P. 18, middle - "The positivist picture can get in the way" of understanding the world. "In particular, it often gets in the way of the cosmopolitan project when it leads people to overestimate some obstacles to cross-cultural understanding while underestimating others."
P. 18, lower middle - The two psychological states of beliefs and desires drive what people do.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Globalization/Anti-Globalization Paper
Task/Topic: Held and McGrew describe and analyze globalization. In your view, has globalization resulted in net gains or losses to global well-being? Should the process be stopped, or accelerated? Write a paper of 3-4 double-spaced pages in which you make clear your conclusion on this issue, and use quotes from the text (or other sources) to defend your choice.
Let's expand this question based on the H&M's definition:
Has the intensification of worldwide social relations and interactions such that distant events acquire very localized impacts, and the structural shift away from discrete, but interdependent national states, to the world as a shared place, resulted in net gains or losses to global well-being.
Should it be stopped or accelerated?
Measures of Global well-being
Net gains or losses to human well-being?
Stop/accelerate the process?
Idea from pg. 4: "globalization involves the idea that power ... is often organized and exercised at at distance"
Held/McGrew might paint anti-globalists in to a corner they don't want when H/G say on pg. 7 top that "Today borders and boundaries, ...., define an epoch, the skeptics argue, of radical de-globalization: the disintegration and demise of globalization." This means globalization once prevailed, which tacitly has the skeptics saying it once previaled as a force and process.
My observation based on the top paragraph of page 7 is that globalization happens during times of relative safety. People act as individuals, looking for opportunity throughout the world, when the world is safe, but fall back behind national walls when times become dangerous. The degree to which globalization prevails over nationalism parallels the degree to which individual action prevails over collective action. I agree that "globalization is far from historically unprecedented" p. 7
Globalization, as a term, seems very similar to acceleration, as a term. We apply the term acceleration when we see increasing change. We don't use it as the name of a force that causes the acceleration. We posit forces (e.g. gravity) that cause the acceleration we observe (e.g. increasing speed during free fall).
Forces (something that one can direct or apply or control that changes an outcome):
"As an idea or discourse, globalization finds expression almost everywhere in the rhetoric of politicians and social movements as a rationale for social and political action." My observation is that if it were not "globalization" as a rationale, it would be some other meta-concept.
I think that in some ways the advance of democracy (p. 16 mid-top) has made relationships between countries more difficult. With increasing personal and organizational freedom within a country comes increasing ability to form relationships across national boundaries. Consider the aggregation of interest and force within Al-quiada.
Note that the increase in NGOs happened around the time of the 1972 oil embargo and that a slowing of ngo growth happened around the time of rapid internet growth.
I believe that the processes of globalization and nationalization can happen simultaneously. H and M use irregular armed conflict (p. 54) as an example of how warfare (organized violence) has become globalized instead of following the traditional national of being waged by national military forces for the total destruction of the enemy (another nation state).
Let's look at certain pieces of evidence that H and M bring to bear on their argument about whether warfare (organized violence) has changed in character in a way that indicates a move away from nationalism and toward globalism.
P. 121 "That the world wide expansion of capitalist relations historically has produced differential incorporation and thus uneven development within and even between countries is hardly new. As economic activity becomes increasingly concentrated in the regional cores of the OECD, the result is to limit or block the development prospects of many less developed states." This situation reminds me of what happened during the great depression. The collapse of the stock market threw many people out of the economy. Many folks did not have resources necessary to get into the money network. Those who did have the resources continued to interact among themselves. It wasn't until after World War II that many more folks had the resources to participate in the money network. During the war, the wealthy had to participate in rationing - many many were employed - little place to spend their money - encouraged to put their money into bonds - wealth distribution evened - most came out of War with savings and could begin to participate in the money network. The unification of hearts and minds toward avoiding loss (humans are loss averse to the tune of two to one) of life and freedom helped regulate the wealth accumulation power of the wealthiest and bring it in closer alignment with the least wealthy. The result is the same for the world economy - once people are thrown out of the money and trade network, getting in becomes very difficult.
One way to summarize globalization in the terms of the sceptics is to call it meta-national - above and beyond the national.
One reason we a controversy about globalism versus nationalism is that some countries have a very divers population. Some will find that collective national action action will benefit them, while some will find that meta-national action will benefit them most. Still others will find that strong national unity and meta-nationalization. Consider the benefit that relative national unity has had for Singapore (p. 122) Haggard (2000) considers this an example of a "developmental state model" - see bottom of page 124.
Questions:
Resources
Let's expand this question based on the H&M's definition:
Has the intensification of worldwide social relations and interactions such that distant events acquire very localized impacts, and the structural shift away from discrete, but interdependent national states, to the world as a shared place, resulted in net gains or losses to global well-being.
- How should we measure global well-being? What areas of well-being should I look at? Health, number of deaths due to organized violence,
- At what points in time do we measure well-being in before and after values?
Should it be stopped or accelerated?
- The challenge is to control the process of globalization in a way that satisfies democratic principles of broad inclusion and equality of treatment. Saying that globalization is bad is much like saying that acceleration is bad. Both describe a state of being. What we make of situation is another matter. The answer depends on the circumstances. I can imagine situations where I would want to accelerate a bicycle to catch up with at friend and globalize an activity to achieve a benefit. How broadly one involves and fairly one treats those with a stake in the change is the real question.
- The other challenge is possibly to reform the nature of liberal global governance (p. 157 middle) in meta-national/suprastate institutions (top of 157) - essentially greater transparency and accountability as called for by Keohane (2001).
