The Potential of Globalization
The world order in the years after the Second World War has changed a great deal.
This is palpable especially when one takes cognizance of the many inventions and
initiatives not only in the sphere of political interactions between states and nations but
also in the arena of economic transactions in the public and private sectors worldwide,
as well as the innumerable forms of international connections that takes place in the
mobilization of human and natural resources in general.
These developments undoubtedly combine to lend more credence to the rather diffused
description of the world now as a global village.
The present article aims to put to the reader that although the concept of globalization
promises to be a laudable phenomenon in a fast moving world, it could and does, more
often than not, foster rather than hinder the rape of economic justice especially in the
developing countries, thus giving rise to solutions that it is, at least in principle,
supposed to forestall. This explains the subtitle of this write-up which makes one to
wonder if globalization would not at one point or the other pass as an ugly monster
behind the garb of economic justice?
The term "Globalization" which came into common usage in the 1980s refers, in the
main, to the increasing integration of economies around the world, especially by way of
trade and financial flows across the globe. This integration of financial markets on a
global scale is very much enhanced by modern electronic communication technologies.
Globalization refers to an extension beyond national boundaries of age-old market
forces. It refers sometimes to the mobilization of people (Labour) and knowledge
(Technology) across international borders and besides, it has a broader reference to
cultural, environmental and political activities with worldwide dimensions.
The globalization process, in short, “points to the whole effort towards making the world
a global community. In practical terms, the globalization process embarks on a bold
programme for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress
available for the improvement and growth of under developed areas of the world.
Global markets are meant to provide greater opportunities for people to have access to
more and larger markets around the world. That implies that people can then
experience more capital flows, more technology, cheaper imports and larger export
markets. However, since markets may not automatically ensure that the dividends of
efficiency are shared by all involved, countries involved in the global market
transactions have to accept the policies needed. On this scope, the poorest countries
may require the support of the international community in order to cope with these
policies, and it is on this note that our attention is focused on the economic
globalization, and its impacts especially on the so called Third World Countries.
Some of the burning questions often asked include the following: Does economic
globalization exacerbate inequality of nations or could it help in the reduction of
poverty? Are countries that integrate with the global economy better or worse off
economically in the short or long term?
Globalization, economically speaking, entails the integration of world trade and financial
markets; but given that developing countries are not really catching up with the
advanced economies, the impact of globalization on the Third World Countries, leaves
much to be desired. In the arena of world trade, the share of primary commodities in
world exports of items such as food and raw materials has declined relatively in recent
times. In the area of capital movements, it is noticed that the net official flows of "aid" or
development assistance from the advanced economies to the Third World Countries
have dwindled significantly since the early 1980s.
Regarding, the movement of people from the poorer zones to the richer zones, it is
noted that there is an increase in the number of workers who migrate to the developed
countries in search of better paying job opportunities, and many in the Third World
would blame the poor home economic situation on adverse effects of globalization.
In the rather disturbing area of lending policies by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), for instance, it is well known that a larger chunk of Nigeria's foreign debt, as a
case in point, derives from the ever increasing interest- arrears and penalties for nonpayment. It is especially on this score that one tends to wonder if globalization is not
sometimes synonymous with economic justice? The accusation has often been made
against the IMF and the World Bank as
being largely responsible for the rather deplorable economic woes and backwardness of
many Third World Countries, Nigeria included.
Critics of the World Bank and the IMF hold them as being somewhat indirectly
responsible for plunging African and Third World nations into abject poverty and
ignominy. Hence, the onus falls on them to share the responsibility for Third World
foreign debts, and they should thus pay the developing countries adequate
compensation for the
pains and embarrassments that they have in one way or the other caused them.
The African youth must call for the people in the West to continue to develop in the
current process of globalization forms of cooperation which are not merely economic but
social and cultural as well -- rethinking international cooperation in terms of a new
culture of solidarity and justice.
Technology-advanced and richer nations should promote and implement globalization in
solidarity, of the values of equity, freedom and justice, based on the firm conviction that
the global marketplace needs to be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and
by the state, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole society are satisfied.
Globalization, when not carried out in the right spirit of humane solidarity, could very
easily become a mega bombshell of exploitation of the already economically,
technologically and socially disadvantaged Third World countries. And this, history sadly
shows that the lending policies of the IMF and the World bank as well as the modus
operandi of many multinationals have often plunged the Third World Countries into
deeper economic crises than ever before.
It could be more appreciable to mobilize for global justice and not for corporate greed:
there is an ever increasing need to globalize liberation from oppressive structural
Adjustment Programs and also to ensure that both the World Bank and the IMF desist
from giving any conditionality in their lending schemes which could result in
environmental destruction and dislocation of poor peoples in the southern hemisphere
of the globe.
In this regard, strong voices have been raised in recent times, calling for debt relief or
even the total cancellation of the debts of the poorest of the developing countries. Such
clarion calls have incidentally not fallen on deaf ears, as the IMF and the world bank
have jointly agreed to write off some debts, circa $ USD 27 billion owed them by the
poorest countries of the Third world. However, even after the cancellation of the debts
owned the IMF and World Bank, some Third world Countries (like Mali and some others
in the sub-Saharan region) would still have to grapple with some other enormous
bilateral debts from low- interest loans that have been given them as foreign aid by
Japan, France and the like.
Hence, the cancellation of foreign debts alone would not be the panacea to counteract
the financial maladies of the Third World. It would take something more, especially in
the delicate area of evolving truly and just economic policies on the part of the IMF and
the World Bank, such that the poor nations would not end up being systematically
crushed and exploited anymore, but would be realistically helped to build and
consolidate vibrant economies for the common good.
Concluding, Globalization may well have the potential of making Third World Countries,
inter alia, grow economically, technologically, educationally, politically and otherwise
stronger. However, it is no secret that there are several risks engrained in it which at
one point or the other, tend to turn one or the other Third World country into the Third of
the Third world if due care is not taken!
Granted that democracy (which has now come to stay in many Third World countries)
ensures the recognition of human rights and the administration of justice, there are
oftentimes certain dictates due to globalization of world economy which descend on
Third World countries like unjust economic plagues. Indeed many a conditionality of the
IMF or the World bank's lending schemes would hardly be seen as promoting the dignity
and fundamental rights of the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere who are
constrained, due to harsh economic policies, adverse exchange rates and other
aberrations in the world market place to seek loans from these international monetary
organizations, who instead of ameliorating the economic woes of the borrowers, end up
adding insult to injury by the way borrowers are made to cough out the ever amassing
interests on the loans!
It is indeed an open secret that most often the structural reforms that the lending
organizations (IMF and the World Bank) ask the borrowing nations to embark upon do
actually aggravate their poverty!
Finally, and in summary, globalization put in balance, is a welcomed development for
the contemporary world (a world which due to improved information and
communications technology facilities is often described as a planetary village), but a lot
still has to be done, especially in the sphere of the IMF and the World Bank’s lending
policies to help rather than hamper economic prosperity particularly to Third World
nations.
As Agus Durnomo will say, “Globalization… has widened the gap between the haves
and the haves not.” Let us work to reverse this message of Agus and make a difference!
I wish to commend the World Bank and other financial institutions, also the Paris club
for the relief they granted African countries and wished that they do more and work hard
to make this world a just one indeed.
What is the author’s message about globalization? What evidence does he provide for
his conclusions?
How can globalization be a tool for economic growth as well as exploitation? What
institutions, according to the author, hold the most ability to sway the impacts of
globalization?