Anti-globalization

[eXploiTeD]

Although I've been here for just a couple of days, I have already seen a number of posts that contained a great deal of misunderstanding over anti-globalization and anti-globalization activists... So here's some essays that you can mull over sometime, hopefully resulting in a better understanding of anti-globalization. They are all quite long, so read them a bit at a time.

-----

Globalization and Democracy

The first conceptualization of democracy originated in Ancient Greece [Note: I've been told this is inaccurate] around the year 800 B.C. Although the more intricate details have changed significantly since that time, the very foundation of democracy has remained the same. Self-determination, or the ability to vote on how your country is ruled, has been the focal point of democracy throughout history. Nonetheless, the last century has brought massive changes to the meaning of democracy. Although the basis of modern democracy was laid by the United States after the American Revolution, it was not until the last half century that democracy entered its greatest transition period. Respect for human rights after WWII, the idea of a ‘global village’ and technological advances all made the world much smaller in the eyes of many. It was only a matter of time before the economy began to reflect these ideals. This is the origin of what we know as globalization: cross-border, free trade, privatization of services typically associated with government and increased cooperation between nation states all signal a new era in human history. As the world dealt with the shockwaves produced by the fall of the USSR in the late 1980s, these ideals gained new levels of acceptance throughout the world. Furthermore, numerous international trade agreements were signed into place, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1995, which was signed by the United States, Canada and Mexico. The last half century has also seen the rise of the World Trade Organization [WTO] into a position of huge influence on an international scale. This development is not without its share of problems, however. This essay will attempt to analyze the issues surrounding globalization, dealing specifically with how members of international trade agreements deal with dissent, as well as the power given to the institutions governing the agreements. Hopefully by the end of this essay, the reader may have a greater understanding of why and how these organizations affect not only our legal rights, but our democratic rights as well.

Directly alongside the rapid empowerment of the World Trade Organization, has been a rapid rise of public dissent. Although the majority of citizens within countries attached to the WTO are either for the WTO or have no opinion at all, there exist a great number of people who believe that globalization may be causing more problems then it is solving. Usually known as anti-globalization activists, these agents of dissent have been gradually increasing in number over the years. North Americans and Europeans alike are seeing protests against the WTO occurring on a regular basis, and more often as not, these protests end in violence. Moreover, violence at anti-globalization protests has occurred often enough to be considered ‘normal,’ which has lead to police involvement no longer being the exception to the rule, but the rule. When the leaders of the WTO meet, it is believed by most governments that there is an apparent need for a huge amount of physical security. The most significant example of this was in Seattle, where anti-globalization activists were in a literal state of war, pitted against riot police, tactical squads and the accompanying tear-gas. Although the origin of this particular conflict remains unknown, it has been acknowledged that police may have played a vital role in inflaming the situation. Reports of police brutality, indiscriminate tear-gassing (Klein "No Logo" 321) and unlawful arrest were abound after Seattle, yet neither the media, nor the American government, made any attempt to discipline those guilty of these acts. Unfortunately, this state of affairs has remained much the same since then. More often as not, protestors are made out by the media, as well as by government, to be ‘anarchist thugs,’ bent on violence and against international cooperation of any kind. This image, reinforced over and over again by the media, has allowed the rights of anti-globalization activists to be repeatedly infringed, and in some cases restricted, without consequence to the authorities. So, in a very real sense, the importance of WTO meetings seems to have quite literally overridden the rights given to citizens of democratic countries. When G8 leaders were scheduled to meet in Quebec City in 2001, the Canadian government expected protestors to be there in great numbers. So months before the meetings began, the construction of a fence – surrounding the meetings general location – was undertaken, and it represented a new tactic in the fight against democratic expression. Although the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians both expression and mobility rights, neither was upheld in Quebec City. Only citizens able to prove, using photo-identification, that they lived within the fenced off area of the city were able to enter. As the graveness of the situation became apparent to all those who showed up to protest the meetings, people became angry, even infuriated. Restricted from their legitimate right to peacefully assemble, some protestors began to not only tear down the fence, but attack police officers as well. What was originally a fairly peaceful gathering quickly transformed into an ugly clash of police and protestors. Although some protestors took a considerably less serious approach to the situation – mostly by launching pies at riot police – many protestors began to lose control. As the battle of Quebec City wore on, police became less and less discriminating, and often attacked with little to no provocation (Klein "Fences" 32). Only a glance at the Evening News can tell you that these situations are often quite normal at anti-globalization protests. The pure emotional intensity of these mass demonstrations proves to be a fertile ground for violence to breed, making it necessary for the authorities to develop strategies for preventing these happenings from occurring. If steps are not taken, the intensity and scale of the violence will continue to rise. Included in these steps could well be a plan for scaling down police involvement in protests, as well as furthering the freedom anti-globalization activists have in expressing themselves. Although some may see this as giving in, for all the wrong reasons, democratic governments must be able to accept criticism of its policies, whether the criticism is justified or not. Rights must not be seen through a veil of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ but as something that transcends both. To quote President John F. Kennedy, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

