Anti-globalization

Anti-globalization is a term most commonly used to describe the political stance of the grouping of social movements which are prominent in protests against global trade agreements and the negative consequences for the poor, for the environment and for peace which they claim follow from them. Participants in these movements often reject the term "anti-globalization", preferring to describe themselves as the Global Justice Movement, the Movement of Movements, the alter-globalization movement or the Anti-corporate Movement.

Criticisms

The anti-globalization movement has been heavily criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of capitalist globalization. Participants in the movement often dismiss these criticisms as carping from a tiny minority who can express their opinions via what they call the corporate media. They claim that the criticisms themselves are self-serving and unrepresentative of informed popular opinion.

Related Topics:
Conservative - Think tank - Economists - Corporate media

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One of the most common criticisms of the movement, which does not necessarily come from its enemies, is simply that the anti-globalization movement lacks coherent goals, and that the views of different protesters are often in opposition to each other. Many members of the movement are also aware of this, and argue that, as long as they have a common enemy, they should march together - even if they don't share exactly the same political vision.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One argument often made by the opponents of the anti-globalization movement (especially by The Economist), is that one of the major causes of poverty amongst third-world farmers are the trade barriers put up by rich nations. The WTO is an organisation set up to work towards removing those trade barriers. Therefore, it is argued, people really concerned about the plight of the third world should actually be encouraging free trade, rather than attempting to fight it. Further in this vein, it is argued that the protesters' opposition to free trade is sometimes aimed at protecting the interests of Western labor (whose wages and conditions are protected by trade barriers) rather than the interests of the developing world. This contrasts with the stated goals of those in the movement, which are to improve the conditions of ordinary farmers and workers everywhere.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Anti-globalization activists counter these claims by arguing that free trade policies create an environment for workers similar to the prisoner's dilemma, in which workers in different countries are tempted to "defect" or "betray" other workers by undercutting standards on wages and work conditions. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement supports a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit, and argues for fair trade - which is specifically aimed to provide third-world farmers with better terms of trade.

Related Topics:
Prisoner's dilemma - Fair trade

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The book Globalization Unmasked claims that "the major adversaries of globalization in the dominated countries have been the peasant movements particularly in Latin America and parts of Asia." Some peasant farmers contend that free-trade policies merely aid a narrow stratum of cash-crop oriented agricultural firms in their own countries with links to multinational agribusiness, and subsidized agribusiness in developed countries. A report by Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, notes that "millions of farmers are losing their livelihoods in the developing countries, but small farmers in the northern countries are also suffering" and concludes that "the current inequities of the global trading system are being perpetuated rather than resolved under the WTO, given the unequal balance of power between member countries." http://www.landaction.org/gallery/Zieglerpaper.pdf. Critics respond that it is only natural that there are relatively fewer jobs for farmers as a nation become more industrialized and that actual statistics (see below) shows sharply reduced poverty in the Third World.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another criticism against the movement is that, although it protests about things that are widely recognized as serious problems, such as human rights violations, genocide and global warming, it rarely proposes detailed solutions. Proponents of the movement point to the existence of web resources like the Philadelphia IMC alternatives site http://www.phillyimc.org/alternatives and the annual World Social Fora where numerous solutions are proposed and debated and empirical data on social experiments are exchanged.

Related Topics:
Human rights violations - Genocide - Global warming - World Social Fora

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some have also criticized the movement for engaging in violent protest. Aside from the indisputably violent tactics used by a minority of protesters (possibly aggravated by the police), some see an enforced blockade of events and public throughways as a violent action, in and of itself. Many protesters counter that blockades are a time-honored technique of civil disobedience, and that the organizations they are protesting against are themselves guilty of crimes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The motivations of the organisers of the protests are often questioned. Some believe that the key organisers are really communists who aim to start a revolution. The counter-argument to this is that the movement has a very horizontal power structure, so that the power of any key organisers is limited, and that if violent revolution can be considered a real possibility, then it is a clear sign that something must be very wrong with the current system.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some critics point to pervasive anti-Americanism in the anti-globalist movement. They argue that anti-globalisation protestors in fact object to many people around the world voluntarily choosing American (or American-style) cultural products. Attempts to prevent the 'americanization' of French culture would be an example of this. In this sense, anti-globalisation is perceived as cultural chauvanism directed against American products, corporations and individuals, whereas their close European equivalents are ignored or even celebrated. Thus, these critics contend that anti-global groups routinely favor European style economic, political and cultural systems over Anglo-American ones, belying a cultural bias and not necessarily an objection to globalization itself.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some commentators have claimed that anti-Semitism is rife in the movement. These charges are generally related to the fact that solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of Israeli government policy are common within the movement. People such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein and Jewish Voice for Peace have argued that this is not necessarily indicative of anti-Semitism. See Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism for further elaboration.

