...put a human face on globalization. What can be done,
since it's well-nigh inevitable and, if correctly handled, produce a much better globe, what can be done to make the process more
humane? It seems to me the libertarians say you just have to let the terrible pain work through because to do anything would only
make it worse.
John, I started this discussion some days ago and then circumstances intervened and I wasn't able to participate. It's been interesting; I've learned some things but not due very much to my own labours. I've got a chance now to stir the pot a bit.
What I've quoted above seems one kind of common criticism of globalization (which is not necessarily free trade): let the pain work through (say eg. libertarians) because doing anything only makes it worse. Are there things to do to make it more humane? You bet your booties there are.
First, the biggest single cause of misery, especially in less developed places, is war. The necessary interplay of development between town and country is disrupted; order and law is disrupted; populations are displaced; infrastructure is destroyed; and there is usually famine. I do believe putting as a quick an end as possible to wars when they flare up is the first thing, and the most important.
The second biggest cause of misery is repressive, kleptocratic governments which necessarily, for their survival, take for their supporters a very large part of countries' economic output and wealth. This is done through licensing, granting monopolies, tariffs and, generally, suppression of enterprising activity by those not supporting the status quo since those folk provide competition for governments' supporters. Encouraging replacement of these repressive governments will certainly aid greater spread of prosperity.
Doing these things certainly can't make things worse.
Third, this is where it gets complicated, the nature of development is, as mentioned, the interplay between country and town - they are each others' natural market.. As each develops, human effort can produce more goods, services, and improvements (in the general sense of the word). One result is people are displaced as productivity improves - in the modern world usually from the country to the city and from work requiring less skill to that requiring different, or more advanced skill. In the process it's unavoidable that folk become unemployed for a while. There is no requirement in economics these folk be left to starve. But neither is there a requirement that aid which might be given them is such that it 'rewards' or even imposes semi-permanent or permanent unemployment - there are good arguments against that and lots of possible schemes which, to a large degree, could avoid such an outcome.
In lesser developed places there is not a lot of public revenue to support unemployment assistance programs and folk have to depend on savings, charity, assistance from family and friends, This is understood and accepted. Generally speaking, in ordinary lesser developed places and during ordinary times folk get by. Things which can really mess up this idealized picture are numerous. Some are unavoidable, (eg some recessions) but plenty are avoidable.
The most obvious to my understanding are subsidies and tariffs in western countries. Agricultural subsidies are the most pernicious because they make the price of food too cheap. Giving farmers money means they either charge too little or produce too much and food is fungible on a world wide basis through commodities exchanges.* (When the subsidies are introduced the mistaken intent is to aid farmers but it doesn't aid at all - it uncouples them from the economy: general price level rises because of prosperity but that of subsidized crops does not). Because western subsidies lower world price farmers in less developed countries can't compete and leave the land or start growing non foodstuff like coca, poppies, etc. A general price level can be so low even a poor farmer in a very poor country can't do business - this is a disaster because most of the population in less developed lands are living in the countryside - they will migrate to the major cities where there is nothing for them to do because the development cycle country-city has been broken. Too many arrive in town years or decades too soon. Then the farmer is really doomed when the western food aid appears.
That many western countries also have tariffs and quotas against foreign food imports adds to the damage for those less developed countries that might have a surplus to export.
The subsidy has a perverse effect in the west, as well. The lowered price of food makes many smaller farmers unviable as the industry moves to economies of scale to cope. Economies of scale necessarily diminish variety of product and encourage monoculture inside the monoculture. General tax level is higher to pay for the subsidy.
So, acting through good intentions, presumably, to protect the western farm community not only damages it, but destroys the sector in the less developed country, poisons its economic development, and if its farmers take up growing drug crops makes import substitution even more difficult and generates corruption and violence. Acting on good intention in providing food aid finishes the destruction of the less developed countries' farmers.
A libertarian should say doing the right things would lessen the pain considerably. Foremost among the things to do is remove western agricultural subsidies, quotas and tariffs. (At the very least subsidize them for not producing; subsidies tapering off over time). If a human face is to be presented by globalization, then human activity such as participating in the global market must be allowed. To distort a well known slogan, acting local is acting global.
Compared to their internal activities western nations' foreign policies are minimally harmful to lesser developed nations.
A visiting Martian would say: Riffs by self serving development experts, consultants, western business people, officials and politicians on themes of better law, improved bankng, transparency, etc, etc, are at least hypocritical - if not meaningless - when their governments deny the majority of citizens in less developed places access to world markets. That is the source of the inhumanity in globalization and not surprisingly, much of its ideological content, as you would define it |