The World Trade Organization [WTO] is the world’s foremost economic institution. With over 180 member-states, the WTO has immense influence and power on the international level. With the stated goal of promoting civil liberties and democracy through the expansion of free trade, its existence has provoked leagues of controversy. Concerned citizens have created an ‘international grass roots’ opposition to the WTO and its economic policies, yet because of the nature of the WTO, there has been no major victories against it. While WTO officials firmly believe in the righteousness of their policies, many people are becoming aware of the flaws within the WTO. Although there are numerous reasons to be in opposition of the World Trade Organization, one of the most regularly stated is that the WTO has, while simultaneously 'promoting' democracy, stripped the power from the citizens of member-states and placed it into the laps of a select few. More specifically, the WTO’s ability to strike down domestic policy has caused waves of criticism. After all, it is argued, over a quarter of the WTO’s rulings have been striking down environmental laws! (Roddick "Take" 147) In an age of increased concern over the environment, this statistic clearly shows the power the WTO holds over the world. Furthermore, the WTO places priority on trade and commercial development, often to the point of subordinating other importance causes. Social, environmental and medical laws and regulations are rarely seen as important in comparison to the economy, and laws regarding these concerns do not usually withstand pressure from the WTO. Although the WTO has the power to ‘veto’ almost any domestic law it sees fit, there is no measure of public opinion. This complete disregard for the democratic process infuriates many, and as the WTO continues to grow in strength, there have been many outbursts of dissent within member states. If domestic policy can be dramatically affected by WTO decisions, then public opinion must be able to affect those very decisions. Furthermore, if, as the WTO touts, the progression of democracy throughout the world is one of its primary goals, then surely the institution must reflect its promotions. In the words of Mohandas K. Gandhi, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

There is a second front to the WTO’s attack of globalization critics. Although police involvement in protests may or may not be justifiable, WTO officials’ constant referral to anti-globalization activists as ‘terrorists’ is most definitely not ("Terrorism"). Using its power to place pressure on member-states hesitant to crack down on those critical of globalization, the WTO has succeeded in dramatically shifting the worlds view on censorship. When Australian Police Minister, Michael Costa, announced his plans to shut down numerous anti-WTO websites, it became clear to many that the importance given to the WTO was hugely overpowering. Arguing that protestors had plans for ‘direct action’ at the WTO meeting scheduled in Sydney, Australia, Costa requested that the federal government shutdown the official website of Melbourne Indymedia, a well-known independent news agency critical of the WTO. In his press release, Costa stated that "They [Indymedia] are telling protestors to arm themselves with baseball bats, sling shots, firecrackers, gas masks and marbles." ("NSW") Although there was no real evidence of Indymedia ever advising protestors to take these actions, Costa maintained that there were definite signs of violence ahead. Thankfully, the federal government rejected these proposals. If Costa’s plans had been supported, a dangerous new precedence would have been set for the rest of the world. After all, it would have allowed police to ban future protests if there were even a hint of possible violence. Although the proposal was undertaken by a member of Australia’s national government, there is little doubt that the WTO was involved. When the integrity of an international organization begins to threaten the rights of citizens living in a democracy, there is usually a harsh reaction from many citizens. However, because Indymedia was an alternative source of news, there was no such reaction. If a large media conglomerate, such as CNN, was threatened instead, citizens would have immediately mobilized to fight this obvious attempt at censorship. If the governments of countries belonging to the World Trade Organization continue with their attempts to silence WTO critics, the violence will more likely increase than decrease. Although many anti-globalization activists already feel a strong urge to make their views heard, violently if necessary, nothing increases the human capacity to riot more then the feeling of oppression. If this proposal had been accepted, there is little doubt in my mind that the streets of Sydney would have turned into a war zone. Unless the citizens of so-called democratic countries wish to have their rights restricted further still, democratic governments belong to the WTO must take steps to decrease the restrictions surrounding the free flow of information. Censorship, or the silencing of alternative views one does not agree with, greatly endangers our democratic rights, especially when in the hands of those who are not accountable to public opinion.

