Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Virtues of Deglobalization
The current global downturn, the worst since the Great Depression 70 years ago, pounded the last nail into the coffin of globalization. Already beleaguered by evidence that showed global poverty and inequality increasing, even as most poor countries experienced little or no economic growth, globalization has been terminally discredited in the last two years. As the much-heralded process of financial and trade interdependence went into reverse, it became the transmission belt not of prosperity but of economic crisis and collapse.
End of an Era
In their responses to the current economic crisis, governments paid lip service to global coordination but propelled separate stimulus programs meant to rev up national markets. In so doing, governments quietly shelved export-oriented growth, long the driver of many economies, though paid the usual nostrums to advancing trade liberalization as a means of countering the global downturn by completing the Doha Round of trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization. There is increasing acknowledgment that there will be no returning to a world centrally dependent on free-spending American consumers, since many are bankrupt and nobody has taken their place.
Moreover, whether agreed on internationally or unilaterally set up by national governments, a whole raft of restrictions will almost certainly be imposed on finance capital, the untrammeled mobility of which has been the cutting edge of the current crisis.
Intellectual discourse, however, hasn't yet shown many signs of this break with orthodoxy. Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on free trade, the primacy of private enterprise, and a minimalist role for the state, continues to be the default language among policymakers. Establishment critics of market fundamentalism, including Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, have become entangled in endless debates over how large stimulus programs should be, and whether or not the state should retain an interventionist presence or, once stabilized, return the companies and banks to the private sector. Moreover some, such as Stiglitz, continue to believe in what they perceive to be the economic benefits of globalization while bemoaning its social costs.
But trends are fast outpacing both ideologues and critics of neoliberal globalization, and developments thought impossible a few years ago are gaining steam. "The integration of the world economy is in retreat on almost every front," writes the Economist. While the magazine says that corporations continue to believe in the efficiency of global supply chains, "like any chain, these are only as strong as their weakest link. A danger point will come if firms decide that this way of organizing production has had its day."
"Deglobalization," a term that the Economist attributes to me, is a development that the magazine, the world's prime avatar of free market ideology, views as negative. I believe, however, that deglobalization is an opportunity. Indeed, my colleagues and I at Focus on the Global South first forwarded deglobalization as a comprehensive paradigm to replace neoliberal globalization almost a decade ago, when the stresses, strains, and contradictions brought about by the latter had become painfully evident. Elaborated as an alternative mainly for developing countries, the deglobalization paradigm is not without relevance to the central capitalist economies.
11 Pillars of the Alternative
There are 11 key prongs of the deglobalization paradigm:
- Production for the domestic market must again become the center of gravity of the economy rather than production for export markets.
- The principle of subsidiarity should be enshrined in economic life by encouraging production of goods at the level of the community and at the national level if this can be done at reasonable cost in order to preserve community.
- Trade policy - that is, quotas and tariffs - should be used to protect the local economy from destruction by corporate-subsidized commodities with artificially low prices.
- Industrial policy - including subsidies, tariffs, and trade - should be used to revitalize and strengthen the manufacturing sector.
- Long-postponed measures of equitable income redistribution and land redistribution (including urban land reform) can create a vibrant internal market that would serve as the anchor of the economy and produce local financial resources for investment.
- Deemphasizing growth, emphasizing upgrading the quality of life, and maximizing equity will reduce environmental disequilibrium.
- The development and diffusion of environmentally congenial technology in both agriculture and industry should be encouraged.
- Strategic economic decisions cannot be left to the market or to technocrats. Instead, the scope of democratic decision-making in the economy should be expanded so that all vital questions - such as which industries to develop or phase out, what proportion of the government budget to devote to agriculture, etc. - become subject to democratic discussion and choice.
- Civil society must constantly monitor and supervise the private sector and the state, a process that should be institutionalized.
- The property complex should be transformed into a "mixed economy" that includes community cooperatives, private enterprises, and state enterprises, and excludes transnational corporations.
- Centralized global institutions like the IMF and the World Bank should be replaced with regional institutions built not on free trade and capital mobility but on principles of cooperation that, to use the words of Hugo Chavez in describing the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), "transcend the logic of capitalism."
