Monday, February 16, 2009
The first world is constantly preaching and criticizing third world nations for their inability to curb the violence that has taken thousands of lives in countries like The Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more. Interesting though, as it seems the first world is the number one exporter of military equipment. According to Richard F. Grimmett's report to congress the top 7 weapons exporting countries are the United States with 135 billion dollars, Russia with 68 billion, France with 32 billion, the U.K. with 26 billion, Germany with 13 billion, China with 12 billion, and Italy with 7 billion dollars. The United States is by far the largest distributor of arms in the world, selling more than twice as much as the next closest competitor. The truth, then, is that there is no economic incentives for the United States to stop exporting weapons; In fact, the economic incentive is to increase the sales. How can a government that profits so highly form "running guns" be effective in combating the Black Market arms trade? Maybe it can't.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Susan Strange is another author who believes that globalization has weakened the autonomy and authority of both well established, and burgeoning states and governments. However, in an excerpt from her book The Retreat From the State, her argument adds another, and far more abstract idea to the mix. That the rapid improvements in technology, the increased mobility of capitol and business, the expanding authority of market: all the things that characterize globalization, have also led to a change, albeit an overlooked change, in modern day sociology and international relations.
Though her argument is similar to that of Kenichi Ohamae, she makes several distinct and specific points. First, that technology has played a key role in the eroding public confidence in the state. In her example (the creation of the nuclear bomb) the idea of mutually assured destruction meant that in a nuclear war, no nation was safe from annihilation, even those as seemingly powerful as the United States. Such an idea led many people to question the effectiveness of government when they could not even uphold one of their most basic purposes. Secondly, she comments on how “scholars in international relations for the past half-century have grossly neglected the political aspects of credit-creation, and changes in the global financial structure.” Meaning that it is often the market-to-market relations that affect politics rather than state-to-state relations. Because many governments control credit and interest rates, transnational corporations that require credit to keep up with technological innovations will gravitate towards more economically liberal states.
Finally, Strange states, “At the heart of the political economy there is a vacuum, a vacuum not adequately filled by inter-governmental institutions or by hegemonic power exercising leadership in the common interest.” This to me was the most interesting and relative part of the piece. Considering that many of the articles thus analyzed have been written in the 1990’s, they have obviously been unable to consider recent history. With the near crash of the market and the fall of such economic giants as Lehman Brothers and, and near falls of Bear Stearns, AIG, and others, the unregulated free market system has fallen on hard times. With the recession in full swing now, the public has begun to question the almighty free market in a way that would have seemed blasphemous less than a decade ago. At the same time, people are looking to the state to pick up the slack left behind by those on “Wall Street”. The newly elected administration has already promised tighter over watch of the economy and business, directly contradicting the rhetoric of recent elected officials. As people begin to redefine the role of Government in the free market, it is obvious that they may tend to lean in favor of increasing the states authority. Perhaps this is the climax of globalization, where the seemingly exponential growth of unregulated power is finally curbed as people come to realize that CEO’s and corporations aught not be the sole proprietors of policy; that perhaps it is time once again for the rise of an evolved nation-state. One in which a balance must be struck. Globalization. This tragedy might in fact be the beginning of a reformed globalized community.
Though her argument is similar to that of Kenichi Ohamae, she makes several distinct and specific points. First, that technology has played a key role in the eroding public confidence in the state. In her example (the creation of the nuclear bomb) the idea of mutually assured destruction meant that in a nuclear war, no nation was safe from annihilation, even those as seemingly powerful as the United States. Such an idea led many people to question the effectiveness of government when they could not even uphold one of their most basic purposes. Secondly, she comments on how “scholars in international relations for the past half-century have grossly neglected the political aspects of credit-creation, and changes in the global financial structure.” Meaning that it is often the market-to-market relations that affect politics rather than state-to-state relations. Because many governments control credit and interest rates, transnational corporations that require credit to keep up with technological innovations will gravitate towards more economically liberal states.
Finally, Strange states, “At the heart of the political economy there is a vacuum, a vacuum not adequately filled by inter-governmental institutions or by hegemonic power exercising leadership in the common interest.” This to me was the most interesting and relative part of the piece. Considering that many of the articles thus analyzed have been written in the 1990’s, they have obviously been unable to consider recent history. With the near crash of the market and the fall of such economic giants as Lehman Brothers and, and near falls of Bear Stearns, AIG, and others, the unregulated free market system has fallen on hard times. With the recession in full swing now, the public has begun to question the almighty free market in a way that would have seemed blasphemous less than a decade ago. At the same time, people are looking to the state to pick up the slack left behind by those on “Wall Street”. The newly elected administration has already promised tighter over watch of the economy and business, directly contradicting the rhetoric of recent elected officials. As people begin to redefine the role of Government in the free market, it is obvious that they may tend to lean in favor of increasing the states authority. Perhaps this is the climax of globalization, where the seemingly exponential growth of unregulated power is finally curbed as people come to realize that CEO’s and corporations aught not be the sole proprietors of policy; that perhaps it is time once again for the rise of an evolved nation-state. One in which a balance must be struck. Globalization. This tragedy might in fact be the beginning of a reformed globalized community.
I admit that the articles I have been discussing of late have illuminated only the problems of globalization and offered few if any solutions. However, in Dani Rodrik’s “Has Globalization Gone Too Far?” he highlights some obstacles and solutions regarding the newly globalized world.
His first points of contentions are the obvious ones. First, “reduced barriers” to business and trade have, in recent years, served to accentuate “the asymmetry between groups that can cross international borders and those that cannot”. According to Rodrik, the migration is less of a choice and more about demand. Though the highly demanded specialized professionals and businessmen might have freedom of mobility, thee unskilled laborer does not. This is not necessarily because of less need for the underskilled wage laborer, but rather that this type of worker can be easily substituted. He points out that such “elasticity” in demand for unskilled employees has several consequences for the common people of the world.
• Workers now have to pay a larger share of the cost of improvements in work conditions and benefits.
• They have to incur greater instability in earnings and hours worked in response to shocks to labor demand or labor productivity
• Their bargaining power erodes, so they receive lower wages and benefits whenever bargaining is an element in setting the terms of employment.
Second, nations with very different values and societal norms are being forced to trade with one another and compete on a global scale for the same goods. For example, under the rules of the World Trade Organizations, the U.S. would have to trade and compete with a country that might use child labor, or support terrorism
Third and finally, global trade has made it increasingly difficult for governments to provide “social insurance” for its people. The welfare state is in a very dangerous position right now. Since things like social security and welfare run countercyclically to free market practices they are often demonized as helping those unwilling to help themselves. The danger we as a society face then is the fact that if globalization continues to weaken the governments ability to provide financial and social aid to the less fortunate, people may begin to be displeased with the free market system, leading to a “resurgence in protectionism”.
But unlike other authors, who often state the predicaments associated with globalization and leave it up to the rest of the world to untangle, Rodrik makes several suggestions for how to remedy some of Globalization’s side effects. He says that, first, there must be a balance “between openness and domestic needs”, that the need for free markets should not take precedent over social cohesion. Indeed, it aught to be the right of every state to use tariffs in a responsible manner in order to protect the values of the taxing society. On this point I agree slightly. Tariffs can be a useful tool, no doubt, but they can also be an easily abused power. I believe it is still important for the WTO to continue to set limits on the use of tariffs.
Second, he says not to neglect social insurance. According to Rodrik, social insurance has acted as a peacekeeper in the last half century and giving it up for the sake of free market rhetoric would be a catastrophic and politically suicidal idea. Though his proposal of cutting the amount of money flowing into social security programs and siphoning it elsewhere may be a difficult act to play out unscathed (politicians have yet to truly tamper with social security).
Thirdly, “do not use competitiveness as an excuse for domestic reform”. Such rhetoric taints any form of political and social change that might have otherwise been quite useful. Why would people want to change their lives or domestic conditions to be more on the level with foreign countries? “The lessons for policymakers is, do not sell reforms that are good for the economy and citizenry as reforms that are dictated by international economic integration.” On this point I totally agree. Speaking as a U.S. citizen, it does not serve politicians well to try to explain their policies by telling us that if we don’t play the game the way the other “big boys” do, we’ll get left behind. If anything it would make me not want play the game at all.
