Economic Development

The author presents a poorly defended opinion in The Economist article "The Case for Globalization." The article boldly posits that "international economic integration is...the best of many possible futures for the world economy." According to the author, globalization is the only feasible panacea for poverty and political disenfranchisement. To dismantle world trade would entail "unparalleled catastrophe for the planet's most desperate people." However compelling these statements may be, they are not backed up by any quantifiable data. Ironically, the author accuses anti-capitalists and protestors of globalization to "explain the facts," without doing so him or herself.

Globalization could not be the "best of many possible futures." Global politics are already at the mercy of corporate control; one need only look at the example of Central America to see how the United States in particular. The consequences of globalization can be witnessed in the mass disenfranchisement, political instability, and economic deprivation experienced by most Central and South Americans. Corporate greed essentially undermined the will of the people to create socialist governments that could have realistically minimized poverty. Governments taking the side of for-profit institutions results in corrupt politics. Bowing to the pressures of a global market is not the solution to poverty because it automatically panders to the needs of the already wealthy. In theory, globalization creates jobs in areas with high rates of unemployment. However, in reality these are low-paying jobs in deplorable working environments, as many governments will willingly ignore humane wages and standards in favor of higher profits and cutbacks.

The author falls into a trap when he or she reports, "developing-country governments...have come round to the idea that trade (read globalization) is good." The governments in question are notoriously corrupt and do not necessarily keep the best interests of the people in mind. The author of this article also assumes that governments and corporations are actually "pandering" to the activists. Nothing could be farther from the truth; however, the media might be creating a kinder, gentler image of global trade to cloud the issues at hand.