From the Cult of Efficiency to Effective Economics
The aim of the deglobalization paradigm is to move beyond the economics of narrow efficiency, in which the key criterion is the reduction of unit cost, never mind the social and ecological destabilization this process brings about. It is to move beyond a system of economic calculation that, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, made "the whole conduct of life...into a paradox of an accountant's nightmare." An effective economics, rather, strengthens social solidarity by subordinating the operations of the market to the values of equity, justice, and community by enlarging the sphere of democratic decision making. To use the language of the great Hungarian thinker Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation, deglobalization is about "re-embedding" the economy in society, instead of having society driven by the economy.
The deglobalization paradigm also asserts that a "one size fits all" model like neoliberalism or centralized bureaucratic socialism is dysfunctional and destabilizing. Instead, diversity should be expected and encouraged, as it is in nature. Shared principles of alternative economics do exist, and they have already substantially emerged in the struggle against and critical reflection over the failure of centralized socialism and capitalism. However, how these principles - the most important of which have been sketched out above - are concretely articulated will depend on the values, rhythms, and strategic choices of each society.
Deglobalization's Pedigree
Though it may sound radical, deglobalization isn't really new. Its pedigree includes the writings of the towering British economist Keynes who, at the height of the Depression, bluntly stated: "We do not wish...to be at the mercy of world forces working out, or trying to work out, some uniform equilibrium, according to the principles of laissez faire capitalism."
Indeed, he continued, over "an increasingly wide range of industrial products, and perhaps agricultural products also, I become doubtful whether the economic cost of self-sufficiency is great enough to outweigh the other advantages of gradually bringing the producer and the consumer within the ambit of the same national, economic and financial organization. Experience accumulates to prove that most modern mass-production processes can be performed in most countries and climates with almost equal efficiency."
And with words that have a very contemporary ring, Keynes concluded, "I sympathize...with those who would minimize rather than with those who would maximize economic entanglement between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel - these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national."
- Posted in




31 Comments so far
Show AllSome words of wisdom mixed with a few mistakes. Globalization was never anything but the Transnational's method of maximizing profits. It was always destined to fail because it killed its own markets without being able to establish others.
This gentleman acknowledges what the reast of the world hass been busily doing while our leaderless country falls behind. That is establishing internal job's in manufacturing and productive industries. Getting rid of open markets, that weren't that open to us anyway.
"The development and diffusion of environmentally congenial technology in both agriculture and industry should be encouraged."
I was impressed he knew that this cannot be mandated. That it can work if you make it worth peoples attention.
Ubfortunately he included a few pipedreams.
"Long-postponed measures of equitable income redistribution and land redistribution (including urban land reform) can create a vibrant internal market that would serve as the anchor of the economy and produce local financial resources for investment."
"The property complex should be transformed into a "mixed economy" that includes community cooperatives, private enterprises, and state enterprises, and excludes transnational corporations."
Socialism will never happen in the United States.
Never going to happen.
"Strategic economic decisions cannot be left to the market or to technocrats. Instead, the scope of democratic decision-making in the economy should be expanded so that all vital questions - such as which industries to develop or phase out, what proportion of the government budget to devote to agriculture, etc. - become subject to democratic discussion and choice."
Anyone with the slightest experience in business knows that this is an impossibility.
"Civil society must constantly monitor and supervise the private sector and the state, a process that should be institutionalized."
If its institutionalized it becomes the State.
But he is so right about the fact of Deglobalization (proper name...exploitation of cheap labor in the country of origin)
>>Anyone with the slightest experience in business knows that this is an impossibility
I disagree with you entirely. This is not only possible but has been a long established practice in many Jurisdictions including the USA.
Indeed i would point out that this very thing was part and parcel of the Globalization push, that being Governmnet policies implemented to encourage or discourage certain industries.
If you want an example of where this is WORKING see Germany and its push to encourage "Green Technologies" via policy and or see Norway which designed such policies from the bottom up to maximize the use of their Oil resource so as to encourage a diversified economy across Norway and to prevent the Boom and bust cycles other countries experienced.
I would also point out to the examples of the USA and Canada. The US built its heavy industry via Governmnet Policy. As example it was in fact cheaper to buy locomotives from Great Britain and import them into the USA then it was to build them locally. The USA slapped on massive tariffs to encourage local industry.
