I would like to know about the arguments that have been made about
globalization.  The arguments themselves, the key proponents, and the
key sources are all important to me.  Widely regarded arguments
printed in ink (not pixels) take precedence, though of course web refs
to these sources are equally good.

Some framing thoughts: much of the literature is about *policies*
around globalization.  I'm interested in these, but I'd like to see
more depth regarding globalization as a *phenomenon*.  An example of
an argument about globalization as a phenomenon is found in the answer
to, "Culture of Venezuelans-Attn: gitana-ga":

"As the countries of the world become more interconnected via the
structures of globalization, so too do environmental issues in terms
of both cause and effect."

The globalization as phenomenon aspect is most important to me, though
I would like a comprehensive picture.  (And I expect you'll find the
arguments to be linked--we should have this policy b/c of this phenom,
and vice versa.)

I understand it's a large topic -- if you can't address certain areas
our aspects please just call them out.

Please submit your answer by Tuesday April 6, 5pm EST.  

Thank you!

Hi, dashman.

This is a very interesting question. I hope I've interpreted it
correctly, but if I haven't, feel free to ask for clarification.

Globalization as a phenomenon is an interesting concept. While you'll
see different perspectives painted as 'pro free trade' and
'anti-globalization' and the like, it's actually quite rare for anyone
to endorse either pure anarcho-capitalist systems or complete
isolationism, as the terms being bandied about would seem to imply.
(Note that I'll use anti-globalist and pro-globalist here as a sort of
shorthand, but I'll make sure to put quotes around them when I do.)

Globalization is at once an inevitability and an impossibility. We
can't isolate ourselves completely according to geography, nor can we
completely open our communities up to regulation-free commerce. Either
extreme would probably be disastrous, if they weren't both almost
completely out of the question.

One of the central controversies regarding globalization is that of
sustainability. That is, can we sustain a global economy in which
certain countries serve as manufacturing sectors for others? Different
countries have different living standards, different economic
policies, different labor laws, and different cultures. Can a uniform
global economy exist in such a widely diverse landscape?

Many of the 'anti-globalization' side argue that creating a too open
global economy facilitates a 'race to the bottom' for everyone. That
is, if developing nations can provide goods and services more cheaply
due to their lower standards of living and lack of consumer and worker
protections, a global laissez-faire capitalist system makes it
necessary for industrialized nations to loosen their standards in
order to compete. Or, as noted economist (errr, either economist or
pop singer) Billy Bragg put it, "The third world is just around the
corner."

'Pro-globalization' or neoliberal capitalists, however, would argue
that such a global economy is sustainable, and that such policies
encourage more competition; so rather than being a race to the bottom,
it's a race to the top, as developing nations continue to develop in
the increasingly competitive global economy.

The argument really rests in the gray areas, though. It's not a matter
of eliminating regulations entirely, or of isolating ourselves
geographically. It's a question of how much regulation we need, and
what type. Bilateral vs. unilateral trade agreements. Raising labor
standards for developing nations, or lowering them for industrialized
nations. Issues of privatization inevitably arise, as well. Logically,
real free trade would open virtually everything up to competition. In
fact, the terms of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans often
require privatization of various sectors.

So the question is not whether to have regulation, but how much? It's
probably fair to deregulate the market for, say, animal slippers or
scented bath oils. In cases like that, customers vote with their
dollars, as the laissez-faire capitalist line goes. It is much more
difficult, however, to refuse such services as clean water, heat, and
electricity if they're overpriced. And this becomes a global economic
issue when public services in developing nations are privatized by
corporations in industrialized nations.

For a particularly disturbing account of this sort of connection, see
Naomi Klein's article on the installation of pre-paid water meters in
Soweto, South Africa, at the behest of the International Monetary
Fund:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1040484,00.html 

To step back for a moment, the modern incarnation of the global
economy pretty much began after WWII, with the founding of the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For background information,
a brief overview and history of these organizations is available here:

http://www.pcdf.org/1995/bretton.htm

This page provides links to books, articles, and websites that address
various aspects of global economics, and is probably a good place to
start:

http://www.aworldconnected.org/category.php/37.html 

This page at GlobalisationGuide.org provides another overview of the
issues involved:

http://www.globalisationguide.org/index.htm

Their list of books on the topic of globalization is probably one of
the more comprehensive ones available, in that it offers books with
varying messages, topics, and viewpoints:

http://www.globalisationguide.org/sb03.html

In terms of current literature available, probably the most
authoritative published overview of the subject would be Nobel prize
winner Joseph Stiglitz' Globalization and its Discontents. While he
does tend to focus on existing policy, his insights into those
policies are unique. Having served as Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist for the World Bank from 1997 to 2000, his expertise is
solid, and his authority on the issue is almost unimpeachable.

Here's Stiglitz' humble home page:

http://www-1.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

You can also use the links at the top of the page to access more
information about his experience and his writings.

