Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ITS ADVANTAGES
Globalization
Globalization has come to be a principal characteristic feature of the new
millennium and it has become an inescapable reality in today's society. No
community and society can remain isolated from the forces of globalization.
The cyber society has come with a bang. The computer culture is spreading
rapidly. Even in a poor country, coca-cola, cars, cosmetics and clothes seen in
the cities and towns hide the reality of poverty and suffering of the people. We
have almost reached a point to believe that "We cannot reverse the trend; we
can only go forward!" We need to ask: What is the role and priorities of
theological education in this fast changing situation.
What is Globalization?
Globalization is a new contemporary stage of development of capitalism over the
world. It is a process of social change in which geographical and cultural barriers
are reduced. This break down of barriers is the result of transportation,
communication and electronic communication. It also involves a process by which
economies of different countries are oriented to a global market and are controlled
by multinational and global financial institutions. It is not merely an economic
process, it is also a cultural process. It creates, by the help of media, a monoculture - a culture of rich and powerful. It is no longer a theoretical concept; it is a
glaring reality, impinging upon almost every aspect of human existence economic, political, environmental, and cultural and the like.
Globalization can be described as a widening, deepening and speeding up of
worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from
the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual.
History
The term "globalization" has been used by economists since the 1980s although it
was used in social sciences in the 1960s; however, its concepts did not become
popular until the latter half of the 1980s and 1990s. The earliest written theoretical
concepts of globalization were penned by an American entrepreneur-turnedminister Charles Taze Russell who coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897.
Globalization is viewed as a centuries long process, tracking the expansion of
2
Historical Development
Globalization has been a historical process with ebbs and flows. During the Pre3
World War I period of 1870 to 1914, there was rapid integration of the economies
in terms of trade flows, movement of capital and migration of people. The growth
of globalization was mainly led by the technological forces in the fields of
transport and communication. There were less barriers to flow of trade and people
across the geographical boundaries. Indeed there were no passports and visa
requirements and very few non-tariff barriers and restrictions on fund flows. The
pace of globalization, however, decelerated between the First and the Second
World War. The inter-war period witnessed the erection of various barriers to
restrict free movement of goods and services. Most economies thought that they
could thrive better under high protective walls. After World War II, all the leading
countries resolved not to repeat the mistakes they had committed previously by
opting for isolation. Although after 1945, there was a drive to increased
integration, it took a long time to reach the Pre-World War I level. In terms of
percentage of exports and imports to total output, the US could reach the pre-World
War level of 11 per cent only around 1970. Most of the developing countries
which gained Independence from the colonial rule in the immediate Post-World
War II period followed an import substitution industrialization regime. The Soviet
bloc countries were also shielded from the process of global economic integration.
However, times have changed. In the last two decades, the process of globalization
has proceeded with greater vigour. The former Soviet bloc countries are getting
integrated with the global economy. More and more developing countries are
turning towards outward oriented policy of growth. Yet, studies point out that
trade and capital markets are no more globalized today than they were at the end of
the 19th century. Nevertheless, there are more concerns about globalization now
than before because of the nature and speed of transformation. What is striking in
the current episode is not only the rapid pace but also the enormous impact of new
information technologies on market integration, efficiency and industrial
organization. Globalization of financial markets has far outpaced the integration of
product markets.
Modern globalization
Globalization in the era since World War II is largely the result of planning by
economists, business interests, and politicians who recognized the costs associated
with protectionism and declining international economic integration. Their work
led to the Bretton Woods conference and the founding of several international
institutions intended to oversee the renewed processes of globalization, promoting
growth and managing adverse consequences.
The use of the term globalization (in the doctrinal sense), in the context of these
developments has been analysed by many including Noam Chomsky who states
" That enhances what's called "globalization," a term of propaganda used
conventionally to refer to a certain particular form of international integration that
is (not surprisingly) beneficial to its designers: Multinational corporations and the
powerful states to which they are closely linked."
Critics have observed that the term's contemporary usage comprises several
meanings, for example Noam Chomsky states that:
The term "globalization," like most terms of public discourse, has two meanings:
5
its literal meaning, and a technical sense used for doctrinal purposes. In its literal
sense, "globalization" means international integration. Its strongest proponents
since its origins have been the workers movements and the left (which is why
unions are called "internationals"), and the strongest proponents today are those
who meet annually in the World Social Forum and its many regional offshoots. In
the technical sense defined by the powerful, they are described as "antiglobalization," which means that they favor globalization directed to the needs and
concerns of people, not investors, financial institutions and other sectors of power,
with the interests of people incidental. That's "globalization" in the technical
doctrinal sense.
Pro-globalization (globalism)
Globalization advocates such as Jeffrey Sachs point to the above average drop in
poverty rates in countries, such as China, where globalization has taken a strong
foothold, compared to areas less affected by globalization, such as Sub-Saharan
Africa, where poverty rates have remained stagnant.
Generally, the ideas of free trade, capitalism, and democracy are widely believed
to facilitate globalization. Supporters of free trade claim that it increases economic
prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances
civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. Economic
theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient
allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In
general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher
standard of living for those in developing countries
One of the ironies of the recent success of India and China is the fear that... success
in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are
fundamentally wrong and, even worse, dangerous. They are wrong because the
world is not a zero-sum struggle... but rather is a positive-sum opportunity in
which improving technologies and skills can raise living standards around the
world.
believe that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be
followed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of
world citizens. The difference from other globalists is that they do not define in
advance any ideology to orient this will, but would leave it to the free choice of
those citizens via a democratic process
There are increasing trends in the use of electric power, cars, radios, and
telephones per capita, as well as a growing proportion of the population with
access to clean water.
The book The Improving State of the World also finds evidence for that
these, and other, measures of human well-being has improved and that
globalization is part of the explanation. It also responds to arguments that
environmental impact will limit the progress.
Anti-globalization (mundialism)
Anti-globalization is a term used to describe the political stance of people and
groups who oppose the neoliberal version of globalization.
Anti-globalization" may involve the process or actions taken by a state in order to
demonstrate its sovereignty and practice democratic decision-making. Antiglobalization may occur in order to put brakes on the international transfer of
people, goods and ideology, particularly those determined by the organizations
such as the IMF or the WTO in imposing the radical deregulation program of free
market fundamentalism on local governments and populations. anti-globalism
can denote a single social movement that encompasses a number of separate
social movements such as nationalists and socialists. Participants stand in
opposition to the unregulated political power of large, multi-national corporations,
as the corporations exercise power through leveraging trade agreements which
damage in some instances the democratic rights of citizens, the environment
particularly air quality index and rain forests, as well as national governments
sovereignty to determine labor rights including the right to unionize for better pay,
and better working conditions, or laws as they may otherwise infringe on cultural
practices and traditions of developing countries.
Most people who are labeled "anti-globalization" consider the term to be too vague
and inaccurate Podobnik states that "the vast majority of groups that participate in
these protests draw on international networks of support, and they generally call
for forms of globalization that enhance democratic representation, human rights,
and egalitarianism."
Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the
8
damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the
biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty,
inequality, miscegenation, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the
critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to
globalization. They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences-social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive
deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty
and alienation"which they claim are the unintended but very real consequences of
globalization.
The terms globalization and anti-globalization are used in various ways. Noam
Chomsky states that
The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a
specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights,
with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more
honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment
agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of
globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even
accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with
ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international
integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded
on the principle of international solidarity - that is, globalization in a form that
attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.