Hopefully by now it is clear to the reader why globalization threatens democratic rights, as well as how. The democratic process is undoubtedly under great danger, and it is the duty of citizens to bring change to the current situation. Although anti-globalization views may be ‘wrong’ in the eyes of others, they do represent a legitimate political movement, and nothing is more dangerous to a democracy then the suppression of alternative thought. The Right to Peaceful Assembly is, and must remain to be, the most important right given to democratic citizens. Therefore, it deserves the utmost protection available. Protests, of any sort, should never be banned, and it is the act of an undemocratic government to do so. Furthermore, the World Trade Organizations grip on the rest of the world should be loosened immediately. The legitimacy of an international organization must not challenge the legitimacy of our democratic rights, and to allow this to occur is to ignore the very basis of democracy – self-determination. While the anti-globalization debate as a whole will take further investigation to completely understand, the affects that globalization has on democracy are apparent. Attempts to censor independent media, such as Melbourne Indymedia, must be dismissed immediately. One of the main premises of a dictatorship or a totalitarian government is absolute control over information. Thus, a democracy should use all means necessary to ensure that information remains free, available and accessible by all citizens. Although international economic institutions, such as the WTO, are apparently increasing the general material wealth found throughout the world, the ‘global citizen’ must recognize that material wealth cannot be thought of as more important then democratic rights. Indeed, to even place them on the same level is to endanger the democratic political system. If the protection of democracy demands that economic progress be scaled back, then so be it. As the forefather of both capitalism and globalization, democracy must be kept safe, its well-being intact and, most importantly, its future bright.

-----

TRIPS and the WTO: A Leftist Perspective

In April of 1994, leaders from over 100 nations gathered to sign the Marrakesh Agreement. Finally, after seven years of negotiations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was shut down, only to be replaced one year later by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Making use of the most GATT agreements and policies, the WTO has, in only seven years of existence, made itself the premier international trade institution. Furthermore, numerous new economic agreements have come into place under the WTO's guidance. One of these new agreements, the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS), is the most controversial international economic agreement ever conceived. Coming into effect on January 1st, 1995, the TRIPS agreement covered important economic areas such as trademarks, copyrights, industrial design, trade secrets and patents. It was also the first economic policy that covered covered intellectual property, allowing companies to place trademarks, copyrights or patents on ideas and not just property. This article will examine TRIPS-related situations, and how this agreement may be adversely impacting upon the citizens and economies of developing countries.

According to Larry Elliot, Economic Editor of The Guardian, approximately 11 million people will die from infectious diseases this year alone. The majority of these deaths will be people in developing countries. Poverty is one of the most aggravating factors in health: lack of hygiene, medical care, an imbalanced diet, along with hostile climates all weaken the bodies ability to fight off even the weakest infectious disease. Only if citizens of these developing countries have access to medicinal support can this number be decreased in any significant way. Because most of the world's drugs are produced by the 'Big Four' (Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly), there is a monopoly in the pharmecutical market, which dramatically raises the price of drugs. Unable to afford these vital drugs, third-world countries often have to turn to producing cheap, generic copies of the drugs. To protect their monopoly, the Big Four have enlisted the WTO in fighting against this technique. Although access to medicines would otherwise be restricted because of high prices, the WTO has placed pressure on numerous countries taking part in this industry to comply to the TRIPS agreement, even if it means placing citizens on the sacrificial altar of economic progress.

