In defense of globalization: benefits and critiques

¶ … Defense of Globalization

Jagdish Bhagwati and the Defense of Globalization

It has lately become fashionable to talk about the evil face of globalization as a parasitic force that devours small nations and economies for the benefit of the rich and powerful countries. The anti-globalization movement today has a wide range of supporters, in the West and developing countries, among politicians, scholars, students, environmentalists, human rights activists, and many others. Globalization, these critics contend, further enriches the rich and impoverishes the poor, by using international trade and financial institutions and imposing Western forms of economics on the rest of the world. But in this paper I argue, using insights and arguments from the works of Columbia law and economics professor Jagdish Bhagwati, that the attacks on globalization are contradictory, misguided, and unjustified. Globalization, I argue, has been a force for good in the West and the rest of the world.

One of the oft-repeated charges directed against globalization is that it is a new form of colonialism and imperialism. In the words of Indian anti-globalization activist Arundhati Roy, globalization is "a mutant form of globalization" (Roy, 2002). The main problem with such characterization is the overly simplistic understanding of global forces. Globalization refers to worldwide integration of political, economic, and cultural institutions, but it is the economic form of globalization that comes under heavy criticism most often. The problem with Roy's characterization is that Indians, Saudis, Guatemalans, or any other people from the developing world using financial institutions for their own benefit is also the result of globalization. People in poorer nations having access to the rest of the world by using the Internet, computers, cell phones, tablets, etc., is also thanks to globalization. It would be ludicrous to describe these processes as a "mutant form of colonialism."

There is much more to globalization than just exploitation of weak nations by predatory multi-national corporations. It is true that some multi-national corporations use the loopholes in the international institutions or the corruption in local governments and exploit poor nations. There is no denying to that. But it should not distract us from positive sides of globalization. For example, when predatory corporations commit crimes against workers in poor nations or pollute their environment without adequately compensating for that, it is thanks to the forces of globalization these poor nations can hold powerful multi-national corporations to task. These forces include the United Nations, international human rights and environmental organizations, the international media, and the world public without whom it would have been impossible for any poor nations to challenge these corporations. But for some reason, anti-globalizationists do not take this into account. And that is the essential contradiction of anti-globalization position.

As today's one of the foremost economists of the world Jagdish Bhagwati argues, "economic globalization has a human face and it advances, rather than inhibits, the achievements of social agendas as wide-ranging as the promotion of gender equality worldwide and the reduction of poverty and child labor in poorer countries" (Bhagwati, 2004a). Note that when some countries and cultures practice egregious forms of gender inequality or force children into labor, these abuses are exposed to the world more often than ever before today primarily thanks to globalization. Forces of globalization demand that some standards of labor and gender relations are met, inducing abusive governments to abandon their worst excesses.

The contradiction of anti-globalization activism is also visible in Western countries. As Bhagwati notes, during U.S. presidential elections in 2004, "Senator John Kerry has characterized companies that outsource as traitors -- even if, after doing so, Kerry and his wife dined on imported French wine and brie, rather than on Kraft cheese and Milwaukee beer, and watched a BBC Masterpiece Theater drama instead of a U.S. sitcom television" (Bhagwati, 2004a). Likewise, one might add, many right-wing U.S. politicians routinely call for imposing tariffs for Chinese products in order to protect domestic producers, but the same politicians bark when a weaker nation in Latin America or Africa imposes tariffs on American heavily-subsidized agricultural products, accusing them of being enemies of free trade and globalization.

So, why is there so much opposition to globalization? Bhagwati argues that one of the major reasons is the fashionableness of anti-Capitalism. Too often, anti-globalizationists are also anti-Capitalists. Bhagwati notes several reasons for anti-Capitalism today. Firstly, many young believe that Capitalism is a force that cannot address problems of social justice meaningfully. This is the position of Socialists though ironically no socialist state in the twentieth century was able to present a workable model where the economy was managed as efficiently as it was in Capitalist countries. Secondly, college campuses that teach English, comparative literature, and sociology are breeding grounds for anti-Capitalism. These disciplines are strongly influenced by deconstructionist philosophy of Jacque Derrida and almost nihilist and moral-relativist teachings of Michel Foucault. Ironically, Bhagwati notes, the deconstructionist teachings of Derrida and Foucault are not directed at deconstructing Marxism but only Capitalism (Bhagwati, 2004b, p. 16).

There is the third and new kind of reason for anti-Capitalism, Bhagwati says. And that is the dissonance of empathy many in the West feel for all the misery and injustice in the world without being able to intellectually understand the causes of these problems and find meaningful solutions to them. The cause of this dissonance again is the force of globalization: the global media, the CNN, the Internet. People can no longer just relax and sleep well while they see on TV, on a daily basis, how millions around the world are suffering. So, what these people end up concluding is that global Capitalism cannot address these fundamental problems. Then they start reading anti-globalization literature and start blaming multi-national corporations as well as Capitalism itself for all the misery in the world. The sentiments of these anguished people are understandable, but they are misguided because Capitalism and globalization, if anything, decreased the level of social ills in the world.