Related Topics:
Palestinian - Israel - Noam Chomsky - Naomi Klein - Jewish Voice for Peace - Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Finally, critics assert that members of the anti-globalization movement use anecdotal evidence to support their views, which are not supported by worldwide economic and social statistics. These critics point to statistical trends which suggest beneficial effects of globalization, capitalism, and the economic growth they encourage. One such trend is the decrease in the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 per day (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power), which has halved in only twenty years http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp. A second such trend is the doubling of life expectancy in the developing world since WWII. A third such trend is the decrease in child mortality in every developing region of the world http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2429. A fourth trend is diminishing income inequality for the world as a whole http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT_november_27.htm. A fifth trend is the increase in universal suffrage, from no nations in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html. A sixth trend is the shift in food supplies available; the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s. A seventh trend is the rising rate of literacy; between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent, and female literacy as a percentage of male literacy increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000. There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita as well as the percentage of the population with access to clean water http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-4F02KWN-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_cdi=5946&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_artOutline=Y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=273c9d354f2f52b3b14606a5a3b2d69f#bfn25.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Members of the anti-globalization movement respond that "growth is good for the poor" is an uncontroversial claim, and yet it misses the main point, which is that neoliberal policies consistent with globalization and capitalism may not actually be causing growth that has beneficial effects for the poor. They take issue with the time period which is often normally associated with worldwide statistics, and they argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has noted that from 1980-2000 there has been diminished progress in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and to a lesser extent education. http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm] Moreover, they have disputed the claim that the statistical trends are the effects of neoliberal policies followed by the IMF and World Bank in recent years have led to growth. Directly criticizing a world bank study, CEPR economists concluded: "Economic growth over the last twenty years, the period during which the policies advocated by the authors (and their institution) have been put into place, has been dramatically reduced. It may well be true, as Dr. Dollar argues, that "to ignore the importance of growth-enhancing policies is an injustice to the poor." But to assume that the World Bank and the IMF have brought "growth-enhancing policies" to their client countries goes against the overwhelming weight of the evidence over the last two decades." http://www.cepr.net/globalization/Growth_May_Be_Good_for_the_Poor.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Critics of anti-globalization note that the above study gives all nations equal weight, giving China with its 1.3 billion people the same importance as Belize with its 300,000 people. If instead giving all people in the developing world the same weight, then growth and reductions in poverty have not slowed http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://mapage.noos.fr/ecodev/Surjit%2520Bhalla/Two_Policy_Briefs.pdf. They also point to the many peer-reviewed articles and research which demonstrate a correlation between economic freedom and well-being. There are two indices of economic freedom used in economic research. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to lack of governmental intervention in the economy, free trade, and strength of private property rights. They use statistics from independent organizations like the United Nations to score countries in various categories like the size of government, degree of taxes, security of property rights, degree of free trade and size of market regulations. Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and poverty http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html. The more advanced capitalist countries have much higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries. http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf. Other studies have shown similar results http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.htmlhttp://www.ratioinstitutet.nu/pdf/wp/nb_efi.pdf.

Related Topics:
Peer-reviewed - Indices of economic freedom - United Nations

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Doug Henwood, author of After the New Economy, faults the methodology of such studies, arguing that the selection of indices is arbitrary, the conclusions drawn are dubious (often neglecting the elementary fact that "correlation does not prove causation"), and concluding that the report is "meaningless." http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/FreedomIndex.html. At a more fundamental level Henwood disputes the definition of "economic freedom" used in such indices. Supporters note that this article is not peer-reviewed in contrast to many studies which do show causation http://www.ratioinstitutet.nu/pdf/wp/nb_efi.pdf.

Related Topics:
Doug Henwood - After the New Economy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many supporters of capitalism do think that different policies than today should be pursued, although not necessarily those advocated by the anti-globalization movement. For example, some see the World Bank and the IMF as corrupt bureaucracies which have given repeated loans to dictators who never do any reforms. Some argue that free trade may be harmful in certain instances or that spending on education and basic health care may be very important. Some, like Hernando de Soto, argue that the most important thing for the developing world may be too develop the institutions of capitalism, like protecting the property rights and access to credit for the poor.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~