In Africa, the situation is much the same. While the majority of this continents citizens are slowly withering away from AiIDS, Western countries and their corporations are denying African's access to the medicine they need to improve overall health. When the gravness of the African situation became apparent, many African countries turned to producing a generic AIDS drug. Predictably, the United States challenged this proposition, even though if this drug was not produced, millions upon millions of Africans would die. Luckily, when President Clinton took office, he reversed the previous administrations policies on this matter and allowed the drug to be produced. Unfortunately, this reversal may not stand for long, especially when considering the complete dominance of conservativeness in the United States as of late.

There is a clause within the TRIPS agreement which allows governments, in the event of a national epidemic, the right to unilaterally take over all production of medicine. Although Africa, India and Brazil all qualified for this clause to be enacted, the United States was quck to threaten each country with trade sanctions and tariffs if their inquiry went any further. The rest of the WTO member-countries quickly rallied behind the United States, either to avoid sanctions themselves or out of more direct economic interests. It is in this way that the TRIPS agreement negatively effects the ability of developing countries to deal with their increasingly uneffective health-care systems. Not only does TRIPS decrease the ability developing countries have with these problems, it also inhibits economic progress, further aggravating the poverty these countries face. Unable to compete on the open market, unable to copy pharmecutical 'designs' and improve upon them, the TRIPS agreement has guaranteed that the Big Four will maintain their monopoly on the pharmecutical industry. With this guarantee comes sky-rocketing prices, making it even more difficult for countries to acquire vital medicines. Increased competition would lower the price of drugs, allow new developments to take place and increase general wealth in the third-world. Unfortunately, TRIPS does not allow for this.

The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement endangers not only the stability third-world countries, but also their citizens well being. When business monopolies can determine life or death for third-world citizens, some things must be reconsidered. Profits before people, and the ideology attached to it, cannot uphold for long. Civil unrest may likely follow the strife that this ideology will bring. World stability will be threatened. Furthermore, globalization and free trade both assume a level playing field. Unfortuantely, on the international level, this is not always possible. Therefore, in order to level the playing field, third-world countries must be given certain advantages over first-world countries. If the West is honest in its pursuit to raise economic wealth in the Third World, then we must be prepared to take some losses. If not, then milllions more will die. And death, no matter for what reason, always leaves a stain.

-----

I am knowledgable about anti-globalization, but am by no means an expert. For those that are interested in learning more, theres alot of books you could read. No Logo by Naomi Klein is the usual first book for this subject, and Joseph Stiglitz [spelling?] (former head of IMF, I think he'd know what he's talking about) has some good books out as well.

[G. Adams]

Globalisation itself is good, much better efficiency, encouraging the dissolution of borders etc However the way in which it is being currently conducted is abominable.

[eXploiTeD]

Globalization as strictly an economic affair is resulting in widespread economic deprivation. Without an overriding respect for something - such as democracy - the economy will inevitably produce a hierarchy of power. Which is why the WTO can overrule domestic policy in an undemocratic way.

[castille]

Frankly, I don't see why the WTO should have rights to force democracy onto anyone.

If some dictator wants to impose dictatorship onto his country, then let him. Let people like Saddam torture and exterminate millions. If the WTO or democratic country intervenes, we'll only get socialist protestors clogging the streets and shouting hate slogans.

[G. Adams]

Those protestors oppose using war as anything but a last resort, they arn't defending dictators. The Iraq war was also similtaneously about supposed democratic governments going against what the majority of its citizens wanted, meaning the government were corrupting democracy.