Critics argue that:
o Poorer countries are sometimes at disadvantage: While it is true
that globalization encourages free trade among countries on an
international level, there are also negative consequences because some
countries try to save their national markets. The main export of poorer
countries is usually agricultural goods. It is difficult for these
countries to compete with stronger countries that subsidize their own
farmers. Because the farmers in the poorer countries cannot compete,
they are forced to sell their crops at much lower price than what the
market is paying.
o Exploitation of foreign impoverished workers: The deterioration of
protections for weaker nations by stronger industrialized powers has
resulted in the exploitation of the people in those nations to become
cheap labor. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful
9
10
of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for what they believe
is a more humane system than capitalism) and others are reactionary, believing
globalization destroys national industry and jobs.
One of the key points made by critics of recent economic globalization is that
income inequality, both between and within nations, is increasing as a result of
these processes.
A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the socalled 'champagne glass' effect, was contained in the 1992 United Nations
Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income
to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling
82.7% of the world's income.
Income
Richest 20%
82.7%
Second 20%
11.7%
Third 20%
2.3%
Fourth 20%
1.4%
Poorest 20%
1.2%
Poor countries. They use international financial institutions and regional trade
agreements to compel poor countries to "integrate" by reducing tariffs, privatizing
state enterprises, and relaxing environmental and labor standards. The results have
enlarged profits for investors but offered pittances to laborers, provoking a strong
backlash from civil society.
Trade Agreements
Trade Agreements, such as the FTAA, NAFTA, and CAFTA facilitate international
trade, thereby strongly impacting people at all levels of the economy. Rich
countries often manage to prioritize their own interests in such agreements, which
tend to harm development of poor countries.
Transnational Corporations
Transnational corporations have become some of the largest economic entities in
the world, surpassing many states. Their continuous push for liberalization has
driven globalization while challenging environmental, health, and labor standards
in many countries.
protection, environmental safety and trade union rights. Governments have set up
these zones in the hope of attracting investments and creating jobs. But in so doing,
they turn over sovereignty to corporate investors and seriously undermine national
tax and regulatory systems.
World Bank
The World Bank's mission is to erradicate poverty by loaning poor countries
money for economic development, but these loans often come with demands of
economic liberalization.
Global Taxes
This explores the different ways to implement global taxes, the need for
democratic oversight and control, the policy shaping effects, the distributive
effects, and the possible use of such taxes to fund the UN, its agencies, and other
programs for worldwide human security and development.
Dollarization
In many countries, the US dollar has become the national currency. In others, the
national currency has been pegged to the US dollar. In still others, major
transactions like real estate usually take place using the dollar. Dollarization
eliminates the possibility of independent national monetary policy and it exposes
countries to policies set in Washington.
Who
profits
from
economic
globalisation?
What
are
its
13
advantages/disadvantages?
Katie Bayly - Suzi Hall - Carolyn Kolasinski - Jacqueline Lawson - Rie Nakazawa
Phil Lawn defined economic globalisation as the integration of many national
economies into one single economy through free trade and free capital movement.
Like the first phase of globalisation (from the mid 19th century to 1914), the
second phase has been characterised by rapid advances in communications and
transportation technology, travel and trade; and by a greater consciousness of the
world as a single place, highlighted by global environmental concerns, more
widespread demands for participatory democracy, concerns about a race to the
bottom in labour standards and wages and increased class stratification between
and within countries.
Economic globalisation has provided new opportunities for those with capital to
increase it, creating greater concentration of wealth in the hands of minority elites.
Most international trade and investment takes place within the triad of the US, EU
and Japan, and it is the multinational corporations based in these countries which
have benefited the most from the free trade rules enforced by the WTO, and the
deregulation of financial markets, that have brought financial instability, and hence
exacerbated political corruption and instability, in parts of the world (such as South
East Asia).
Integration with the global economy, measured as an increase in trade relative to
GDP, is not a one-size-fits-all recipe for economic development. This is not just
because economic globalisation sometimes cannot benefit the poorest countries
(and sectors of society) who lack sufficient capital, technology and sound
institutions to underpin economic growth and development. There are many valid
routes to economic growth.
But there are limits to the planets capacity to absorb all this so-called growth.
In the pursuit of economic growth and corporate profits, the natural environment is
often sacrificed and not considered in government policies.
Measuring globalization
Globalization has had an impact on different cultures around the world.
Looking specifically at economic globalization, it can be measured in different
ways. These center around the four main economic flows that characterize
globalization:
model which attempts to measure the level of enjoyment of civil and political
rights in developing countries has come to a conclusion akin to Wriston's. He
concluded that the technologies of communication and transportation that have
made economic globalization possible also make it possible for the human rights
ethos to spread and take root in all sectors of global civil society. "Universal human
rights represent nothing less than the ethical dimension of the emerging global
culture."
Another argument advanced to support the contention of a positive relationship
Globalization as Ideology
Globalization is just one of an array of concepts and arguing points that have been
mobilized to advance the corporate agenda. Others have been deregulation and
getting government off our backs, balancing the budget, cutting back entitlements
(non-corporate), and free trade.
Like free trade, globalization has an aura of virtue. Just as "freedom" must be
good, so globalization hints at internationalism and solidarity between countries, as
opposed to nationalism and protectionism, which have negative connotations. The
possibility that cross-border trade and investment might be economically damaging
to the weaker party, or that they might erode democratic controls in both the
stronger and weaker countries, is excluded from consideration by mainstream
economists and pundits.[fn 1] It is also unthinkable in the mainstream that the
contest between free trade and globalization, on the one hand, and "protectionism,"
on the other, might be reworded as a struggle between "protection"--of
transnational corporate (TNC) rights--versus the "freedom" of democratic
governments to regulate in the interests of domestic non-corporate constituencies.
As an ideology, globalization connotes not only freedom and internationalism, but,
as it helps realize the benefits of free trade, and thus comparative advantage and
the division of labor, it also supposedly enhances efficiency and productivity.
Because of these virtues, and the alleged inability of governments to halt
"progress," globalization is widely perceived as beyond human control, which
further weakens resistance
20
21
sort of mutual protection. Some of these groups operate like informal associations,
but others are very well organized, and follow military, sports, monastic or police
models.
Society tends to consider these people criminals, not only because of their conduct,
but also because of the way in which the authorities, politicians and the media react
to them. The police, in particular, consider their lifestyle as the precursor to a life
of crime. In fact, a confrontational attitude is the most obvious way to encourage
them to behave like criminals.
The use of violence to repress criminal activity is not a good solution. Repressive
violence will not put an end to violent crime. Politicians tend to demand repressive
violence in order to win prestige, to be seen as hard-line and intolerant of violent
crime. It is a highly popular issue, and it has a low political cost. Increasing police
capabilities and improving the administration of justice could be helpful in
investigating and punishing crimes that have already been committed, but they
won't wipe out crime. By the same token, the army also represents no solution
whatsoever. Eradicating violent crime means attacking its causes and not its
effects.
The globalization of capital, investment and the marketplace has resulted in the
universalization of violent crime. As wealth becomes evermore concentrated and
the ranks of the poor swell, as attractive opportunities for the slip out of the grasp
of the majority, and as community, religious and institutional links begin to break
with the expansion of individualism, consumerism and freedom, the door opens
wider to violent crime. If we choose to continue with globalization we must be
prepared to coexist with violent crime. The accumulation of wealth in few hands
will produce countless victims, among them even the very same privileged
individuals who benefit from globalization. The principal enemy of a State of law
is globalization. That ideal cannot become a reality as long as the majority of the
people are marginalized and impoverished.
23
24
26
the elderly or sick family members is essential for household maintenance, and
also to free up the time of older women who need to find wage labour.
Trade liberalisation has also been shown to have differential impacts on women
and men. An essential aspect of trade liberalisation is export competitiveness and
much of this competitiveness in Asian countries has come from the labour of
women. The development of export processing zones in the 1980s and 1990s in
developing countries eager to industrialise was premised on the availability of
cheap, docile, unskilled labour that would be willing to work at low wages for long
hours. Given a longer history of mens involvement in industrialised production,
union organising and political negotiations in the labour market, these export
processing zones targeted women as the primary work-force, relying on local
cultural and social values as domesticating forces.
Research shows that no country in Asia has been able to expand its manufacturing
capacity without pulling an increasing proportion of women into industrial waged
employment. In the early 1990s, women accounted for more than 43 percent of the
manufacturing work force in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand. The manufacturing sector in itself accounted for more than 20 percent of
GDP in these countries. In the Thai export sector, women accounted for 90 per cent
of the workforce in the canned seafood industry and 85 percent in the garment and
accessory industry.
In the transition countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam, womens labour is
considered a significant element of their "comparative advantage" in export
oriented manufacturing, as gvernments invite investors to establish manufacturing
bases in their countries in an order to integrate with regional and global economies.
While export industries offer women opportunities for employment and income,
the unregulated and competitive nature of these trade regimes also means that
womens labour is often unprotected and dispensable. Few governments have, or
are willing to enforce legislation that ensures women workers in this sector with
fair living wages, benefits, occupational safety and opportunities for upgrading
skills.
Another area where women have made significant contributions to local and
national economies is through the informal sector. A significant portion of
economic activity in Asian countries is not fully counted and does not show up in
national census or survey figures, since it is conducted by women in their homes or
in small community level production units. These activities range from the sale of
vegetables, locally processed food and other goods (artificial flowers, accessories,
etc.) to piece work for factories, and the provision of services such as cleaning,
27
cooking, caring for the elderly, childcare, etc. It is important to note that in many
Asian countries (e.g., Thailand, Lao PDR, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, India and
Pakistan), a large portion of informal sector activities are commercialised or
"marketised" versions of womens traditional skills of maintaining and reproducing
the family and community spheres.
While some of these activities are self-owned or self-regulated (i.e., women have
reasonable control over production conditions), many are under sub-contract
arrangements in which women are at the mercy of brokers who determine
production and compensation rules. This is particularly the case in sub-contracted
production for the manufacturing sector, which is generally organised around
contracting agents who receive production contracts from larger agents and then
sub-contract the work to the women workers. These workers would then perform
the work in their homes, or in small production units set up by the principle
contractor. A distinguishing feature of such work is that for both cultural and
economic reasons, workers cannot and do not organise themselves in unions or
associations to protect their rights as workers. Principle contractors are often
people known and respected in the community, and take on the persona of
"patrons" who bestow favours on community members through economic
opportunities, etc. On the other hand, contractors may be from outside the
neigbourhood or community, and will simply go elsewhere if workers decide to
organise and negotiate as a group.
Many researchers argue that there is a growing "informalisation" of labour in the
export manufacturing sector, and that this informalisation taps into womens needs
to balance their productive and reproductive responsibilities. Economic
opportunism and profits are served by local culture and tradition, which serve as
domesticating forces and ensure a supply of cheap and manageable labour. Further,
the expansion of this type of sub-contracted production has increased with the
globalisation of production, and trade and investment liberalisation. On one hand,
the informal sector has provided women with much needed income, which in some
instances also enhances their status in their families and communities. But at the
same time, the inability to organise as a group in such employment makes it
extremely difficult for women to negotiate better compensation, working
conditions and labour protection for themselves.
The liberalisation of the agriculture sector has also affected women in a variety of
ways, from losing access to local markets for their products to dislocation from
traditional forms of livelihood, outward migration and re-settlement. Under trade
liberalisation agreements (such as in the WTO) developing countries are bound to
import a percentage of agriculture and food products for domestic consumption.
28
The developing countries of Asia are primarily rural economies where at least 50
percent of agriculture and food production is done by women. Local and national
food security is dependant on domestic production, which in turn ensures
livelihood security for rural families. Obligatory imports of agricultural (especially
food) products, accompanied by reduction in tariffs on imported goods and the
removal of price controls creates pressure on making local goods "competitive"
with imported goods (which are often subsidised in their countries of origin). This
has negative impacts on food and livelihood security for domestic producers,
leading to increased economic hardship for rural families and a gradual weakening
of rural, self-reliant economic structures. Again, because of womens dual roles as
productive and reproductive labour, this burden is borne more heavily by women
than men.
Another crucial area that is affected by trade liberalisation and privatisation
regimes is natural resources, particularly in relation to bio-diversity and traditional
knowledge. A huge proportion of rural communities in Asia are subsistence
producers who live off common lands and resources, and rely on traditional
knowledge of local forests, plants, animals and fish for food and income. In these
communities, women are usually responsible for meeting the familys daily food
and livelihood needs, and are veritable storehouses of knowledge about local biodiversity and traditional extraction practices. But with commercial harvesting of
natural resources for value added production, increase in plantation and monocropping for export markets, and transference of land, water and resource rights to
private companies, both bio-diversity and environmental quality are seriously
threatened, and local communities are alienated from the resource base they
depend upon..
The loss of local plant and animal species is a serious blow to women since they
rely on seasonal diversity and variation to ensure food, income and health for their
families. When communities are displaced or relocated from traditional lands to
make way for commercial enterprises, women are particularly disempowered since
their sphere of activity is usually limited to local forests, rivers and common lands.
Reduced access to these lands and resources, and reduced availability of local
foods increases womens work-load of family maintenance. The introduction of
new resource tenure systems often marginalises women from access to and control
over all types of resourcesnatural, economic and political.
Bio-piracy and the patenting of women traditional knowledge of biodiversity and
production processes by private corporations also disempowers women in very
particular ways. Not only are womens intellectual contributions to science,
technology and modern know-how not recognised, but also, they are compelled to
29
pay for the very resources that they have nurtured and protected for generations as
these resources enter markets in the form of medicines and processed foods.
While women in such situations face the danger of losing ownership and control
over their indigenous resources through trade liberalisation, they do not necessarily
gain access to new resources. Patents on products derived from local bio-diversity
do not involve royalty payments to women and their communities who have
stewarded and built a store of knowledge about these resources. Nor are women
compensated for the "opportunity" costs of losing access to their primary sources
of food and livelihood. The introduction of new, valued adding production
technologies does not necessarily benefit rural women since they usually have
neither the required capital nor the base of education and skills required to take
advantage of these changes. Unless accompanied by deliberate measures to transfer
new technologies and know how to women, the introduction of new technologies
often displaces them from traditional areas of autonomy and control
The above are just some examples of how women are affected by economic
globalisation. The range of impacts is both vast and complex, and these impacts
vary across countries, social and economic status, culture, and also across time.
What were considered opportunities ten years ago may be considered threats today,
as in the case of some types of export processing zones, commercial agricultural
production practices, etc. Further, it can be argued that the forces of economic
globalisation impact women at two broad levels. First, at the immediate
experiential level such as lowered wages, reduced access to land and resources,
less food, greater workload, etc. And second, at a more "structural" or strategic
level, where impacts are not necessarily visible today, but which lead to a longerterm disempowerment of women.
Gaps in Knowledge
One of the biggest challenges of tracing and fully understanding the ways in which
globalisation affects women is the absence of sex-disaggregated indicators and data
in key sectors such as agricultural production and employment, services, and the
informal sector. While independent researchers and institutions such as UNIFEM
are gathering information and showing how women are affected by current
economic trends, many of the indicators and methods used to monitor these trends
are in and of themselves not gender sensitive. For example, internationally
accepted indicators of income-related poverty do not provide information on the
particular incidence of poverty among women (what is called the "feminisation of
30
poverty"). While household surveys on consumption or spending can provide sexdisaggregated data, they cannot measure or take into consideration gender
inequality within households, which is usually a significant factor in the manner
and the degree to which women are affected by new opportunities and trends.
The above gaps in information also have serious consequences for the development
of women-friendly national and global economic and social policies, and in
transforming the forces of economic globalisation to be beneficial rather than
hostile to women. While there is plenty of "evidence" that liberalisation,
privatisation and deregulation have disproportionately affected women negatively
(particularly in lower income groups), this evidence is not accepted as valid by
policy makers since it does not fit into their accepted frameworks and analytical
practices. At the same time, the knowledge base that informs national and global
policy making is blind not only to gender differences, but also to the political
disadvantages that result from differences in race, class, culture and ethnicity.
The full measure of impacts of economic globalisation on women, and the
development of progressive policy measures to counter these measures will not
receive the attention it deserves until this dominant knowledge base is challenged
and reconstructed.
innovation system means that the government S&T effort must be flexible and
adaptable in order to keep pace). These changes are creating both opportunities and
threats for governments and the S&T required to support them. Underlying this
situation is a shift in the policy environment (including public expectations
concerning what federal S&T can and should provide), making it significantly
different from when the federal S&T system was established.
This environment of continuous change is characterized by a number of factors
that are shaping the global economy and the place of governments within it. These
factors are outlined below.
Globalization-Internationalization
A key characteristic of the process of globalization is the accelerating integration
of all markets, domestic and foreign. There are no longer any "safe" domestic
markets, where firms are protected from competitors by tariff walls. The forces of
globalization are also changing the context for government S&T activities. Policy
decisions must be backed up with world-class science and technology. S&T is
playing a more prominent role in trade disputes and their resolution. Pressures for
global harmonization of standards and regulations require that national S&T
activities meet international standards. In order for national governments to be able
to enforce a unique national identity and economic sovereignty in the global
marketplace, they must be able to back up their policies with internationally
accepted science. In short, national S&T efforts, facilities and equipment need to
be world-class in the academic, private sector and government arenas.
Increased Public Expectations
Canadians look to their governments for assurance that their interests are being
addressed (i.e. health and safety, security, economic and social well-being, etc.).
While the amount and quality of information available for independent decision
making is better now than in the past, Canadians still look to the government to
take action where the available information is incomplete, or is overwhelming in
volume and/or complexity.
Also, there are many areas where national decisions are required for which
Canadians rely on the federal government to ensure the proper, fair functioning of
the marketplace. They also look to their governments to provide other services in
the public interest such as research, education, defence, a supportive business
environment, social programs and infrastructure. These factors have raised public
expectations concerning what government can and should be doing, as well as the
level of involvement the public should have in government decision making.
32
Another finding is that governments of all OECD countries (with the exception of
New Zealand) have some in-house R&D capability. In smaller countries, this
capability is a relatively important fraction of the overall national R&D system; in
larger countries, in-house R&D is a relatively smaller fraction. However, it is
interesting that all of the governments surveyed have this active in-house R&D
function, including even the highly private-sector-oriented governments such as the
United States.
35
36
37
39
each other. Our response is to broaden our curriculum to include a greater focus on
studying other religions.
c) An inter-disciplinary approach: The present character of theological education
is too much disciplinary and compartmentalized. This approach alone is not
sufficient in a multi context like ours. The reality of our experience is complex and
we need a confluence of tools to unravel its significance. We need an interdisciplinary character of our study and research. In this process, the cultural and
religious traditions of our people must be taken seriously. They are not just useful
to supply an alternative vision of human bonding to one another and to earth alone,
but they have to be taken seriously to support an alternative development
paradigm.
d) A transformative approach: Gaining new knowledge should help us in the
transformation of our lives. It is unfortunate that theological education has fallen
into the trap set by the philosophy of modern educational system. Education has
become skill oriented. Theological education should not be reduced to mere skill
orientation. Today theological education has been reduced to mere abstract and
intellectual exercise leaving very little scope for action-reflection. We need to
challenge this pattern of Theological education. Theological education has to be
directed towards transformation. Praxis-thinking challenges us that, thinking that
occurs apart from critical involvement ends up in construction of theories about
existence that keep us away from the real world. We need rigorous theoretical
reflection of the Word of God, but it should emerge from the practice that is
directed to transformation. In order to do theological-praxis we need social and
cultural analysis of our context. They should form an integral part of the
theological curriculum.
e) Protection of diversity: Plurality is an integral part of the Creator. No culture,
no community is excluded from this God's structure of creation. All are unique in
their own ways and, therefore, no one has the right to dominate and suppress the
other. Life is protected and it can grow to its fullness only by affirming the beauty
of diversity. Therefore, a perspectival change in theological education to
understand and appreciate the diverse religious and cultural resources of human
kind as the common property of humanity becomes crucial. A positive approach
especially to the people of other faiths, culture and languages can provide a new
paradigm of pedagogy to theological education.
Conclusion
We cannot find easy answer to these complex problems brought by the process of
globalization. Theological education needs to help people to discern justice and
41
speak for justice for the victims of globalization. It is important that the Word of
God is constantly engage in helping people to search for an alternative vision of
human bonding to one another and to the whole of God's creation. It is also
important to recognize that an indispensable role of theological education in the
context of globalization is to strengthen the prophetic ministry of the church so that
it can become the salt, light and leaven against the ill effects of globalization.
India is Global:
The liberalisation of the domestic economy and the increasing integration of India
with the global economy have helped step up GDP growth rates, which picked up
from 5.6% in 1990-91 to a peak level of 77.8% in 1996-97. Growth rates have
slowed down since the country has still bee able to achieve 5-6% growth rate in
42
three of the last six years. Though growth rates has slumped to the lowest level
4.3% in 2002-03 mainly because of the worst droughts in two decades the growth
rates are expected to go up close to 70% in 2003-04. A Global comparison shows
that India is now the fastest growing just after China.
This is major improvement given that India is growth rate in the 1970s was very
low at 3% and GDP growth in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, and Mexico
was more than twice that of India. Though Indias average annual growth rate
almost doubled in the eighties to 5.9% it was still lower than the growth rate in
China, Korea and Indonesia. The pick up in GDP growth has helped improve
Indias global position. Consequently Indias position in the global economy has
improved from the 8th position in 1991 to 4th place in 2001. When GDP is
calculated on a purchasing power parity basis.
unique outlook and branding methods. For example food processing and packaging
are the one of the area where new entrepreneurs can enter into a big way. It may be
organised in a collective way with the help of co-operatives to meet the global
demand.
Understanding the current status of globalisation is necessary for setting course for
future. For all nations to reap the full benefits of globalisation it is essential to
create a level playing field. President Bushs recent proposal to eliminate all tariffs
on all manufactured goods by 2015 will do it. In fact it may exacerbate the
prevalent inequalities. According to this proposal, tariffs of 5% or less on all
manufactured goods will be eliminated by 2005 and higher than 5% will be
lowered to 8%. Starting 2010 the 8% tariffs will be lowered each year until they
are eliminated by 2015.
brought jobs to rural, developing areas such as India where there was previously no
employment, these jobs seem to be wolves in sheeps clothing. The work available
to women is almost always poorly paid, mentally and physically unhealthy,
demeaning, or insecure.
Women are suffering two fold. As women in developing countries move into the
work force, their domestic responsibilities are not alleviated. Women work two full
time jobs. One in a factory, where they are paid next to nothing, the second is in
the home where they are paid nothing (Moghadam). According to Merlin A. Taber
and Sushma Batra, editors of the book Social Strains of Globalization in India,
development for poor women has meant the migration of men to cities, higher
prices for commodities, poorer job opportunities. The mixture of corporate
capitalism and Western culture models is dissolving family and community social
controls as witnessed by higher rates of family violence, rape, divorce, and family
breakdown.
One example of womens labor being exploited would be the Noida Export
Processing Zone, which is 24 km from New Delhi. These zones prefer to hire
women because they are more docile and more productive in men. In short, they
are easier to control and less likely to retaliate against less than ideal working
conditions, which are exactly what thousands of women encounter 12 hours a day.
The zone is dangerous, hot, and unsanitary. Unnecessary body searches are routine.
There are no maternity benefits and minimum wage is never enforced. Women who
become pregnant or marry are immediately fired. Overtime is compulsory but
women are paid lower rates than men. In order to avoid being fired, women turn to
unsafe abortions performed by unqualified doctors. In the zone, respiratory
problems, pelvic inflammatory disease, and sever cases of dehydration and anemia
are common. (Rajalakshmi)
Consequences:
The implications of globalisation for a national economy are many. Globalisation
has intensified interdependence and competition between economies in the world
market. This is reflected in Interdependence in regard to trading in goods and
services and in movement of capital. As a result domestic economic developments
are not determined entirely by domestic policies and market conditions. Rather,
they are influenced by both domestic and international policies and economic
conditions. It is thus clear that a globalising economy, while formulating and
evaluating its domestic policy cannot afford to ignore the possible actions and
46
reactions of policies and developments in the rest of the world. This constrained
the policy option available to the government which implies loss of policy
autonomy to some extent, in decision-making at the national level.
Effects of globalization
Globalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways
such as:
47
Transportation
Technical
o Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and
greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet,
communication satellites, submarine fiber optic cable, and wireless
telephones
o Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright
laws, patents and world trade agreements.
Legal/Ethical
o The creation of the international criminal court and international
justice movements.
o Crime importation and raising awareness of global crime-fighting
efforts and cooperation.
o Sexual awareness It is often easy to only focus on the economic
aspects of Globalization. This term also has strong social meanings
behind it. Globalization can also mean a cultural interaction between
different countries. Globalization may also have social effects such
changes in sexual inequality, and to this issue brought about a greater
awareness of the different (often more brutal) types of gender
discrimination throughout the world.
o
Effects of globalization
1 Enhancement in the information flow between geographically remote
locations
2 The global common market has a freedom of exchange of goods and capital
3 There is a broad access to a range of goods for consumers and companies
49
50
Advantages of Globalization
Positive Aspects:
There are many potentially positive aspects of globalization, if it is pursued for the
common good, not just for the benefit of a few. Today globalization has led to the
opening up of the national boundaries to international trade and global
competition. Developments linked with globalization have opened up boundless
possibilities for human development, enormous new opportunities and enhanced
the quality of life for many people in the third world countries. For example, the
production of goods for consumption on a massive scale has brought not only a
better and more varied goods available to every citizen, but also has brought
enormous change in people's value system. Those who have and are able to buy the
goods have attained greater comfort, speedier communication and faster travel.
Information technology has converted the world into a "global village". The events
of far-off lands are easily accessible in our living rooms. This process has
promoted exchange of ideas and customs between peoples of different countries.
Today our ways of thinking and behaving are now challenged beyond accepted
traditional patterns. The horizon of our perspectives has suddenly embraced the
`the global village' beyond the confines of our homes. And this has been
reciprocally beneficial. In addition, live communication of facts makes us partake
instantaneously in the events of history. It also creates and promotes global
concern. We now have the possibility of immediate worldwide attention to global
issues, particularly to people in emergency situations. For this reason, it is
irrational on our part to reject it outright; an uncritical attitude towards it is unwise.
We need to affirm the positive side of this development and make use of the many
opportunities it offers for our development.
Globalization has several advantages on the economic, cultural, technological,
social and some other fronts.
Globalization means increasing the interdependence, connectivity and integration
on a global level with respect to the social, cultural, political, technological,
economic and ecological levels.
51
Advantages of Globalization
1 Goods and people are transported with more easiness and speed
2 The possibility of war between the developed countries decreases
3 Free trade between countries increases
4 Global mass media connects all the people in the world
5 As the cultural barriers reduce, the global village dream becomes more
realistic
6 There is a propagation of democratic ideals
7 The interdependence of the nation-states increases
8 As the liquidity of capital increases, developed countries can invest in
developing ones
9 The flexibility of corporations to operate across borders increases
10 The communication between the individuals and corporations in the world
increases
11 Environmental protection in developed countries increases
12 Increased free trade between nations
13 Reduction of likelihood of war between developed nations
14 Increased liquidity of capital allowing investors in developed nations to
invest in developing nations
15 Corporations have greater flexibility to operate across borders
16 Global mass media ties the world together
17 Increased flow of communications allows vital information to be shared
between individuals and corporations around the world
18 Greater ease and speed of transportation for goods and people
19 Reduction of cultural barriers increases the global village effect
20 Spread of democratic ideals to developed nations
21 Greater interdependence of nation-states
52
Limitations of globalization
Negative Aspects
While some economists and politicians approve these developments, many people
look at this process with much apprehension. They look at the global village as an
order or mechanism for greater economic exploitation and political oppression.
Globalization has many dimensions: economic, technological, political, cultural,
social, environmental, ideological, etc. Each of them affects the local either
positively or negatively. Let us see some of its negative aspects:
a) Economic aspect: The world market has emerged as the dominant economic
force. While some nations have tremendous economic advantages, others have
become more and more dependent. The main players in the present process of
globalization are the governments of powerful nations (in particular the G7 ),
transnational cooperation, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. The
development of all third world countries has to be related to the world market. This
is so because the overall control of the global economy is in the hands of the G7
countries. They control the monetary system and international trade. The
multinationals and other institutions with the help of the state control all
development processes. The foreign debt works as an instrument to control the
development process in these countries. Terms and conditions on the loans are
imposed on them, which make them almost impossible to develop on their own
terms. The role of developing countries is simply to provide cheap labour to attract
investors and to provide raw materials, which are at the mercy of fluctuating
53
prices. They are to meet the needs of others as cheaply as possible. This unfettered
growth of the multinationals and the emphasis on foreign trade are not conducive
to a development pattern that is oriented to the basic needs of the people. The
production needs and patterns are often determined by the market forces. It is
unfortunate that they seldom take into consideration the basic needs of the people.
The production of the goods for export or for the conspicuous consumption of the
rich becomes the market force today. In the globalized free market, the only people
who count are those who have goods to sell and those who have the money to buy.