This is also how Canada built up its manufacturing. It simply could not Compete with the US market which was 15 times larger and just over the border when it came to manufacturing.
Without designed in Government Policy that slapped huge tariffs on US Goods , Canada would have remained without a manufacturing base.
Another example of all this would be Japan which ensures a local food supply for domestic consumption via subsidies and tariff protectiosn to the small independent farmer. They are trying to ensure it does not become controlled by the Conglomerates.
To land redistribution.
Vietnams resurgence only started BECAUSE the land was redistributed. The backbone of its economy was built on the small independent farmer earning enough income off and food security off a small plot of land.
I would point out that LAND Redistribution is what the economy of the United States of America was built upon when millions of acres of land was transferred from the Natives to the "Poor white immigrants".
"Long-postponed measures of equitable income redistribution and land redistribution (including urban land reform) can create a vibrant internal market that would serve as the anchor of the economy and produce local financial resources for investment."
"The property complex should be transformed into a "mixed economy" that includes community cooperatives, private enterprises, and state enterprises, and excludes transnational corporations."
Socialism will never happen in the United States.
Never going to happen."
I take it you are not familiar with our past history of the grange hall in which markets, products, distribution, and means of production were handled within the grange structure mostly democratically.
Unless I missed it, I didn't see the author mention anything about the amazing waste of energy globalization has been. So a few can make larger profits we squander a truly precious and non-renewable resource called Oil, and furthered the pollution of our planet.
We have burned dizzying amounts of this resource to literally ship cheap junk like plastic pumpkins halfway around the world.
Peak Oil, I know some people on this site don't believe in it but after doing a LOT of reading about it, I do. There is some indication it may have occurred last July. If it didn't my bet is it will hit within ten years or so. As oil supplies can no longer meet demand the price will skyrocket, and that will for sure be the the final nail in the coffin of manufacturing globalization.
So IMHO the lasting legacy of the short sighted globalization policy will be accelerated global climate change, and depletion of a resource that we use for and in almost everything.
Oh well at least the Waltons of WalMart and a bunch of other fat cats made a mountain of money off of this folly, and after all that is all that counts in capitalism.
Sioux
NC TOM: Yes, I think you just hit the engine key that will help put a stop to all this globalization madness, which is ultimately aimed at profit for the giant global corporations. Who else benefits? The end of oil (or the cost of extracting the remaining reserves) will make transporting items great distances anathema to any claim to profit. And profit is the breath of the fire-breathing corporations. Without it, they fall over and die. The crash can impact a great many, however.
You are quite right peak oil is now. However as some have mentioned this would crash the corporate drive for profits. Wrong. Corporations will take their massive wealth and spread out locally to take over and prevent any activities that locals have set up for their survival and items for trade or sale.They will try to control movement of products made locally or subvert local workers. The profits are smaller but they will continue to survive.
It is why we must not watch corporations die but be the hand that strangles the living shit out it dancing in the flames of it's charters.
The sole things that should remain globalized is culture: music, films, literature, etc. Almost everything else -- reboot.
Hear, hear!!!
That's a problem, too, Nate.
Gringo films have an enornmous distribution network that is imperialistic--here in Mexico, for example, the theaters are flooded with violent Hollywood "churros" and it's hard for good quality Mexican films to be distributed.
Music is another problem as gringo pop forces itself into the airwaves everywhere. In Venezuela they finally made a law limiting the amount of air time that could be used to play foreign music.
Culture is a two-way street, as here in Los Angeles, plenty of Mexico's cultural products are on offer (Telenovelas, Narco-Corridas, Mexican League soccer [which has higher TV ratings than MLS], among other things) and do quite well in the marketplace (often to the extreme annoyance of older gringos [though I prefer gabacho, as it is more widely used in the Latin world], whom add its' prevalence as part of their anti-immigrant rants).
Venezuela should know well that banning any cultural product merely makes it more desirable. To attempt to stop it is an ultimately futile exercise.
Buy only products made in the USA. If a consumer needs something that is not made in USA then do not buy it. Or buy it used here in USA. Keep the money here. We need Americans working, we spend more on imports than any other country. Our trade deficit is a - 731 billion dollars at last count.
