Globalization: The Debate

The rapid globalization of the world economy excites passions. Some see globalization as the key to prosperity and prosperity as the answer to political ills. Others see globalization as an inevitable but not necessarily positive evolution of world markets. Still others militantly oppose globalization as a inherently destructive force.

As globalization advances, the lines and beween camps harden and the rhetoric becomes more strident. In the past year, anti-globalization protests became violent, and police reacted in kind, garnering as much media attention as the conferences they aimed to disrupt. At the beginning of 2001, the Swiss government formally banned all protests at the recent World Economic Forum. The ban prevented large-scale gatherings in Davos, nonetheless the anti-globalization forces made themselves heard in counter-conference in Davos as well as Porto Alegre, Brazil. In Zurich, protesters set four cars on fire; police responded with tear gas and rubber pellets.

As mentioned in my first article, commerce across borders, whether between neighbors, villages geographic regions or nation-states is a human activity older than money. It has been both the source and the result of technological innovation. Its ramifications have been both positive and negative. While international trade has always had its advocates and detractors, the speed and magnitude of globalization injects an urgency into current debates.

Advocates of globalization unfettered by governmental regulation include the World Trade Organization (WTO). According to its web site, the WTO "is the only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible." The World Economic Forum was organized so that "stakeholders of society could be brought together to consider and advance the key issues on the global agenda." The International Monetary Fund "promotes international monetary cooperation, exchange stability, and orderly exchange arrangements..."

One might well believe that none of these organizations set out to eradicate already fragile cultures, exploit labor or pollute the environment, however, these are the outcomes that globlization's critics fear. They point to a lack of operational "transparency" and organizational democracy as sources of concern. The over-riding profit motive of the "stakeholders" present in Davos also disconcerts.

In 1994, the International Forum on Globalization organized to "(1) Expose the multiple effects of economic globalization in order to stimulate debate, and (2) Seek to reverse the globalization process by encouraging ideas and activities which revitalize local economies and communities, and ensure long term ecological stability."

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic