Is Globalization Good?

Globalization- a contested term and concept-has been happening since centuries. The impetus and impulse propelling globalization is perhaps what the doyen and father of the dismal science, economics, Adam Smith called,’ the desire to truck, barter and exchange. Essentially entailing the compression of time and space and the ‘death of distance’, globalization in its contemporary form and shape means deep and profound interdependence and integration between peoples of the world. It has economic, political and cultural components. Economic globalization is the increasing interdependence between and interpenetration of national economies leading to what has been termed as the global economy. In its cultural avatar, globalization refers to the isomorphism and spread of certain cultural paradigms and meanings across the world. And politically, globalization potentially means the spread of Enlightenment values such as democracy, human rights and the reduced salience of the nation state. In essence, globalization then is project modernity writ large. This much is known and widely acknowledged.

Embracing globalization is now almost a must for nations and peoples aspiring for the ‘good life’. Evidence from the ‘real world’ indicates that globalization has and is welfare enhancing. Whether it be the transformation of fishing villages in China to bustling and modern entrepots ,the morphing of primitive entities like Dubai into modern city states,  the expansion of the middle class in India or the rapid and revolutionary transformation of the cluster of countries called the  newly industrialized countries NIC’s (or Asian Tigers) into dynamic economies and polities, it is the embrace of globalization that explains their mutation and success.

 If globalization is an unalloyed good, then it should be widely embraced and its tenets vigorously grasped. However, this is not the case. Globalization, historically, has been resisted, fought over, contested and its trajectory is fraught with tension and conflict. This raises a host of questions: why is globalization resisted and contested? Is it because it essentially is a western concept and a form of ‘neo imperialism’? Is globalization an apolitical concept propelled by economic forces and markets? What accounts for what has been called the third phase/wave of globalization? What accounts for resistance in both the ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ of the world? Is globalization an ineluctable, inexorable and unstoppable force? Who should take the onus of propelling and infusing force into globalization?

The answers to these sets of questions are interrelated and cannot be dealt and grappled with in isolation. Globalization is project modernity at large. And even though globalization has been happening since centuries through trade, cultural contacts and imperialism, in its contemporary garb and avatar, its origins are western. It is the spread, prevalence and dominance of western ideas about the individual, society, economics, government and governance. Its embrace entails displacement of paradigms-cultural, political, and economic-of non western societies and cultures. By virtue of this, it also displaces and threatens vested interests and other accretions/sediments that comprise the cultural, political and economic firmament of other peoples. This explains the resistance to globalization.

Given the western genesis of contemporary globalization, resistance to it takes place in the idiom of ‘neo imperialism’. This is, in the final analysis, mere sloganeering employed by non western elites whose interests and entrenched privileges are threatened by globalization.  The power of globalization rests on the power of ideas pioneered in the west. These ideas pertaining to the nature of man, society, economics and government are powerful. This is corroborated by the isomorphism, prevalence and acceptance (willing or grumpy) of these ideas across the world. And this is true of every civilization at its zenith. Classical Islam, at its apogee, for instance, constitutes a classic example of Islamic globalization which led to the formation of what has been called the Islamicate- vast swathes of the globe with an outlook informed by the principles and philosophy of Islam. Contemporarily, it is the west, defined not as a region but as a set of ideas about man, society and economy, that is ascendant. As such, it is western ideas that inform the contemporary wave of globalization.

This wave of globalization has been preceded by the forces of imperialism wherein the imperial scramble between western nations led to the crystallization of globalization. Punctuated by the Great Depression and the World Wars, globalization was then revived by the overt leaning of the United States on the processes and trajectory of globalization. This was achieved by the formation of institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization formerly known as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Underpinning these organizations was the power and might of the United States. Globalization then is a very political phenomenon. Should this detract from its salubrious nature? The answer is no. Why? The reasons are axiomatic and bear repetition: globalization is welfare enhancing and is premised on the principles of modernity which can only lead to the improvement of the human condition.

Why then is there resistance to globalization in both the ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’? The core in political economic parlance constitutes the advanced west. Resistance here accrues from an admixture of fear, paranoia and genuine concerns. Immigration into the west may constitute a classic example of this. Non western immigration into the west brings peoples with alien mores, cultural practices, religions and ethics into the western firmament. This potentially creates friction leading to a jaundiced view of globalization in the minds of the citizens of these countries. Another example is the so called ‘Sinification’ of advanced economies wherein jobs-both skilled and unskilled are lost to non western countries such as China on account of globalization. These fears get conflated and leads to resentment against globalization. The resistance in the ‘periphery’ has already been dwelt upon.

This resistance is alarming. It can create both bottoms up and top down pressures for curbing globalization. Globalization perhaps from a long duree view is unstoppable. It has certain logic. However, its momentum has and can get stalled. History is replete with instances of globalization’ getting derailed. The retreat by a hegemon or a power patron, wars, economic crises have been the usual suspects in breaking the momentum of globalization. Given that power underpins its trajectory and momentum, it is imperative that globalization enjoys the support of a powerful patron. This role given axiomatically falls on the United States on account of its nature and power.

Globalization is good. It can improve the human condition. It is the amplification of modernity. And its spread can lead to enlightenment, progress and emancipation for mankind. It is incumbent on all to take a sober view of this phenomenon and help in  deepening, crystallizing  and spreading it. It is not globalization that is the danger but ‘uneven globalization’ that is. The world is not flat but it potentially can be. Let us make haste slowly and embrace globalization –lock, stock and barrel.