In general, this author and I have similar points of view. The idea that free market economics parallels a decline in the quality and sovereignty of a nation must be viewed as absurd, lest it come true. The idea that we as a people have the power to direct the course of Globalization, now that makes sense.
His first points of contentions are the obvious ones. First, “reduced barriers” to business and trade have, in recent years, served to accentuate “the asymmetry between groups that can cross international borders and those that cannot”. According to Rodrik, the migration is less of a choice and more about demand. Though the highly demanded specialized professionals and businessmen might have freedom of mobility, thee unskilled laborer does not. This is not necessarily because of less need for the underskilled wage laborer, but rather that this type of worker can be easily substituted. He points out that such “elasticity” in demand for unskilled employees has several consequences for the common people of the world.
• Workers now have to pay a larger share of the cost of improvements in work conditions and benefits.
• They have to incur greater instability in earnings and hours worked in response to shocks to labor demand or labor productivity
• Their bargaining power erodes, so they receive lower wages and benefits whenever bargaining is an element in setting the terms of employment.
Second, nations with very different values and societal norms are being forced to trade with one another and compete on a global scale for the same goods. For example, under the rules of the World Trade Organizations, the U.S. would have to trade and compete with a country that might use child labor, or support terrorism
Third and finally, global trade has made it increasingly difficult for governments to provide “social insurance” for its people. The welfare state is in a very dangerous position right now. Since things like social security and welfare run countercyclically to free market practices they are often demonized as helping those unwilling to help themselves. The danger we as a society face then is the fact that if globalization continues to weaken the governments ability to provide financial and social aid to the less fortunate, people may begin to be displeased with the free market system, leading to a “resurgence in protectionism”.
But unlike other authors, who often state the predicaments associated with globalization and leave it up to the rest of the world to untangle, Rodrik makes several suggestions for how to remedy some of Globalization’s side effects. He says that, first, there must be a balance “between openness and domestic needs”, that the need for free markets should not take precedent over social cohesion. Indeed, it aught to be the right of every state to use tariffs in a responsible manner in order to protect the values of the taxing society. On this point I agree slightly. Tariffs can be a useful tool, no doubt, but they can also be an easily abused power. I believe it is still important for the WTO to continue to set limits on the use of tariffs.
Second, he says not to neglect social insurance. According to Rodrik, social insurance has acted as a peacekeeper in the last half century and giving it up for the sake of free market rhetoric would be a catastrophic and politically suicidal idea. Though his proposal of cutting the amount of money flowing into social security programs and siphoning it elsewhere may be a difficult act to play out unscathed (politicians have yet to truly tamper with social security).
Thirdly, “do not use competitiveness as an excuse for domestic reform”. Such rhetoric taints any form of political and social change that might have otherwise been quite useful. Why would people want to change their lives or domestic conditions to be more on the level with foreign countries? “The lessons for policymakers is, do not sell reforms that are good for the economy and citizenry as reforms that are dictated by international economic integration.” On this point I totally agree. Speaking as a U.S. citizen, it does not serve politicians well to try to explain their policies by telling us that if we don’t play the game the way the other “big boys” do, we’ll get left behind. If anything it would make me not want play the game at all.
In general, this author and I have similar points of view. The idea that free market economics parallels a decline in the quality and sovereignty of a nation must be viewed as absurd, lest it come true. The idea that we as a people have the power to direct the course of Globalization, now that makes sense.
There is no doubt that globalization has enabled businesses across the globe to interact more freely, with less regulation, and across nearly all state borders. While this might not at first seem sinister, it is important to remember that a deregulation of the market affects all enterprises. Organized crime is, in the most literal sense, a business. It operates according to the laws of supply and demand, and is based on producing a profit. The new globalized market has made it far easier for these illegitimate industries to diversify their services and activates, and to work their organizations on a far larger and uninterrupted scale.
In his article “Global Organized Crime”, James H. Mittelman describes how he believes that organized crime syndicates have become globally innovative institutions. He claims that the rapid introduction of the free market into traditionally non-free market economies dispersed wealth in a very uneven manner, creating large populations of marginalized peoples willing to travel and take part in any affairs to remain afloat. Thus, as the poor emigrated to the economic hot spots of the world, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York, so did to the organized crime that fed off of the misfortunes of these migrants.