And mooooooosssssssstttt of all they were protesting because they knew full well that the primary motives of actions against Iraq were not baed upon giving the Iraqi people a democratic government, but were for very different reasons. Just listen to the politicians prior to the war. They tacked freedom for the iraqi's after their ten minutes of "iraq has huge stockpiles of WMD, and they're pointed at YOU!" or "we have clear evidence of a connection between Saddam and Al Quida. Now imagine if just one vial of his nerve gas was on one of those planes..." (there is of course a connection between al quida and saddam, a big one, they tried to assassinate him twice)

[castille]

In other words, those protestors prefer to have the US sit back, keep giving aid to Saddam, and cheer on Saddam's atrocities?


Ask yourself this - which system is better? American democracy, or Saddam's hybrid socialist dictatorship?


Maybe it will take a long time to rebuild Iraq. But thats the way democracy is done. Hey, I don't see any protestors actually going to Iraq to help out! I guess its easier to protest from a safe distance eh?

[The Devil]

There is no such thing as American democracy.

One thing that bothers me about Iraq is that the US wants to run the show there, instead of letting them do it themselves. And don't lie to yourself.. that guy they've appointed is a puppet. Gandhi once said that any group of people would rather be ruled by a dictator of their own than a foreign one, and it's true.

[castille]

If the US left, the protestors would complain the US doesn't want to help rebuild....

If the US stays, the protestors are complaining the US plans to set up an Imperial Iraqi government there....



I feel sorry for the American government. Frankly, nothing they do is ever good enough for the protestors. Why not just do what the Chinese did in 89?

[GuidoNius]

Well, castille, I feel sorry you feel sorry but, then again, if they would have stayed out in the first place (or waited for others to agree with them), there wouldn´t be a lot of reason for anybody to feel so sorry.

On the other hand, you're right most of anti-globalism is a cheap word game for a bunch of individuals wanting to globalize there agenda a.o. because "poor people in poor countries" should remain "true to their own culture", in other words they're to stay poor because some Westerners have decided that's best for them.

Agnes

[TwoShanks]

A democratically elected government not doing what the majority of people wants is not in any way going against democracy, since the US and UK operate on representational democracy. Public opinion is an extremely fickle thing, as seen by there now being a majority of british people who support the war.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmov...rint.php?num=26

[GuidoNius]

Twoshanks,

Where did I refer to the US & UK public opinions? Where do you get the funny idea that US & UK public opinion are in some way the main reference outside of the US & the UK?

By the way, speaking of bad moves, referring to an article stating that opinion poll isn´t necessarily an argument for or against doing something in support of an idea you have that the US & UK public opinion was OK with a war is a rather bad move.

Agnes Ostic

[G. Adams]

I think two shanks may have been coming back to an earlier point of mine.

Now 'representative democracy' and 'elected dictatorship' are different things, although the latter claims to be the former. My represetative did not represent my views in parliament, nor did the majority of MP's in Parliament represent their consituencies. That's not representative, nor is it democratic.

And the US is more accurately a liberal democracy, not a representative one. Look at the imbalances in the Senate, and the imbalances in the electoral colleges. It aint representative.

[Impenitent]

not at all, the united states is a constitutionally driven representative republic... not a direct or pure democracy at all and far from "liberal" in the perverted progressive sense

[G. Adams]

I never said anything about the perverted meaning of liberal, I meant it in its traditional form, a government thats only reason for being is to protect the rights of its citizens. This is the basis for the constitution, to allow a government to protect its citizens rights.

its not a representative democracy because its not representative. This came about because, as you I'm sure you know, the smaller states would have rejected the federal plan if they were getting shafted by the bigger states. So the House of Representatives reflected the bigger states want for representation, and the Senate reflects the smaller states want to have a fair say in what happens.

because of the above, the electoral college system is twisted away from representation (well it was to begin with just because the founding fathers didn't trust the people to pick a good president) as the small states get relatively more college votes.

The USA is seen as the archetype of a liberal democracy, and the UK is seen as the archetype of a representative democracy.

