Economic Globalization vs. Political Globalization

Economic Globalization vs. Political Globalization

Political globalization is distinct from economic globalization

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 6, 2014, Feminist Perspectives on Globalization, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-globalization/ DOA: 1-1-2015

Although political and economic globalization are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, they differ in significant ways. Political globalization refers to changes in the exercise of political power that have resulted from increased transnational engagement. Prior to World War II, the international political system was understood in terms of the so-called Westphalian model. According to this model, political power is exercised primarily through governance at the level of the territorial state. The international political system is comprised of sovereign states, which enjoy a monopoly on political power within their own territories. International treaties govern relations among states; however, states generally cannot legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations. Thus, when problems, such as famines, genocides, and civil wars arise, they are seen primarily as security issues for individual states, not matters of justice affecting the global community (Fraser 2013).

In contrast to this state-centric model, political globalization must be understood as polycentric, that is, as involving non-state institutions that exercise political power from both “above” and “below” the state (So 2010). The development of supra-national institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the European Union, NATO, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and others, can be understood as political “globalization from above.” These institutions create international rules that constrain the sovereignty of states, in some cases, through enforcement mechanisms that penalize for noncompliance. In addition to holding states accountable for adhering to mutually agreed upon norms and standards, global institutions often set the agendas that determine which issues receive international attention. Institutions such at the UN and EU have sought to draw attention to some of the injustices experienced by women around the world, such as sexual violence, lack of educational access, and other women's human rights violations, and to develop global frameworks for addressing them. However, many feminist philosophers argue that supra-national institutions have had limited success in protecting the world's most vulnerable people. Most global institutions privilege Western and corporate interests over those of vulnerable and marginalized people, and few have been successful in challenging the structural inequalities that give rise to gendered harms, such as deprivation, discrimination, and violence.

For many feminists, the transnational political movements that have emerged “from below” the state offer a more promising dimension of political globalization. The expansion of global communications has led to the development of new transnational political networks, comprised of individuals, non-governmental organizations, and social movements. These transnational networks, sometimes referred to as “global civil society,” connect millions of people around the world based on shared political commitments. Consequently, some feminist philosophers believe that political “globalization from below” provides women and other vulnerable people with an effective means for resisting the inequalities created by economic globalization. For instance, some feminists argue that globalization has created new transnational public spheres in which political opinion can be marshaled to hold leaders democratically accountable (Fraser 2009, Gould 2009). Others see the promise of political globalization in transnational feminist solidarity movements, such as the women's rights are human rights campaign and groups combating sex trafficking and global care chains, that enable feminist resistance to dominant political and economic forces (Copelon 2003, Hochschild 2000, 2002, Kittay, 2008, 2009, Parekh 2009, Robinson 2003, Stamatopoulou 1995, Walby 2002, Weir 2005).

Given the complexity of globalization, how have feminist political philosophers addressed the social, political, and economic challenges posed by it? Below, we provide an overview of several feminist theoretical approaches to this task.

Social Globalization

Information flows and personal contacts are social globalization

The KOF Index divides social globalization into information flows, personal contacts, and cultural proximity, which are all likely to affect the functioning of markets, as well as the behavior of buyers and sellers on the market. In general, the functioning of markets is critically dependent on information flows. In less developed countries with high transaction costs and potentially large information asymmetries, there is a large potential gain in market efficiency from increased use of information and communication technologies (ICT). Both telecommunications and the Internet are powerful tools for information transfer and improve the functioning of markets in general. A classic example of the benefits of telecommunications is Hirschman (1967), showing that long-distance telephone networks led to a credit market for coffee trade in Ethiopia. ⁷ As noted by Aker and Mbiti (2010), the distribution of these efficiency gains among consumers, producers, and firms is theoretically ambiguous. Lower search costs could benefit sellers in the short term if they make better use of spatial arbitrage opportunities, but as markets become more competitive, benefits will shift toward consumers as markets approach the law of one price ( Aker & Mbiti, 2010, p. 216). There are also studies showing that rural telephony increases the prices farmers receive for their crops and the earnings from off-farm activities (e.g., Duncombe and Heeks, 1999 and Elbers and Lanjouw, 2001). Empirical evidence also suggests that telephone services can improve government services such as health care ( ITU, 1998). Forestier, Grace, and Kenny (2002) summarize a wide array of research on the effects of information and communication technology (ICT) and show that ICT in general is positively related to growth, but the effect on inequality is less clear.

In general, information decreases transaction costs and brings markets closer to the competitive equilibrium. Because transaction costs essentially work as a tax wedge, the effect of lowering such costs benefits both producers and consumers and increases output.

In addition to information flows, social globalization comprises cross-border personal contacts. Outgoing telephone traffic likely contributes to the transmission of information and knowledge, similar to many indicators of information flows. Tourism is, however, a type of personal contact with less obvious consequences for poverty. Chao, Hazari, and Sgro (2004) note that tourism is good for development through terms of trade effect and resource flows, but also that negative externalities of mass tourism might offset these effects.⁸