American jobs with American Unions held by Americans. No more importing "cheap labor " , no more exporting jobs. Ownership has learned that nobody can any longer afford to buy when they have no work.
How about thinking of this, every house has a TV set some have more, none are made in USA. Let us have an American union made TV set.
what is wrong with globalization is not that it is injuring the u.s.a. The u.s.a. is killing people in the Global South to keep its big fat cars on the roads, and to keep the big fat capitalists big and fat while the South goes hungry.
Right.
But I keep running into a problem. Transnationals - and other conglomerates - are too hard to track. I can't keep track of what they're doing to employees or governments.
I'm not convinced that I do sweatshop workers a favor by purchasing or not purchasing goods produced in sweatshops in their countries. I find it a difficult tactical decision for which I generally lack way too much data to decide and in which retailers and manufacturers have every reason to lie to me.
The clearest observation seems to be that the system exploits them come rain and come sun, and that any purchase I make feeds that.
I'm coming around to the idea that I want to meet the person who makes my shoes and my shirt and harvests my food.
That's not so easy, but I can get closer than I have in the past, and I intend to.
an oops.
'Land redistribution' is a misnomer at the most essential level. The export -import paradigm is taxpayer funded. In other words the notion of the danger of socialism is only in the failure to recognize that it is implemented at this level with subsidies, etc. It is an expansionist paradigm.
Massive land holdings of agribusiness would not exist without this export of expansionism. Mother earth is the final arbiter in the matter with her finite planetary roundness.
Import- export expansion models studiously (however noodle headedly unconsciously) prevent individual lives being rooted in nature - right on down the economic supply chain.
We can't afford the delusions any more.
old goat...forgive me, but I want to be sure I understand you...one of my fundamental issues with our current world is the division and ownership of property...I feel this absolutely undermines the natural relationship between an individual and the world...is that what you are referring to with this passage?
"Import- export expansion models studiously (however noodle headedly unconsciously) prevent individual lives being rooted in nature - right on down the economic supply chain."
The ownership of property translates into freedom to only move about on, in my case, a piece of ground 60' by 90', and rights to only the resources therein...in many cases, folks live in buildings that offer no land to them whatsoever, only rooms...if I choose to sleep under the stars tonight, say, 100' to the west, I am trespassing...what this means, of course, is utter dependence upon economics to supply virtually all of life's basic necessities, and no freedom to withdraw from the economic system without becoming homeless...the tangled web of pseudolife we inhabit begins with the notion of claiming exclusivity to pieces of the physical planet...
some say socialism will never happen in America...I say the world is doomed otherwise...
A global economy didn't have to start off on the wrong foundation. Currently, what we're seeing is disaster capitalism gone global. I think that the best plan would be to balance our global trade and business with more local and domestic business, trade, and production and make the switch from unfettered capitalism to a mixture of socialism and regulated capitalism. We need to stop allowing ourselves into being conditioned that things cannot be done locally and that turning to cheap overseas slave labor just to keep turnover high even at the cost of mediocre quality production, environmental damage, and worker abuse is the only way. I'm sick and tired of crying when I watch small town America becoming more ghostly everytime I travel to visit my parents or relatives. Small town America needs a LIFE already ! Let the local boom begin !
Sioux Rose
JB: Excellent, fair and balanced post!
I have to confess. There are some things from around the world that I adore and admire that I probably couldn't find locally due to the culture, climate, geography, or a combination thereof. But that's generally a small percentage. I still wouldn't give up local production since I believe that most things can be attained locally first. It will be interesting to see what life is like when there is a balance between going local and going global. I think it's coming albeit slowly.
I say I like the idea of protectionism. Seems to protect those whom we already claim to protect. Our children, grandchildren, neighbors, coworkers, friends, fellow citizens. I think we should all carefully rethink this taboo subject, protectionism. There are a lot of aspects I really like about it.
With some risk of minimizing the thoughtful points made by the author--and I do not at all minimize his contributory work for solutions--I still have two simple questions for anyone reading this.
What might happen if:
a) Every individual took responsibility for his/her choices?
b) Every individual minded his or her own business?
If each of us did that, my guess is that globalization would end overnight!