This in turn drives many to the margins of the economic life. The small
entrepreneurs have very little chance of survival in this system. Only the stronger
and successful competitors survive and thereby widening the gap between the rich
and poor, both between countries and within country. One cannot deny that there
has been a worldwide growth in poverty, inequality and the human misery. Social
injustice is becoming an accepted reality. It is said that the top 20% has access to
82.7%, while the bottom 20% struggle to survive on 1.4%. The weak, the poor and
the inexperienced ones are pushed to the outer rims of the society. Globalization
works for the benefits of the rich while the poor become commodities since they
are used as cheap labours. It is very clear that the present economic pattern no
longer serves the interest of the majority of the people. It rather destroys the lives
of many people due to its unjust distribution of wealth, exploitation and
deprivation of basic needs. Indeed, it has created a situation of marginalization,
exclusion and social disintegration.
b) Political aspect: The development of the third world countries with the help of
industrialized countries has many political implications. The process of
globalization from the beginning was fraught with competition, conflict,
domination and exploitation. The opening up of the national boundaries for free
market has led to a neo-colonialism allowing not only economic domination, but
also political domination over the poor nations. For example, the policies of
liberalisation and withdrawal of subsidies, which are the conditions imposed by the
IMF and the World Bank, have resulted in the curtailing of the state's power.
Today, globalization is creating a government more committed to the protection of
foreign investments and less to the protection of the citizens of the country. Many
thirds world are forced to abandon its social responsibilities. This makes many
people to ask whether the present process of globalization is compatible with
democracy, social justice and the social welfare state. While the state is rendered
relatively powerless, it has become a mere tool of the rich and the powerful. Its
sole function is to suppress any organized resistance by oppressed people of the
unjust system.
54
c) Social aspect: The market ideology of globalization gives a notion that people
who cannot afford goods and live in rural areas are considered uncivilized and
backward. They feel isolated from the privileged groups. This wrong notion creates
an inferiority complex among the poor rural masses that urges them to migrate to
the cities and towns in search of employment and better living. It encourages
migration not only within a country, but also encourages people to migrate to other
countries. It is estimated that there are seventy million workers around the world.
The migrant workers are the most exploited people. They suffer from insecurity
and social exclusion. This social exclusion is deeper than the economic level.
An ever-increasing economic pattern and the expansionary character of
globalization leads to lowering of labour costs and wages. In the struggle to be
more competitive, labour costs and wages are being driven down. Companies go in
for `restructuring' and `downsizing' which creates redundancies. Permanent
employment and skilled workforce is being replaced by the casual and part-time
employment creating immense insecurity among the workers. While wages are
being lowered, but working hours have been increased. Yet it is almost impossible
for a poor worker to rebel against the company that employs him or her.
Powerlessness is one of the consequences of globalization for so many people in
the lower brackets of society.[3] All these lead the poor worker to involve in all
sorts of anti-social activities.
The profit-oriented free market has also let loose the present day social realities.
Consumerism and materialism have overwhelmed modern society affecting every
aspect of life. Society has become impersonal, mechanical and inhumane. The
present society and its penchant for unprincipled living, selfishness, corruption,
opportunism, and violence are the product of consumerism and materialism.
d) Cultural aspect: Globalization means the export and import of cultures.
Globalization involves cultural invasion. Technology is power. It becomes the
carrier to those systems and ideologies (values and cultures) within which it has
been nurtured. The whole idea of progress and development is decisively shaped
by western life-style, worldview and its structures. A monoculture is fast emerging.
When we say "mono-culture", it means the undermining of economic, cultural and
ecological diversity and the acceptance of a technological culture developed in the
West and the adoption of its inherent values. The tendency is to accept the
efficiency with productivity without any concern for compassion or justice. In
traditional societies, people maintained a very strong practice of community
ownership of land and property. The accumulation of wealth by individual was not
encouraged, but today wealth is increasingly regarded as belonging to individuals
and not to the community. The slow erosion of traditional cultural values leads to
55
lack of cohesion in societies. The indigenous culture and its potential to save
human development and the earth from destruction are vastly ignored.
e) Ecological aspect: Globalization involves environmental degradation and
pollution. The pattern of development that we uphold today is capital-intensive. An
ever-increasing economic pattern and the expansionary character of mechanization
and massive industrialization of the economic world-order are reducing the nonhuman segments of creation to mere status of object without any intrinsic value.
People simply analyze nature from the viewpoint of its usefulness to humans and
they are all set to be exploited according to human's wishes. Forest and fishing
resources are depleted for quick profits. Mining companies rape resources with
little regard to the environmental and social costs. The sustaining power of the
earth for nurturing life is being destroyed. The whole planet is at threat. Thus, the
ecological catastrophe today is the direct product of modern industrial and
technological growth, and the modern lifestyle.
f) Impact upon indigenous people: With the accelerating deterioration of the
global economic and political situation, the indigenous people face further
marginalization and graver threats of continuity and sustainability. In many parts of
the world, the indigenous people have become the victims of big reservoirs, mega
projects, wild life sanctuaries, mines, industries, etc. An indigenous theologian
from Pacific writes his experience as follows:
The advertisement on our local TV demonstrates this concept very clearly.
The ad begins with people living happily in a joyous environment where
there is fun, plenty of food in the garden and an abundance of fish in the sea.
Then the big ships came with big money, which they gave to the chiefs for
the forests. The result is total displacement, impoverishment and ecological
destablisation
In the name of development, people are forcefully evicted from their ancestral land
and the abode of the various spirits they worship using repressive measures and
often without proper compensation. They are simply ignored, silenced and
despised. For example, in India, 100,000 people are going to be displaced by the
Sardar Savovar Project in Gujarat, 60-70% of whom are indigenous people.
Around 130,000 are expected to be displaced by the Narmada Sagar Project in
Madhya Pradesh of whom 65-70% are indigenous people. Likewise, in the name of
development, the indigenous people who are already powerless and exploited are
further reduced to powerlessness and bondage. It is disheartening to see that
indigenous people are made environmental prisoners in their own land.
g) Religious aspect: Threatened by the forces of globalization and the ideas of
56
57
new drugs. Having a local R&D presence will help to better understand technical
specifications and regulations. Additionally, governments encourage technology
transfer into their country. Having a local R&D in other countries will improve the
bargaining power for the companies with the local governments.
Technology Factors: New and cheaper communication technologies like Internet,
dedicated fiber-optic lines and satellite communication now allows companies to
transfer huge amounts of data across the world for faster information sharing. This
communication revolution was the key enabler for globalization of R&D.
Telecommunication is enabling firms to establish and manage a global R&D
network.
59
Global R&D offers companies several advantages and benefits, but these gains are
not without challenges. Having worked at Intel R&D, the main challenge for a
successful global R&D can summarized as :
Communication barriers.
Communication barriers exists in two forms
Differences in time zones & work hours makes it tough to communicate in real
time.
Different levels of technical skills and different standards of measurement between
countries will impair smooth communication. Often there is misunderstanding of
what is being said and what was understood
Differences in implementation of intellectual property rights.
Different countries have different policies and implementation levels of intellectual
property rights. As a result companies are reluctant to share critical technology
with their own R&D centers located in other countries.
Embargos and Government policies hinder technical collaboration
Often countries have some sort of embargo or sanctions against other countries.
For example US had imposed a ban on exporting high tech computers to India, US
currently prohibits transfer of several technologies to China. These sanctions were
imposed for political reasons, but R&D center located in US must comply with
those rules.
Cultural Differences plays a havoc
Differences in culture plays as a big spoil sport while working in joint ventures or
collaborations. Cultural differences are not easy to overcome and takes a while for
all parties to understand each others culture. When quick product development is
needed, cultural differences can hamper the project.
Personally, I have observed that it takes a couple of projects for all the parties to
understand each others culture. Once the cultural barrier is crossed, then
communication becomes smooth & the joint development produces better results
than a stand alone centers.
