Globalization Phenomenon: Development and Social Change Report (Assessment)

Introduction

The rise of the globalization project was a move geared towards establishing a global order in economic development. The success of the project was to be facilitated through abandonment and dismantling of a development project in favor of a more globalized socio-economic order. ¹The initial economic trend was unanimously referred to as “postdevelopmentalism”, in which states undertook to manage their own socio-economic affairs, also called state economy (Robertson, 53-77). With the globalization project becoming a vital subject, dismantling of the “postdevelopmentalism” topped the economic development agendas.

Preliminary stages of globalization involved states attempting to explore new principles of governance. ²The process was characterized by both centralization and decentralization of power. Decentralization of power divested certain crucial social responsibilities from the central state authorities to the global arena, so that development issues like the social budgetary role were not a one-state affair. Centralization of power enabled different state members to group themselves at “the macro-regional levels” such as RFATs, to come up with common market rules, policies, and binding principles of trade (McMichael, 153-155).

The emergence of the globalization project was actually surrounded by a couple of economic and governance uncertainties. This paper presents a general assessment of the development and social change coming forth with the rise of the globalization project.

Review on the Globalization phenomenon

The growth of globalization projects is generally construed as a direct attack on a development project. It is understood as ³“a global development strategy” whose key purpose is to enforce for successful state participation in global economic activities. ⁴The 1980s definition of the concept of globalization was made extensive to incorporate “a policy of broad liberalization” (McMichael, 155-157). Liberalization became the centerpiece of the globalization project. This policy took a center stage in the debt regime, in which the debt managers rewarded debtor governments for reducing their sizes and roles. This in turn facilitated the opening of state economies to global influences, leading to “polarization of wealth, compromising domestic populations security and threatening the sustainability of local resources” (Cerny, 270-103).

Rooting for efficiency in the global market drastically weakened “the domestic fibers of social securities”, and stifled the local economic development. National resources were exploited and commercialized at the expense of International debt, the case in China (Cerny, 270-103).

Debt servicing involved buying and selling domestic products at the global economic avenues. The global economic agencies then supplied to the global economy which delivered revenues to “multilateral lenders as debt payment”. The process of ⁵globalization also eroded local natural resources, the main source of sustenance to the local people, precisely the poor.

It’s important to note here that ⁶the rise of the globalization project was not a strategy to completely dismantle or wholly replace the development project. It was rather a shift from development project to globalization project, a change from state to the global economy while retaining the traditional economic governance and management trends (McMichael, 157).

The 21^st-century economic development has, however, been characterized by contentions and controversies between globalization and state protection. Global market figures redefined development to imply ⁷“a globally managed growth focusing on world market principles as the most efficient way of allocating resources” (McMichael, 157). State governments on the other hand are still held in the midst of quagmire, they are faced with the responsibility of balancing between globalization and state protection.

Theoretical Perspective

The theory of comparative advantage was developed with the aim of trying to justify the notion of liberalism in globalization. ⁸Comparative advantage theory is accredited to David Ricardo, a political economist. Ricardo argued that “property derives from maximizing a nations relative resource endowments” and that economic efficiency is achieved at the global market where states participate to exchange their products competitively (McMichael, 160).

The comparative advantage proposition disregards development project as not ideal in economic world order where by the global market is perceived as “the unit of development”. This theory also rejects the idea of capital mobility.

“The Global Governance”

In attempt to reduce growing tension between globalization and development, global states established a powerful governing role. The responsibility was made absolute and required that states comply accordingly. Compliance was essentially ensured in two ways, either through coercion or consensus (McMichael, 165).

Coercion was employed when states resisted or failed to comply or when liberalization failed to prevail. Consensus on the other hand was based on common agreement and support from both the governments and citizens of the states. Conversely, coercion and consensus were not the only ways of ensuring compliance to new world economic order. ⁹Institutionalization of the market rule was deemed the most effective in ensuring compliance. In institutionalizing the market rule, individual states functions “were recommended as global governance functions and were enforced through WTO, World Trade Organization” (McMichael, 165).

One of fundamental developments during the debt regime was advancement of ¹⁰“Britton Woods Institution to a governance role targeting third world states” (McMichael , 168).Years between 1986 and 1994 saw the world reaching a compromise on “General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs”, shortened as GATT. This agenda was named GATT Uruguay Round, and was set up to establish “new and binding rules with regard to free trade, protection of intellectual property rights and freedom of investment” (McMichael, 168). The new rules formed the basis on which WTO, World Trade Organization, operated.

