Globalization is like a river. It can bring substantial economic,
social and environmental nourishment to those who are in a position
to benefit from it. But it can erode, devastate and overwhelm
if it rushes too fast or spreads too far.
It can be so ruthlessly exploited by narrow interests that even
its economic utility is destroyed. It is a natural force but it
cannot, and must not be allowed to, override all other natural
forces. Restraint and guidance are often necessary to maximize
its benefits and minimize its dangers.
Many business people and economic commentators arrogantly and
ignorantly dismiss community concerns about the impact of globalization.
But their “globalization uber alles” sloganeering is
neither intellectually nor morally superior to the frustrated
excesses of some of the marginalized dissidents for whom they
express such contempt.
In reality, many of the self-styled advocates of globalization
are vehemently anti-globalization on many issues. For them, a
crucial attraction of recent trends in globalization is that corporate
activities, by becoming increasingly international, are freer
from the constraints of democracy, rule of law and fairness. They
do not want globalization of taxation, anti-monopoly regimes,
labour rights, human rights or codes of corporate conduct.
Like Bill Gates, many of these alleged champions of competition
and free markets are fickle friends. Their support is loud when
it suits their own personal or corporate interests but their opposition
is ruthless once they achieve a dominant market position. This
applies not only to people and corporations but also to countries.
In many respects, the dominant economic forces in the United States
act as the Microsoft of the world, using market power and their
own acquiescent government to impose their full stock of economic
and ideological products on weaker rivals.
It is equally important, however, to observe that many self-styled
opponents of globalization actually support many forms of globalization.
This applies, for example, to globalization of labour rights,
human rights and environmental protection. They want more international
support for oppressed minorities, an international criminal court
and stronger international regulation of financial markets. Globalization
has often hastened technological advances which they greatly value
in their own lives and which strengthen their ability to understand
and criticize its darker sides.
The economic and social benefits of globalization might be much
greater if many of its champions were to practice what they preach.
If they support democracy, they should support global democracy
and reject the dominance of international economic policy and
regulation by groupings such as the IMF which are controlled by
countries representing not much more than 10% of the world’s
population. If they support the rule of law, they should oppose
the rampant avoidance of legal obligations through international
tax havens. If they support competition and free trade, they should
condemn biased tax privileges and industry protection of the kind
upon which the US and Europe insist in areas such as e-commerce,
international finance and agriculture.
The most important contemporary issue in globalization is governance
– the “democratic deficit”. Experience demonstrates
conclusively that competition, trade and economic development
cannot be sustained over the longer term without fair and effective
governance. The same is true in relation to opportunity, equity
and freedom for individuals and communities.
Globalization is badly out of balance because international governance
has not kept pace with technological developments and related
economic trends. While substantially benefiting many people (often
already in very comfortable circumstances) it is greatly harming
others.
Closer interaction within regions is one of the most promising
but often overlooked responses to the potential benefits and dangers
of globalization. Without the emergence of the European Union,
the hegemony of the United States would be even more dangerous
to itself and to the world. But a duopoly is commonly little better
than a monopoly. It is especially important that Asian countries
become more cohesive and assertive, whether on a continental basis
or in regions such as South Asia, South East and North East Asia
which more accurately represent substantial similarities in circumstances
and cultures.
A greater emphasis on regional interaction can help to achieve
many of the potential economic and social benefits of larger and
more diverse communities and markets, while reducing the economic
and social risks of excessive global uniformity, dictation from
afar and loss of local opportunity. It can help to develop the
building blocks for structures and processes of international
cooperation that are more democratic and effective than either
bodies such as the IMF or the United Nations in its current form.
It is a difficult process with inevitable setbacks and dangers
but they are greatly outweighed by its potential benefits.
Developing countries are, in fact, increasingly recognizing the
benefits of regionalization. New regional groupings such as Mercosur
in South America and the Southern African Development Community
were established principally for trade and infrastructure cooperation,
as was the precursor of the European Union. But they are developing
broader purposes more quickly than occurred in Europe. The Association
of South East Asian Nations is likely to emerge stronger, albeit
substantially transformed, from the recently painful demonstrations
of the extent to which its members’ economies, environments
and security concerns are interconnected.
Greater emphasis on this kind of “constructive regionalism”
would be an important enhancement of the spectrum of interaction
and governance ranging from the local to the global. It is the
type of issue that should be debated by gatherings of business
and government leaders who purport to address globalization in
a wide-ranging and balanced manner. Disingenuousness, triumphalism
and unalloyed self-interest from people at the peaks of wealth
and power neither promote recognition of the potential benefits
of globalization nor redress the severe limitations of their own
understanding.
This
commentary is an edited version of remarks made at the Asia Pacific
Regional Meeting
of the Davos World Economic Forum (Melbourne, 13 September 2000)
by Julian Disney
JULIAN
DISNEY