But that was just the beginning. The new economy gave organized crime the tools to diversify its operations. Aside from the stereotypical trafficking of peoples and narcotics, these enterprises stuck their greedy thumbs into the global pie: illegal currency transactions, “computer crimes, money laundering, stealing nuclear material” and more. Not only did these technologies give crime more business opportunities, but also made the action of crime across international borders far more efficient. Laptops and satellites have done the same for organized crime as they have for legitimate businesses. What's more, the process of freeing up global markets have made the borders of nations that much more permeable when it comes to illegal trafficking and trading.
Finally, the growth of globally integrated and connected criminal organizations serve to weaken the already vulnerable authority of the national governments. Organized crime’s ability to pay off and even circumvent governments has undermined the position of said administrations. But in a far more frightening way, these criminal organizations provide many of the same services that governments do, only a lot more and without all the red tape. They offer:
Banking in black and gray markets that operate outside the regulatory framework of the state; buying, selling and distributing controlled or prohibited commodities… providing swift and usually discreet dispute resolution and debt collection without resorting to the courts… and arranging security for so-called protection of businesses.
But what interests me the most, considering how it deal directly with my field of interest, is how organized crime deals so heavily in the black market arms trade. What is most alarming, however, is how the selling of illegal arms further intermingles organized crime with private and government institutions. The use worldwide of mercenary armies is only adding money to the bank accounts of those who sell the weapons used in such conflicts. This connection “between the state and organized crime gives rise to more state-sanctioned violence.”
Once again, as has always been a point I make with this blog, globalization is not perfect. As with all times of change there will be opportunists who will take advantage of the weekend joints of the evolving world. But this mustn’t continue. By attacking the root of the problem (wealth disparity) it is my hope that these organizations will begin to crumble from within.
In his article “Global Organized Crime”, James H. Mittelman describes how he believes that organized crime syndicates have become globally innovative institutions. He claims that the rapid introduction of the free market into traditionally non-free market economies dispersed wealth in a very uneven manner, creating large populations of marginalized peoples willing to travel and take part in any affairs to remain afloat. Thus, as the poor emigrated to the economic hot spots of the world, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York, so did to the organized crime that fed off of the misfortunes of these migrants.
But that was just the beginning. The new economy gave organized crime the tools to diversify its operations. Aside from the stereotypical trafficking of peoples and narcotics, these enterprises stuck their greedy thumbs into the global pie: illegal currency transactions, “computer crimes, money laundering, stealing nuclear material” and more. Not only did these technologies give crime more business opportunities, but also made the action of crime across international borders far more efficient. Laptops and satellites have done the same for organized crime as they have for legitimate businesses. What's more, the process of freeing up global markets have made the borders of nations that much more permeable when it comes to illegal trafficking and trading.
Finally, the growth of globally integrated and connected criminal organizations serve to weaken the already vulnerable authority of the national governments. Organized crime’s ability to pay off and even circumvent governments has undermined the position of said administrations. But in a far more frightening way, these criminal organizations provide many of the same services that governments do, only a lot more and without all the red tape. They offer:
Banking in black and gray markets that operate outside the regulatory framework of the state; buying, selling and distributing controlled or prohibited commodities… providing swift and usually discreet dispute resolution and debt collection without resorting to the courts… and arranging security for so-called protection of businesses.
But what interests me the most, considering how it deal directly with my field of interest, is how organized crime deals so heavily in the black market arms trade. What is most alarming, however, is how the selling of illegal arms further intermingles organized crime with private and government institutions. The use worldwide of mercenary armies is only adding money to the bank accounts of those who sell the weapons used in such conflicts. This connection “between the state and organized crime gives rise to more state-sanctioned violence.”
Once again, as has always been a point I make with this blog, globalization is not perfect. As with all times of change there will be opportunists who will take advantage of the weekend joints of the evolving world. But this mustn’t continue. By attacking the root of the problem (wealth disparity) it is my hope that these organizations will begin to crumble from within.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)