[Impenitent]

-its not a representative democracy because its not representative

yes it is representative... we elect representatives to represent us in government... it is not a direct or pure democracy because we do not vote on each issue, the representatives do that...

yes the bicameral legislature represents the whole nation very effectively

no, the smaller states get only as many votes as they have representatives in congress... the electorial college is very fair... otherwise you'd have new york/california/texas/florida as the only states that national candidates would visit... they have the majority of the population... the electoral college insures that the national candidates campaign nationally...

I think the us/uk distinction is one of semantics and not a real worry... both are representative democracies

[eXploiTeD]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)
On the other hand, you're right most of anti-globalism is a cheap word game for a bunch of individuals wanting to globalize there agenda a.o. because "poor people in poor countries" should remain "true to their own culture", in other words they're to stay poor because some Westerners have decided that's best for them.

Agnes<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hey look everyone, the forums neoliberal propagandhist has come out to play... Anti-globalization is actually an oxymoron. Most of us want to see MORE globalization, but not one based on economics that only seem to profit the rich (as exemplified by the increasing gap between rich and poor). I hardly see how wanting higher wages, better environmental and labour regulations and the democratic opinon respected translates into the selfishness you've described above.

What you've just said is the type of bullshit that anti-globalization activists face in the press, and its based not on fact, but rather on the perception people gain by seeing only one side of the issue. Go get informed.

[G. Adams]

No, its not one of semantics, its based upon 50 years of accepted comparative political theory.

The US Constitution is based around protecting the rights of its citizens. The UK parliament is based around political representation of the people before government.

Go look for archetypes of liberal democracies and representative democracies, and see what you find.

[GuidoNius]

Exploited,

Well that's the first time I've been called a neoliberal propagandist.

Fine, you want people to get rich. The neoliberals want the people to get rich. It is a wondrous world of beauty we live in ;)

The real question is however: how do we propose to achieve the goal?

It is a fine technique to call everybody opposing you a neo-liberal. It is as fine as neoliberals calling everybody opposing them Stalinist communists;)

But the thing is: anti-globalist call themselves anti-globalists. One is tempted then, to take it as a serious claim they make. Apparently, they do not think that what´s helping the West to reduce poverty will help the East to reduce poverty. Why so?

Is an Indonesian so different from a Belgian or a Swede in an economic sense to draw the conclusion that what works in Europe would not work in Indonesia? I do not think so, convinced as I am that at group level there are no great distinctions between people (only as individuals is there real uniqueness).

True, the actual measures taken by WTO, IMF & World Bank can be disputed (I´m disputing them all the time, agreeing with Tobin a.o.) but anti-globalists don´t just dispute the measures - they dispute the process. If you read again the book you´d proposed us to read you´ll see that between "green" & "reactionary conservative" there's a surprisingly thin line. In Europe, greens constantly attack socialism from the point of view that it's being too pragmatic about things.

Agnes Ostic

[G. Adams]

There are right wing greens and there are left wing greens. Some want a cottage industry brought back (waaayyy reactionary) and the others think communism or socialism would by default creater a greener world. 'Green' can be applied to anyone in theory, accept perhaps a supporter of laizes-faire capitalism.

[white rice]

Globalisation and its critics

Sep 27th 2001
From The Economist print edition

Globalisation is a great force for good. But neither governments nor businesses, Clive Crook argues, can be trusted to make the case

PUBLICATION of this survey had originally been intended to coincide with the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, scheduled for September 29th-30th in Washington, DC. Those meetings, and the big anti-globalisation protests that had been planned to accompany them, were among the least significant casualties of the terrorist atrocities of September 11th.

You might have thought that the anti-capitalist protesters, after contemplating those horrors and their aftermath, would be regretting more than just the loss of a venue for their marches. Many are, no doubt. But judging by the response of some of their leaders and many of the activists (if Internet chat rooms are any guide), grief is not always the prevailing mood. Some anti-globalists have found a kind of consolation, even a cause of satisfaction, in these terrible events—that of having been, as they see it, proved right.