“Globalization project as a Utopia”

Globalization project prevailed as an ideal in different ways, building on those factors which were otherwise the shortcomings in development project. Even though globalization project became powerful, a number of economists still believed development project ¹¹“was a success because it was never intended to be absolute” (McMichael, 193). Whichever the case, it was apparent development project provided platform on which states tried to “manage their national economic integration”. Albeit the extent of integration was not absolute.

Discussions

Implementation of globalization project came with diverse challenges. Its advocation was a big threat to development project and public economy. The proponents of this ideology hold that globalization is the most efficient way in allocating natural resources, though there is a feeling that it’s not the best of economic projects the world could offer.

Those economists preaching the gospel of globalization might be ignorant of the idea that globalization may have brought about challenges such as unfair competition in the market, exploitation of local natural resources, reduced employment rates, poor health, just to list a few instances in third world countries. This is the point at which I seem to disregard globalization not being the most efficient way of allocating natural resources. Endorsement of globalization should not have been done at the expense of states economy. Governments and states are indispensably in need of their natural resources to sufficiently cater for their populations.

States and governments are therefore responsible for protecting their resources from exploitation, providing adequate sources of employment to their citizens, upholding standard health care services, ensuring environmental sustainability and so forth. Global forces have made achievement of these crucial agendas very challenging. The state governors are actually caught in the dilemma of having to decide between globalization and state protection. How effective or efficient then is globalization?

When the policies for competition in global market only favors reduction of public expenditures, resulting into decreased national employment rates, low level of education, and poor healthcare services, then the idea of globalization is basically a political agenda and not in any way a natural phenomenon (McMichael, 157).

The very nature of globalization project has posed more questions than answers, raising lots of controversies. Major divergences have been witnessed in trying to compromise on key issues, distinguishing between “government by economic efficiency and government by social justice, corporate and social welfare, ecological sustainability and exploitation, decentralization and centralization of power” (McMichael, 157-158). These make it very difficult for qualify globalization project as efficient and plausibly enough.

Conclusions

Globalization project was introduced to bring forth the economic trends at a global scale, and to provide a platform where all states could participate in economic activities at international level. In spite of its success in bringing together different states in the world market and proliferating natural resources across the world, it also presented a number of negative challenges. Consequently, it may be appropriate to conclude that globalization was not a natural phenomenon, but a global political agenda

Works Cited

Cerny, Philip. “Paradoxes of the Competition State”. “The Dynamics of Political Globalization, Government and Opposition”.1997. 270–1.

McGrew, Anthony. “Modernity and Its Futures”. A Global Society in Stuart Hall, David Held and Anthony McGrew. Cambridge. Polity Press. 1990. 34-88.

McMichael, Philip. “Globalization, Myths and Realities”. The Rural Sociology 61. 1996. 153-200.

Robertson, Roland. “Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture”. London: Sage Publication. 1992.53-77.

Footnotes

1. Decentralization vs. centralization of power. McMichael, Philip. “Globalization, Myths and Realities”. The Rural Sociology 61. 1996. 153 200.
2. “Postdevelopmentalism”. Robertson, Roland. “Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture”. London: Sage Publication. 1992.53-77.
3. Competition in the global marketplace. Cerny, Philip. “Paradoxes of the Competition State”. “The dynamics of political globalization, government, and opposition”.1997. 270–1.
4. The policy of liberalism in the globalization project. McMichael, Philip. “Globalization, Myths and Realities”. The Rural Sociology 61. 1996. 153-200.
5. Ibid.
6. Cerny, Philip. “Paradoxes of the Competition State”. “The Dynamics of Political Globalization, Government and Opposition”.1997. 270–1.
7. McGrew, Anthony. “Modernity and Its Futures”. A Global Society in Stuart Hall, David Held and Anthony McGrew. Cambridge. Polity Press. 1990. 34-88.
8. McMichael, Philip. “Globalization, Myths and Realities”. The Rural Sociology 61. 1996. 160 & Robertson, Roland. “Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture”. London: Sage Publication. 1992.53-77.
9. Institutionalization of the market rule. McGrew, Anthony. “Modernity and Its Futures”. A Global Society in Stuart Hall, David Held and Anthony McGrew. Cambridge. Polity Press. 1990. 34-88. & McMichael, Philip, 19996, 165-167.
10. McMichael, Philip. “Globalization, Myths and Realities”. The Rural Sociology 61. 1996. 153-200.
11. “Globalization project as Utopia”. McMichael, Philip. “Globalization, Myths and Realities”. The Rural Sociology 61. 1996. 193.