Walden Bello knows what he's talking about. He's been able to observe some of the most repulsive manifestations of WTO/ IMF/ world bank "globalization" in his homeland. It's all about trying to make sure the multinationals of the North can continue to rape the Global South
All these things are what the people want and would achieve if allowed to decide.
Participatory democracy - coming originally from Brazil - is one of the things that should be pushed world-wide. "Democracy" is more than just the right to vote.
Thank you VERA. Participatory democracy is the key to "deglobalization". It is sad to say, but there is hardly any public conversation about the dynamics of participatory democracy. Our schools and universities have failed to teach it. Yet, the lack of participatory democracy is the cause of most of the world's problems.
Democracy and deglobalization is about nations retaining their own national sovereignty in order to control their own economic destiny. Participatory democracy best leads to local production for local consumption. Corporate capitalism is the destroyer of democracy. Corporate capitalism has strangled the life out of American democracy. Corporate capitalism is destroying our planet.
What is so unique ant about participatory democracy? It is about honest public discernment of local issues. Discernment is about embracing opposite positions and coming to a public consensus. Personal discernment is an act of the human spirit. That is why Tip O'Neil so wisely said, "all politics is local".
The silver lining in this economic collapse and unrelenting war for corporate interests can be a higher public awareness of the need for more participatory democracy on the local and national level. We the people can no longer afford to be so indifferent.
Read:
John Ralston Saul, "The Collapse of Globalism; and the Reinvention of the World". 2005.
12. The climate is about to break up the game into small pieces. Best be prepared.
Don't believe all the booga booga out there my friend. Global cooling is a reality we are witnessing a solar winter and it's effects on our planet and our solar system. Solar activity far outweighs the global carbon tax agenda. We don't need global taxes or global banks or international corporations to survive. It's a ponzi scheme just like the FED in 1913.
We need to address pollution and hold corporations responsible for the crimes they are perpetrating in communities throughout the world. Global warming is just a bait and switch to hide this ugly truth and push the focus on carbon not pollution. Ask yourself who benefits from a global tax scheme?
Take care of yourself first, then your family, then your community, then your city, then your county, then your state, then your country and if there is any left then the world. If you skip any step the model it will eventually fail because the foundation is unstable. Sounds logical that's why it will never happen. Too Bad...
I suggest that people read "Thus Speaks Qadosh Erectus: Political Thoughts for a Sane Society."
This book can be read online at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/17316303/Thus-Speaks-Qadosh-Erectus
Walden Bello has read the world very well.
It might surprise readers to know that the proposed national behaviour Walden described was Australia for a century. This should be of interest to Americans who see creeping socialism every time citizens are governed by themselves, for the people's benefit. This fear is unjustified.
Australia was at its most protectionist from 1946 to 1973. During this era, every family had a new or newish car, plus an older model for 'Mum to do the shopping and pick up the kids from school.' Australia was the most prosperous nation on Earth, with no poverty and no obscenely rich. It was essentially a democratic meritocracy.
You could make a lot of money if you wanted to, but an economic safety net prevented job loss, illness or invalidity from creating poverty. Contrary to homespun belief that this weakens the nation or represses initiative, Australia had more inventions per capita than the US and infinitely less crime.
Under pressure from the UN (WB/IMF/WTO) and the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Rupert Murdoch corporates, politicians were forced to abandon this paradise on Earth and the familiar evils of privatisation and deregulation hit home, with incremental removal of protective tariffs. Two thirds of family farmers hit the wall and more than half of manufacturers were bankrupted; all by the product of subsidised cheap third world near-slave labour. Unemployment is now 23%, although government claims it is 6%.
Resistance, since 2006, has been in the form of an umbrella organisation known as the Tariff Restoration Bloc http://www.oziz4oziz.com/
Once tariffs are restored, the plan is for a Caretaker Government to reintroduce genuine democracy, but this time carefully structured as Informed Electoral Consensus creating the thrust and direction of all national policy. This is the real key to deglobalisation.
Obviously, this reveals only the first two moves of many, but it is interesting that our entire programme is identical to Walden Bello's.
I could add one single proviso. Although tariffs will cause an explosion of national wealth, distribution will not be fair without unions to protect workers and their families. This was the key to Australia's then famous egalitarianism.
No employer will ever voluntarily protect its workers. Tony Ryan, Australia.