This page provides links to his books, including Globalization and its
Discontents and another book, The Rebel Within: Joseph Stiglitz and
the World Bank, that addresses many of the same topics:

http://www-1.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/books.cfm

Again, Stiglitz focuses on economic policy, as that is his strongest
area of expertise. As such, his works tend to address more of the
actual effects of global economic policy rather than philosophy.

Literature addressing the concept of globalization as a phenomenon is
a much wider field. One of the most commonly quoted books in this area
is probably Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Friedman
is unabashedly pro-globalization, and tends to take somewhat of a
utopian and romantic view of globalization as a concept.

Friedman's Lexus and the Olive Tree webpage is here:

http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/lexusolivetree.htm

And his main website is accessible by backing up a link to this page:

http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/

Note that Friedman is Foreign Affairs columnist for the New York
Times, so many of the information on his website is related to topics
unrelated--at least broadly--to global economics.

For good measure, there's an "Anti-Friedman Page" here:

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Anti-Friedman.htm

The page linked above provides a wealth of links to more detailed
information on the negative effects of neoliberal capitalism.
Especially note the dedicated links page here:

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Teaching/753links.htm

For a somewhat more pragmatic pro-globalization perspective than
Friedman's, see the Institute for International Economics website
here:

http://www.iie.com/

They offer position papers covering a variety of global economic
topics, including agricultural reform, outsourcing, and so forth.

The World Economics Forum website represents, for lack of a better
term, the muckety-mucks of global economics:

http://www.weforum.org/

Those opposing current globalization policies offer any number of
arguments as well.

This page, excerpted from the book Global Village or Global Pillage,
provides an overview of several common objections:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Brecher/Race%20to%20Bottom_GVGP.html

Global Exchange, one of the primary movers in the shutdown of the WTO
talks in Seattle in 1999, has a website here that covers many
additional arguments against existing global economic policy:

http://www.globalexchange.org/

This webpage, from the Global Policy Forum, provides an
'anti-globalist' perspective on a variety of issues:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/intropg.htm

Again, I hope this addresses what you were looking for. It is, as you
said, a large topic, and I realize I've gone all over the map here, as
it were, so please feel free to ask if you need more information on a
given topic.


Search terms:

globalization
"joseph stiglitz"
"thomas friedman" lexus olive tree
"world bank" "imf"
"race to the bottom" 
"water meters" soweto "naomi klein"

---

Request for Answer Clarification by dashman-ga on 05 Apr 2004 13:01 PDT

lisarea, thank you for your answer.  I think this is a good answer and
as it stands I'd give it four stars out of five.  Probably it is a lot
to ask for $40.  I think there is a lot of good content here, but not
quite in the framework I suggested.  I'm very interested in
_arguments_ or theses with resepect to globalization, and the people
who made them, more than just identifying key issues.  For example,
the assertion that we are engaged in a race to the bottom is an
argument that is new to my ears and is exactly what I am interested
in.  If you're interested in summarizing this work as a list of
arguments and their proponents, I'll give you a five.  Otherwise I'll
happily give you a four.  Either way, I'll consider posting a
follow-up question in the future. Thanks kindly!  -dashman

---

Clarification of Answer by lisarea-ga on 06 Apr 2004 01:22 PDT

Hi again, dashman.

I agree. I definitely could have organized this better.

Let me just refer to the primary arguments, then try to pick out a few
key proponents of each side. I hope that'll give you more what you're
looking for.

In a nutshell, you can probably broadly categorize most of the major
works as being either 'anti-globalization'/'race to the bottom' or as
'pro-globalization'/'race to the top.' Most of the arguments come down
to this, to some degree or another.

The 'race to the bottom' side will often argue that an unregulated
global capitalist economy not only drags the standard of living down
for much of the world, but the unfettered capitalism aspect creates an
environment of unsustainable growth. That is, the first world not only
suffers from a lowered standard of living in terms of actual wealth,
but in terms of lack of environmental controls, safety standards,
labor laws, and so forth.

The 'race to the top' side, as they've begun to call themselves,
argues the converse. That is, that developing nations will enjoy
better living standards through increased wealth and through the
addition of environmental controls, safety standards, labor laws, and
so forth.

As such, at least in broad terms, it's fairly safe to categorize this
as two sides, with a little asterisk for the relatively moderate
Joseph Stiglitz. I put him in the first category only because he is
pretty strongly associated with the anti-IMF movement, although I've
tried to put a finer point on his main arguments.

