Wolf tells us that, “enemies of globalization are opponents of the market economy (40).” While, as an American, I find it difficult discredit the virtues of a free market, his colleagues point out many of the undeniable difficulties associated with relaxing barriers to international trade and opening the markets of developing countries.
Stiglitz points to the largely uneven GDP growth between countries, enormous gaps in wealth both between and within nations and seeming inability of present political tools to manage economic globalization as unavoidable and delicate problems of economic globalization. Indeed, the reconciliation of American equality-based ideals is a difficult task for those citing vast economic advantage that the United States has in the global market over a country like Chad. This is not to condemn the virtues of competition and the quest for personal gain that Wolf praises in a free-market. It is simply difficult to watch tragedies of poverty and inequality (that too often lead to violence) without questioning whether or pro-globalization decisions have met with the degree of success that world leaders may have hoped- especially in developing nations. While opening up capital markets, allowing multi-national corporations to enter developing countries to benefit from cheap wage rates, etc may lead these countries to gains, the instability that this creates outweighs the possibilities of gain (Stiglitz). In addition, as Freeman points out, there is evidence to suggest that this outsourcing has contributed to falling wages rates for less-skilled workers in industrialized nations. No one is immune to problems presented by economic globalization, and the list goes on.
However, it is just as difficult for any one national leader to accept the problems of the world as still deal with those immediately facing his own nation. One person can only do so much. Though, as Singer points out, our definition of “what is acceptable for one independent, sovereign state to ask of another” is growing, humans still very much see themselves as belonging to a clearly delineated country. Collectively, people do not discredit this identification enough to view ourselves simply as “citizens of the world. Herein lies the difficulty of allocating international resources. Our global economy is growing faster than our ability to manage and nurture it to success. Questions of morality relating to poverty, resentment held by developing countries and possible violence rising from it, self-promotion over the benefit of humanity, as well as where to draw the line in each issue are more overwhelming than revealing. Managing globalization is a delicate balance, and declaring a critic of the seemingly inevitable process “an enemy of the free-market” seems a bit harsh.
2 comments:
This is an important distinction. There is a need for the same kind of governmental or legal support for international markets as there are for our domestic free market. As free as our market is, it is limited in many different ways by laws designed to protect the rights of all the participants in it. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the lack of such support on the international level without being deemed an enemy of the market.
Yes, important points. I am intrigued by a couple of items in the last paragraph. Especially the part about the global economy growing too fast to nurture it. An interesting phrasing of the issue, that maybe we can discuss. It gets to the heart of Stiglitz' points about "equality" and "equity".
The concluding note (and the one Nathaniel comments on) is also interesting. Stiglitz would certainly see himself as someone looking to make "friendly amendments" to free market principles. But he is certainly more skeptical about free markets than Wolf. Alas, rhetorical flourish -- calling out your intellectual "adversaries" -- is perhaps, in its own way, inevitable...
Post a Comment