations and on relations between developed and developing countries. Topics include standard and strategic trade theory, nontariff barriers to trade, export-led growth strategies, regional trade agreements, and the future of the WTO.
144F. The Politics of International Trade and Finance (4)
Examines the welfare and distributional aspects of international trade and finance as they relate to the politics of economic policymaking. Topics include: globalization in historical perspective; origins and consequences of trade policy; exchange-rate arrangements; international capital flows; currency crises; economic development.
145A. International Politics and Drugs (4)
This course examines the domestic and international aspects of the drug trade. It will investigate the drug issues from the perspectives of consumers, producers, traffickers, money laundress, and law enforcement. Course material covers the experience of the U. S., Latin America, Turkey, Southeast Asia, Western Europe, and Japan.
145C. International Relations After the Cold War: Theory and Prospect (4)
The nature of international politics appears to have changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War in 1989. This course applies different theoretical approaches to enhance our understanding of the new international environment, the future prospects for peace and war, and current problems of foreign policy.
146A. The U. S. and Latin America: Political and Economic Relations (4)
An analytical survey of U. S. relations with Latin America from the 1820s to the present, with particular emphasis on the post-Cold War environment. Topics include free trade and economic integration; drugs and drug trafficking; illegal migration and immigration control. Focus covers U. S. policy, Latin American reactions, dynamics of cooperation, and options for the future.
147B. Russian-American Relations (4)
An historical and topical survey of major issues in Russian-American relations, such as security arrangements in the post-Society space, the war on terrorism, arms control and non-proliferation, and international energy.
150A. Politics of Immigration (4)
Comparative analysis of attempts by the U. S. and other industrialized countries to initiate, regulate and reduce immigration from Third World countries. Social and economic factors shaping outcomes of immigration policies, public opinion toward immigrants, anti-immigration movements in immigrant-receiving countries.
151. International Organizations (4)
Surveys the theory and function of IOs (UN, NATO, EU, World Bank, IMF) in promoting international cooperation in security, peace-keeping, trade, environment, and human rights.  We discuss why IOs exist, how they work, and what challenges they face.
153. The European Union in World Politics (4)
This course introduces students to the role of the EU as a foreign policy actor. Topics include the development of the EU's trade policy, foreign aid policy, security policy, as well as case studies of EU foreign policy.
154. Special Topics in International Relations (4)
An undergraduate course designed to cover various aspects of international relations. May be repeated for credit two times, provided each course is a separate topic, for a maximum of twelve units.