The "race to the bottom" concept, as described above, is one that is
embraced by much of the 'anti-globalization' crowd. Among those who
hold this perspective, to some degree or another, are:

***
Joseph Stiglitz, economist. While 'race to the bottom' is probably a
little strident a concept to attribute to Stiglitz, he makes eloquent
arguments for the need for slow, cautious moves toward privatization
and opening global markets in developing nations. Ultimately, he is a
proponent of capitalism, but he argues that the process of bringing
developing nations along is being done hastily and hurts those
countries more than it helps. Largely, he attributes this to the
actions of the International Monetary Fund and the power structure,
wherein the G7/G8 (definition below*) largely control the IMF and
other international organizations, and corporate interests control
much of the capitalist G7/G8.

***
Naomi Klein, journalist. Here's a link to her biography:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/092300-103.htm

Ms. Klein is a journalist, but she has written fairly extensively on
global economics for The Nation, The Guardian, and other periodicals.
This story from Alternet characterizes her as "the unofficial
spokesperson for the anti-globalization movement":

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14175

***
Other major proponents of the 'race to the bottom' argument are:

Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello, in Global Village or Global Pillage
Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up, available here:

http://www.discovereconomics.com/bookstore/economichistory/0896084949AMUS188269.shtml

Ralph Nader, who wrote a book called The Case Against Free Trade,
available from Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556431694/102-5294448-3610527

----

On the other side of the argument, many have even adopted the
terminology 'race to the top' to describe their vision of the positive
effects of globalization.

Some of the main proponents of this viewpoint are:

***
Thomas Friedman, journalist and author of the Lexus and the Olive
Tree, described previously. Friedman argues that the effects of
globalization have an overall positive effect on all nations, allowing
developing nations access to technology, information, and other goods
that were previously unavailable to them. This is, in fact, a central
argument in The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

***
Tomas Larsson, journalist and author of a book called The Race to the Top.

His biography is here:

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=57

and a description of the book is available online here:

http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/460.html

An excerpt reads:

"He finds that, thanks to the spread of global markets, hundreds of
millions of previously poor people have left poverty and misery behind
them and taken their place among the global middle class."

---

The only other very divisive issue regarding globalization is that of
protectionism. Few people, in fact, identify themselves as
protectionists, as it's not exactly economic theory. Many people,
however, accede to it to some degree or another, without adopting the
'protectionist' label.

Protectionism is defined here:

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/protectionism.html

as such:

"Any of several political-economic doctrines that have in common
advocating that government impose political barriers to international
trade (usually taxes on imports or quantitative restrictions limiting
the volume of legally allowable imports of each particular good) in
order to "protect" a domestic firm (or firms) manufacturing these same
goods from foreign competition and thereby make it (them) more
profitable than would otherwise be the case under free competition."

The primary proponents of purely protectionist policies are probably
labor unions and those associated with them. While many politicians
and journalists and the like will advocate certain concessions to
protectionist policies, they will rarely come out and admit it.

However, the 'anti-globalist' arguments reach many of the same
conclusions as protectionism, and as such, it can be difficult
sometimes to separate the two fully. But, hey. I'll give it a shot
anyway.

Joseph Stiglitz advocates at least measured protectionism for
developing nations, in order to help them come up to speed slowly,
before they advance into the global market.

Naomi Klein advocates similar ideas to Stiglitz' in this area. 

Ralph Nader also advocates a number of protectionist policies for US labor unions. 

And, yes, I managed to come up with a list containing Joseph Stiglitz,
Naomi Klein, Ralph Nader, AND...

Pat Buchanan, whose book The Great Betrayal, offers an unabashedly
protectionist stance. The book and description are available here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316115185/ref=ase_politics1A/102-5294448-3610527

As for 'anti-protectionists,' virtually any very pro-capitalist,
pro-globalist will argue against protectionism, at least on a large
scale. Unfortunately, 'protectionist' has become something of a slur,
so it's fairly easy to find people who claim to oppose protectionism
but really aren't consistent with those ideas. Among the more vocal
and consistent anti-protectionists are:

Thomas Friedman, whose Lexus and the Olive Tree analogy involves
creating a global economy in which the cultural elements of a society
(the olive tree) can coexist peacefully with the positive benefits of
living in a global economy (the Lexus).

George Will, columnist, as in the article here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4569823/

In fact, in the article, he claims that "Anti-globalization is
protectionism with moral pretensions," which somewhat explains why the
lines are so easily drawn between the two sides.

If you're interested in reading further on the topic of global
economics in general, this site offers a wealth of books on both sides
of the issue:

http://www.aworldconnected.org

This is a tangly topic, but I hope this clarifies the major issues
sufficiently for your needs.



* G7/G8 is defined as:

"G-7  A group of seven major industrialized countries whose heads of
state have met annually since 1976 in summit meetings to discuss
economic and political issues. The seven are United States, Canada,
Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy (plus the EU).
G-8  The G-7 plus Russia, which have met as a full economic and
political summit since 1998.  "

from this site, which offers an excellent glossary of international economics:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/

Thank you lisarea!  A tough question for the time constraints; very
helpful answer.  Thanks for rehashing re: clarification.