Often R&D centers would have developed as a stand alone unit. The concept of
61
joint development with another R&D center is new and may not be welcome by
the staff. There will friction between R&D centers arising from communication
challenges. Global coordination of R&D is a management challenge. Creating a
cohesive network of coordinated R&D centers requires dedicated efforts from top
management, Human resources Department and R&D staff.
In addition to the above challenges, the other factors which undermine global R&D
are ethnocentric and parochial attitude of the management. The belief that people
in other countries cannot match their technical skills, our way is the best way
attitudes prevents the company from reaping the full benefits of the global R&D.
Maximizing benefits
Maximizing benefits in a complex environment spread across different countries is
a tough task. Difficulty arises due the factors mentioned above. However there are
means to solve those issues. In my opinion, the key factors to maximizing benefits
are:
Common understanding of goals and objectives. Full commitments from all
groups to these goals. The goals must be well defined to avoid misunderstanding in
overall Vs local priorities. Establish a common language, common terminologies &
common corporate language to avoid misunderstandings. E-mail addresses, phone
numbers of all members must be available to all members of the team. This enables
faster communication.
Provide easy access to e-mail, phone, cross site meetings, video conferencing etc..
for better communication between sites. IT/Computer infrastructures across sites
must be comparable to get the maximum benefits of improved communication.
The main project manager must have very skillful people skills and must be
capable of establishing a creative and positive environment. Team members
must be committed to solve problems quickly to prevent damage to the project
schedules or objectives. Project leader must be capable of resolving any cross-site
issues and disputes quickly and equitably. If disputes are not resolved quickly, it
may soon escalate thus forcing a costly intervention from the top management.
The project manager is responsible for setting up the hierarchy of the Joint R&D
organization. Having a clear line of command is vital to the smooth functioning of
the joint teams. The project manager must be empowered to handle any
organizational issues.
62
Establish trust between different R&D teams. If the teams are from different
countries or locations, companies must arrange for a face-to-face meetings early on
in the project. Such meetings help to build trust between R&D centers, breakdown
small fiefdoms and increase productivity. Team rotation between sites should be
encouraged during the project to build better co-operation and overcome cultural
differences. This also removes any ethnocentric or parochial view held by both
sides.
It must be noted that cultural differences are difficult to overcome. Experience has
shown that increasing contact between cultures reduces cultural differences as
people understand other cultures better. In a global R&D project, increasing faceto-face contact either by meetings or by team rotations, companies can minimize
the impact of cultural differences.
Requirement gathering must be done with great care. R&D teams must work
closely with marketing and other departments to document a detailed project
requirements ahead of starting the project. Project requirement specifications must
be circulated to all members and explained clearly to avoid any misunderstanding
arising from different interpretations. However, it is impossible to document all the
requirements and issues do arise during the project. To mitigate this, regular
meeting must be held with marketing to resolve any new issues.
In my experience, I have seen that having at least one person per site who
understands the requirements completely helps resolve issues. Marketing
department must closely work with R&D teams during the life of the project. Often
it is necessary to have weekly or bi-weekly meetings with marketing to resolve any
issues with the project requirements.
Establish a strong change request system. Any changes to the requirements must go
through the change request system. The change request must be reviewed by a
committee within a reasonable time frame and their opinions must be clearly
communicated.
As companies become global corporations, all their operations become global.
Until recently, all R&D activities was concentrated in the home country of the
MNC. Companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, HP etc... had all their R&D done in
US while their sales, manufacturing & other operations were global. Traditionally
companies were reluctant to globalize their R&D, partly due to the fear of losing
out their competitive advantage, partly due to non-availability of talent in other
countries & partly due to ethnocentrism. This attitude started changing in 1990s
when companies realized the need to customize their products to the local markets
and when companies gained confidence in using research talent found abroad. By
63
late 1990s, most companies had R&D centers abroad to attract local scientific
talent, to lower costs of R&D, to better respond to local markets and to meet
regulatory requirements.
Closing thoughts
Global market place requires global R&D. Internet & fast communication
technologies opens the possibility for global R&D. Although the project
management on a global scale has its challenges and specific problems, experience
shows that R&D activity serves end markets best when the activity is also located
in those markets. Global R&D strategy needs to consider:
The need to tap into sources of knowledge and information where ever they
might be located on the globe.
The need to transfer that knowledge to other R&D centers and other parts of the
organization.
The need to coordinate activities between various R&D centers to ensure that
knowledge is used appropriately.
The need to balance the allocation of priorities and resources globally based on
strategic need rather than proximity.
The need to develop global products with customization to meet local markets.
64
assumptions, says that the freer the trade the greater will be the gains for the
partners each of whom can export the products in which they have a competitive
edge. Many developed countries experiencing unemployment, inflation and low
growth were convinced that the key to addressing these problems was a more open
trading system. This explains why the Tokyo Round (1979) and the Uruguay
Round (1994) were negotiated. From our point of view the crucial difference
between the two is the inclusion of services (for example financial and
telecommunication services), investment and intellectual property in the latter.
Negotiations were aimed to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade on a
reciprocal basis and. agreements could be reached when at last the parties felt they
had received comparable concessions from each other. It goes without saying that
such negotiations can be meaningful only among equals or near equals. In reality,
agreements were reached first among developed countries. The developing
countries were presented with a near final agreement The two concessions they
wanted most, greater market access for clothing and labor services, were ignored.
There was no dismantling of the restrictions on the import of textiles and clothing
in the developed country markets nor did the developed countries agree to the free
movement of labour. On the contrary, developing countries that signed up had to
agree to open up their markets for almost everything of export interest to the rich
nations.
We may draw some important conclusions from this brief review of the world
trading system that now promotes the globalization process. first the system is
highly biased in favor of the rich countries in whose interest it is really designed.
For the foreseeable future it is this group of countries that will be exporting high
value products, services, capital and technology for which developing countries
will provide a lucrative market. In the meantime, developing countries will have
the markets for their labor intensive products effectively restricted. Pledges by the
developed countries to phase out the MFA (Multi-fiber Agreement) over a few
years have fallen by the wayside. Instead new barriers are being erected to market
entry by far-fetched regulations in the name of technical specifications, inspection
procedures, health issues, environmental hazards and labor standards. In recent
years such regulations have proliferated, aimed at curbing exports from poor
countries. Again and again the developed countries invoke the safeguard and
antidumping clauses of the WTO Agreement to limit the import of items in which
developing countries happen to show signs of competitive advantage.
There is a dispute resolution mechanism in the WTO and an aggrieved country can
submit complaints to this office. However, this is a complex, protracted and
expensive process. A major reason for the helplessness of the poor countries is
their lack of leverage. They are in no position to impose retaliatory measures.
66
Many poor countries affected by such arbitrary action of the rich have neither the
technical expertise nor money to mount an effective challenge. The present world
trading system is fair in its shape and unfair in its impact, because it makes no
marked distinction among its members in terms of their ability to play the game.
Many reputable economists have lent their voice to the call for a more open trade
as the best way for poor countries to generate a higher rate of growth. The
literature on how trade can act as the engine of growth is still expanding. But it is
often forgotten that when trade is constrained by declining terms of trade, quotas,
non-tariff walls of the kind we have seen and administrative regulations of
powerful nations little can be expected in terms of the benefit of trade for the poor.
Empirical evidence is cited to show how some countries have attained a higher rate
of growth when they opened their market. I have two comments on these cases.