To its fiercest critics, globalisation, the march of international capitalism, is a force for oppression, exploitation and injustice. The rage that drove the terrorists to commit their obscene crime was in part, it is argued, a response to that. At the very least, it is suggested, terrorism thrives on poverty—and international capitalism, the protesters say, thrives on poverty too.

These may be extreme positions, but the minority that holds them is not tiny, by any means. Far more important, the anti-globalists have lately drawn tacit support—if nothing else, a reluctance to condemn—from a broad range of public opinion. As a result, they have been, and are likely to remain, politically influential. At a time such as this, sorting through issues of political economy may seem very far removed from what matters. In one sense, it is. But when many in the West are contemplating their future with new foreboding, it is important to understand why the sceptics are wrong; why economic integration is a force for good; and why globalisation, far from being the greatest cause of poverty, is its only feasible cure.
Undeniably, popular support for that view is lacking. In the developed economies, support for further trade liberalisation is uncertain; in some countries, voters are downright hostile to it. Starting a new round of global trade talks this year will be a struggle, and seeing it through to a useful conclusion will be harder. The institutions that in most people's eyes represent the global economy—the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation—are reviled far more widely than they are admired; the best they can expect from opinion at large is grudging acceptance. Governments, meanwhile, are accused of bowing down to business: globalisation leaves them no choice. Private capital moves across the planet unchecked. Wherever it goes, it bleeds democracy of content and puts “profits before people”.

Who will speak up for international capitalism? Governments and businesses. What a pity that is. These supposed defenders of globalisation may do more to undermine support for it than the critics.

Rich-country governments generally present economic integration to voters as an unfortunate but inescapable fact of life: as a constraint, that is, on their freedom of action. For the past ten years, this has been the favourite excuse of any government about to break an election promise.

Multinational businesses, for their part, with their enlightened mission statements, progressive stakeholder strategies, flower-motif logos and 57-point pledges of “corporate social responsibility”, implicitly say that they have a case to answer: capitalism without responsibility is bad. That sounds all right; the trouble is, when they start talking about how they will no longer put profits first, people (rightly) think they are lying. If, as these defenders of economies without borders lead you to conclude, global capitalism is a cause of democratic paralysis and a cloak for old-fashioned corporate venality, even instinctive liberals ought to side with the sceptics.

With advocates like these on either side of the globalisation debate—dissembling governments and businesses in favour, angry and uncompromising protesters against—it is natural that the general public stands firmly in support of neither. It has no deep commitment to international capitalism, but it can see no plausible alternative. Certainly, the protesters do not appear to be offering one. So people are mostly puzzled, anxious and suspicious. This climate of opinion is bad for democracy and bad for economic development.

This survey offers a few suggestions for a more purposeful kind of discussion. It would be foolish to suppose that consensus will ever be possible. Some of the sceptics are opposed not just to globalisation or even to the market economy but to the very idea of economic growth. That view has the virtue of coherence, at least, but it is unlikely in the foreseeable future to command a large following.

Nonetheless, in among all their weak arguments, dangerous good intentions and downright loony notions, the sceptics are hiding some important points. Clarifying what makes sense in the sceptics' case, and exposing the mistaken or dishonest arguments that politicians and businessmen are putting up against them, may serve some purpose. And a clearer understanding of the arguments for globalisation, of the problems it solves as well as the problems it creates, may help as well.



Good old invisible hand
The strongest case for globalisation is the liberal one. It is almost never heard, least of all from governments or businessmen. International economic integration, on the liberal view, is what happens when technology allows people to pursue their own goals and they are given the liberty to do so. If technology advances to the point where it supports trade across borders, and if people then choose to trade across borders, you have integration, and because people have freely chosen it this is a good thing. Also, again because people have freely chosen this course, you would expect there to be economic benefits as well.

By and large, theory and practice confirm that this is so. Adam Smith's invisible hand does its work. People choose what serves their own self-interest, each of them making that judgment for himself. The result is that society as a whole prospers and advances—spontaneously, not by design of any person or government.