- as a descriptive term; as a force causing or explanation of observed change; as an ideal for the form of global governance
- "intensification of worldwide social relations and interactions such that distant events acquire very localized impacts, and the structural shift away from discrete, but interdependent national states, to the world as a shared place"
- "a valid ethical aspiration" p. 158 - meaning the aspiration to form a multi-layer, multi-sectoral, and multi-actor system of world-wide governance
Measures of Global well-being
- income inequality (p. 126)
- absolute poverty (p. 126)
- rising life expectancy (p. 127)
Net gains or losses to human well-being?
Stop/accelerate the process?
Idea from pg. 4: "globalization involves the idea that power ... is often organized and exercised at at distance"
Held/McGrew might paint anti-globalists in to a corner they don't want when H/G say on pg. 7 top that "Today borders and boundaries, ...., define an epoch, the skeptics argue, of radical de-globalization: the disintegration and demise of globalization." This means globalization once prevailed, which tacitly has the skeptics saying it once previaled as a force and process.
My observation based on the top paragraph of page 7 is that globalization happens during times of relative safety. People act as individuals, looking for opportunity throughout the world, when the world is safe, but fall back behind national walls when times become dangerous. The degree to which globalization prevails over nationalism parallels the degree to which individual action prevails over collective action. I agree that "globalization is far from historically unprecedented" p. 7
Globalization, as a term, seems very similar to acceleration, as a term. We apply the term acceleration when we see increasing change. We don't use it as the name of a force that causes the acceleration. We posit forces (e.g. gravity) that cause the acceleration we observe (e.g. increasing speed during free fall).
Forces (something that one can direct or apply or control that changes an outcome):
- H&M use the forces of capitalism and imperialism (p. 122).
- National collective power
- individual economic power used in a collective way
- P. 124 - "the shift from development-led approach to security-led approach" to distributing aid to developing countries
- Policies on immigration and the degree of immigration (shared interests across national boundaries might help create policies that favor more equitable markets and global institutions (the kind referenced on p. 124)
- degree of democracy within a nation - the balance of power and breadth of inclusion in nations will affect the choices they make as a nation. Some will take the "developmental state model"
- technology
- Lindert example of national choice and decision making on top of page 128 - countries that decide to integrate with the world economy show signs of income convergence ..."
- military strength
- the type of constitution they have (go back and find the article from my economics class about the influence of constitutional type
"As an idea or discourse, globalization finds expression almost everywhere in the rhetoric of politicians and social movements as a rationale for social and political action." My observation is that if it were not "globalization" as a rationale, it would be some other meta-concept.
I think that in some ways the advance of democracy (p. 16 mid-top) has made relationships between countries more difficult. With increasing personal and organizational freedom within a country comes increasing ability to form relationships across national boundaries. Consider the aggregation of interest and force within Al-quiada.
Note that the increase in NGOs happened around the time of the 1972 oil embargo and that a slowing of ngo growth happened around the time of rapid internet growth.
I believe that the processes of globalization and nationalization can happen simultaneously. H and M use irregular armed conflict (p. 54) as an example of how warfare (organized violence) has become globalized instead of following the traditional national of being waged by national military forces for the total destruction of the enemy (another nation state).
Let's look at certain pieces of evidence that H and M bring to bear on their argument about whether warfare (organized violence) has changed in character in a way that indicates a move away from nationalism and toward globalism.
- H&M on page 51 middle indicate that "little evidence suggests an erosion in the state's monopoly of legitimate violence ... or means of destruction." I read this to mean that the erosion or diminution of state waged war acts as a sign of globalization - the "intensification of worldwide social relations and interactions such that distant events acquire very localized impacts" (P. 2, definition) - "the structural shift away from discrete, but interdependent national states to the world as a shared place" (p. 3)
- H&M indicate on page 56 that they see "a huge expansion in the global market for force." Apparently they use this to indicate a shift toward globalism with the diminution of nation state power and ability to wage war.
P. 121 "That the world wide expansion of capitalist relations historically has produced differential incorporation and thus uneven development within and even between countries is hardly new. As economic activity becomes increasingly concentrated in the regional cores of the OECD, the result is to limit or block the development prospects of many less developed states." This situation reminds me of what happened during the great depression. The collapse of the stock market threw many people out of the economy. Many folks did not have resources necessary to get into the money network. Those who did have the resources continued to interact among themselves. It wasn't until after World War II that many more folks had the resources to participate in the money network. During the war, the wealthy had to participate in rationing - many many were employed - little place to spend their money - encouraged to put their money into bonds - wealth distribution evened - most came out of War with savings and could begin to participate in the money network. The unification of hearts and minds toward avoiding loss (humans are loss averse to the tune of two to one) of life and freedom helped regulate the wealth accumulation power of the wealthiest and bring it in closer alignment with the least wealthy. The result is the same for the world economy - once people are thrown out of the money and trade network, getting in becomes very difficult.
One way to summarize globalization in the terms of the sceptics is to call it meta-national - above and beyond the national.
One reason we a controversy about globalism versus nationalism is that some countries have a very divers population. Some will find that collective national action action will benefit them, while some will find that meta-national action will benefit them most. Still others will find that strong national unity and meta-nationalization. Consider the benefit that relative national unity has had for Singapore (p. 122) Haggard (2000) considers this an example of a "developmental state model" - see bottom of page 124.
Questions:
- does the adoption of English promote globalism - does it serve as a common communication mechanism
- how does technology promote globalism
- did WWII have an influence? lots of service men and women from many countries went off to many other countries
- The fall of communism? - the world appeared to be a safer place - maybe look for surveys on personal sense of security with foreign travel
Resources
- http://immigrationforum.nd.edu/resources/files/Freeman-Introduction.pdf
- http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/06/streeten.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
- http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/3/1/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)