First, even if it were true for some countries it cannot be automatically relevant for
others caught up in a different situation, Second, one can also point to many
countries that have historically attained very high rates of growth without throwing
open their market for all manner of import. The prime examples are Japan, and
South Korea. It may be misleading to focus exclusively on the ratio of trade to
GDP. It is also necessary to look at the level and composition of exports and
imports separately in order to come to a sense of what is happening to savings,
investment and structural change in the economy. We will revert to the issue of
trade liberalization in poor countries at a later stage.
We have noted that the core players in the globalization process are the large
corporations of the rich countries. They alone have a global reach because of the
technical and financial resources available to them. They direct their investment in
developing countries principally in consideration of the market, security and
profitability. Naturally, the lions share of the foreign direct investment has gone to
countries that meet these criteria including China, Brazil, India, Chili and Mexico.
It is estimated that the Least Developed Countries (LDC), numbering about 50,
mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, receive less than 2 per cent of foreign direct
investment in developing countries. It is common knowledge that the bulk of the
foreign direct investment in the LDCs, who have a small domestic market, is in the
extraction of natural resources such as oil, gas, minerals, timber and fishery. Not
much processing or local value addition is involved in these undertakings, with
consequently little contribution to national income and employment.
On the other hand, they deplete the resource base and degrade the environment.
The LDCs thus face a serious dilemma. They badly need investment that brings in
capital and technology. But despite every conceivable incentive and concession
67
foreign investment flows in a trickle and goes to activities that undermine longterm sustainable development.
The trade in services, growing rapidly and amounting to USS 1.4 trillion in 2001,
is again another area where developed countries have an overwhelming edge.
Large corporations and financial giants of the rich countries have targeted the
banking, insurance and telecommunication services in the developing world. Poor
countries are being persuaded to privatize these sectors and open them to foreign
investment. Although these measures will likely bring in more capital and better
technology, improve efficiency and reduce cost, it would require a substantial
deregulation of the foreign exchange market with unpredictable risks. Given the
recent experience of financial crisis in several Asian and Latin American countries
it is doubtful if poor countries with weak and fragile economic base can withstand
the shocks transmitted through the freely operating global financial network. In the
face of opposition by financial giants who operate this network with trillions of
dollars it may not be feasible to impose even a modicum of discipline on the socalled hot money.
Perhaps more ominous are the pressures being brought by large corporations on
poor countries to withdraw any preferential treatment of national enterprises in the
sectors where the corporations are interested. This is often done indirectly through
their governments or multilateral financial institutions in the name of structural
adjustment or non-discriminatory treatment as agreed in the W70 agreement. The
call for a level playing field for everybody sounds so convincing as to make us
often forget that a fair game in a level playing field can only be held among
comparable players, and not between giants and dwarfs.
The pressures are all arbitrary and one sided. Poor countries are persuaded to
withdraw subsidies on agricultural inputs and on the export of non-traditional
products while rich countries do not just subsidize agricultural production but also
export, thus taking away poor countries potential markets. Rich countries erect
tariff and non- tariff barriers on whatever excuse is found convenient. Poor
countries are endlessly pressed to remove trade barriers and expose their market to
ruthless competitors from all over the world. If this kills their small and weak
agriculture and industry It is to be taken as the process of structural adjustment to a
market economy. Never mind the staggering adjustment cost in terms of mounting
unemployment and social distress. Where will these people go? Where are the
fresh capital and skills to be found? How can any sector be safe from the vicious
capture of the market by the large corporations?
Agricultural subsidies paid out to farmers by the United States and the European
68
Union cost the poor countries more than US$ 250 billion a year in lost market or
more than five times the sum of all the aid they receive. Yet in the recently held
United Nations Aid Conference in Monterrey, Mexico, it was said that if the United
States was to open its wallet, poor nations must open their markets. The question
is, how can the poor nations open their markets and face the competition of the rich
nations in agriculture when subsidies and other support to farming in the rich
nations amount to about US$ I billion a day? And yet the poor nations are told they
would lose aid if they fail to remove the subsidy on fertilizer needed to boost
production and possibly achieve an exportable surplus.
Highly subsidized farm exports from the rich countries have led to long term
damage to agriculture in poor nations. Onions from France have swamped Senegal.
Corn from Iowa has damaged the market in Mexico. Milk powder from the
European Union has sealed the prospects of the dairy industry in Asia and Africa.
Many African cities now increasingly depend on imported wheat and corn from the
rich nations while the traditional African food crops, Cassava and Yam, steadily
recede from the market.
The food scarcity syndrome in poor nations is symptomatic of the growing
impoverishment and inequality within these countries as globalization spreads. Just
as globalization is widening the gap between rich and poor nations it is also
increasing social inequality within each nation. Relatively speaking, the poor
everywhere are becoming poorer. That is why we witness so many protests and
demonstrations against globalization in rich and poor countries alike, spearheaded
by those who are losing out in the great game of the twenty first century.
We are on the threshold of a knowledge-driven age. The globalization of the
knowledge industry appears to be a boon for all. In this area some developing
countries, such as India, have done remarkably well. Software export from India
amounts to billions of dollars. But whether others can follow Indias example
depends on what they do with their knowledge industry. Many poor nations are
unable to make the necessary investment and will slide back in the global race.
Globalization of the culture of the rich, marked by extravaganza and lack of social
commitments, is deeply troubling for the future of the poor. The mirage of an
amoral, cynical and affluent lifestyle, constantly beamed and wired to the world, is
fast destroying the moral fabric of economically poor, but culturally rich societies
and endangering the peaceful advancement of human civilization.
So what does the future hold? What will be the result of the increasingly
interconnected state of the worlds nations?
69
While there are many opinions, there is only one source that can give us the true
answerthe Holy Bible. In it, God accurately foretold the rise and fall of the
major nations throughout history, including the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek
and Roman empires He even prophesied the sudden rise of the American and
British people to world prominence.
And God has foretold todays fast-paced interconnected world and its matchless
advances in science and technology: But you, O Daniel, shut up the words, and
seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and
knowledge shall be increased The Bible states that, in the future, a union of ten
nations (or groups of nations) will arise, and replace America as the dominant
world power. It will attack and defeat America and Britain, taking the survivors
into captivity. This political, economic and military combine will be backed by a
universal false church. It will become a world-leading trading bloc, possessing vast
riches and trading all over the world in every product imaginableeven human
beings! This politically influential religious entity, led by a charismatic figure, will
usher in a temporary period of great wealth. Globalization will thrive during its
reign to levels unseen in human historyprosperity will flourish, but not for all.
However, shortly after the rise of this ten-nation union, it will be replaced by a
world-ruling supergovernment that will usher in lasting peace, prosperity and
security for all . Upon His triumphant Return, Jesus Christ will take over all the
governments of men, and administer His governmentthe kingdom of God
throughout the earth. At that time, the world will become truly oneone with
God.
True globalization will occur, but according to Gods just standards. No more
inequality. No more poverty. No more exploitation. Peace will abound. What a
wonderful picturesoon to become a reality
BIBLIOGRAPHY
70
Books:
Beneria, Lourdes: Gender and the Construction of Global Markets,
New York, March 1999.
Elson, Diane: Gender Budget Initiative: Background Papers, June,
1999
Ghosh, Jayathi: Women and Trade in the Asia-Pacific Region, New
Delhi, May 1998
Shiva, Vandhana: Food security, women, and rural communities in
South and Southeast Asia: implications of the post-Uruguay Round,
Bangkok, 1996.
Websites
Sebi
Wikipedia
WWW.GOOGLE.COM
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM
71
72
73