All kinds of qualifications and elaborations are needed, obviously, to fill out the argument properly. This survey will offer some of them in due course. But it is essential to understand one point from the outset. The liberal case for globalisation is emphatically not the case for domestic or international laisser faire. Liberalism lays down no certainties about the requirements of social justice in terms of income redistribution or the extent of the welfare state. It recognises that markets have their limits, for instance in tending to the supply of public goods (such as a clean environment). A liberal outlook is consistent with support for a wide range of government interventions; indeed a liberal outlook demands many such interventions.

But the starting point for all liberals is a presumption that, under ordinary circumstances, the individual knows best what serves his interests and that the blending of these individual choices will produce socially good results. Two other things follow. The first is an initial scepticism, at least, about collective decision-making that overrides the individual kind. The other is a high regard for markets—not as a place where profits are made, it must be stressed, but as a place where society advances in the common good.

Why then are governments and business leaders rarely heard to put this case? Because for the most part they are not liberals. Perhaps it goes with the job that politicians of left and right, traditional and modern, have an exaggerated view of their ability to improve on the spontaneous order of a lightly governed society.

It would be even more naive, and contrary to all experience, to expect business itself to favour a liberal outlook. Businesses are ultimately interested in one thing: profits. The business-bashing NGOs are right about that. If businesses think that treating their customers and staff well, or adopting a policy of “corporate social responsibility”, or using ecologically friendly stationery will add to their profits, they will do it. Otherwise, they will not.

Does that make market capitalism wrong? On the contrary, the point of a liberal market economy is that it civilises the quest for profit, turning it, willy-nilly, into an engine of social progress. If firms have to compete with rivals for customers and workers, then they will indeed worry about their reputation for quality and fair dealing—even if they do not value those things in themselves. Competition will make them behave as if they did.

Here, then, is where the anti-business NGOs get their argument completely upside down—with genuinely dangerous consequences for the causes, sometimes just, which they hope to advance. On the whole, stricter regulation of international business is not going to reduce profits: the costs will be passed along to consumers. And it is not going to diminish any company's interest in making profits. What it may well do, though, by disabling markets in their civilising role, is to give companies new opportunities to make even bigger profits at the expense of society at large.

For example, suppose that in the remorseless search for profit, multinationals pay sweatshop wages to their workers in developing countries. Regulation forcing them to pay higher wages is demanded. The biggest western firms concede there might be merit in the idea. But justice and efficiency require a level playing-field. The NGOs, the reformed multinationals and enlightened rich-country governments propose tough rules on third-world factory wages, backed up by trade barriers to keep out imports from countries that do not comply. Shoppers in the West pay more—but willingly, because they know it is in a good cause. The NGOs declare another victory. The companies, having shafted their third-world competition and protected their domestic markets, count their bigger profits (higher wage costs notwithstanding). And the third-world workers displaced from locally owned factories explain to their children why the West's new deal for the victims of capitalism requires them to starve.



If firms ruled the world
A fashionable strand of scepticism argues that governments have surrendered their power to capitalism—that the world's biggest companies are nowadays more powerful than many of the world's governments. Democracy is a sham. Profits rule, not people. These claims are patent nonsense. On the other hand, there is no question that companies would run the world for profit if they could. What stops them is not governments, powerful as they may be, but markets.

Governments have the power, all right, but they do not always exercise it wisely. They are unreliable servants of the public interest. Sometimes, out of conviction, politicians decide to help companies reshape the world for private profit. Sometimes, anti-market thinking may lead them to help big business by accident. And now and then, when companies just set out to buy the policies they want, they find in government a willing seller. On all this, presumably, the sceptics would agree.

But they miss the next crucial step: limited government is not worth buying. Markets keep the spoils of corruption small. Government that intervenes left and right, prohibiting this and licensing that, creating surpluses and shortages—now that kind of government is worth a bit. That is why, especially in developing countries with weak legal systems, taming capitalism by regulation or trade protection often proves such a hazardous endeavour.

If NGOs succeeded in disabling markets, as many of them say they would like to, the political consequences would be as dire as the economic ones. It is because the sceptics are right about some things that they are so wrong about the main thing.