Resolved: On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction 3
Download 1.02 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A2: Global Trade Not Sustainable
Democratic Globalization GoodDemocratic globalization is key to check warfare, poverty, and environmental destructionSerrano, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, 1994 [Isagani R., “Humanity in Trouble but Hopeful,” Citizens: Strengthening Global Civil Society, eds. Oliveira & Tandon, p. 363-365]Citizen Participation In light of the failure of both the state and the market, citizens-as individuals and, even better, organized-exerting efforts to democratize both state and market and doing things by themselves must occupy an ever expanding public space to influence the processes and outcomes of development at all levels. As the Human Development Report 1993 puts it, people's participation is becoming the central issue of our time. Ironically, it was also the rallying theme of social movements in the 1960s. Many things have happened since then. During the past three decades, authoritarian regimes have fallen one after the other. In all these regime changes and democratic transitions, movements of citizens cutting across social classes have played a major part. Indeed, we now see the worldwide emergence of people's organizations demanding on behalf of every citizen more and more say in shaping our own lives.
When the Human Development Report 1993 was released, UNDP noted in its press advisory that "90 percent of the world's people lack control over their own lives in spite of recent changes around the world favoring market economies, multiparty democracies and grassroots activites." This may sound exaggerated, but close examination of the nature of control that people have over their lives, using the essential meaning of participation, will probably bear UNDP's estimate out. In today's world of 5.7 billion inhabitants, there are 157 billionaires, some 2 million millionaires, and more than 1.1 billion people with an income of less than $1 a day. The richest 20 percent corners 82.7 percent of the world's income; the second, 11.7 percent; the third, 2.3 percent; the fourth, 1.9 percent; and the poorest fifth, 1.4 percent. Let us for the moment discard the absurd Humanity in Trouble But Hopeful Assumption that the millions or billions of excluded are living their own lives anyway and that an individual can be controlled only to the extent that he or she allows it. And let us assume that all the world's people are bound by a common set of processes with costs and benefits, from plain existence to enjoying nearly boundless freedom of movement. Then we can safely say that very few indeed are in full control over resources, means, and decisions that drive their lives. And this lack of control is expressed in various other forms. In a sense, no one-not even the richest and most powerful-may be in complete control at all. The Cold War brought with it weapons of mass destruction whose annihilation potential or means of disposal is beyond the capacity of anyone to handle. The more than 100 wars during the past four decades, which took about 20 million lives, and before them the "hot" wars the two world wars during which even more lives and properties were lost also attest to how far events could be controlled by the players who waged them or the ordinary mortals who were affected by them. Global poverty, the real major threat in the coming decades now that the Cold War is no more, is well on its worldwide tour, without passport as it were, and in ways that disturb the peace and quiet of the rich and powerful if not the whole of humanity. A threat to stability everywhere, poverty gives rise to various disturbing manifestations that strike deep into the moral fiber of humankind: massive involuntary migration, diseases, drugs, terrorism, wars, civil conflicts, revolution. Additionally, environmental disasters of transboundary and global proportion have caught up on even those who have the means and resources to move to safer places. Hardly anyone may be spared from the "hot emergencies" of global warming and ozone depletion. Even those who are in the best position to fend off the all-inclusive effects of such disasters are merely buying time. A2: Global Trade Not SustainableGlobal trading system sustainable – only POLICY can derail itIrwin 10/16/13 http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/1026/print/all Professor of economics, Dartmouth College DOA: 1-5-14 Globalisation is alive and doing reasonably well. Despite bumps and blips in the world economy, the march of increased integration of markets around the world continues. While the pace of that integration may have slowed, the degree of integration is unlikely to reverse. As a check on where globalisation has been and where it might be going, look at the figure here from World Trade Organisation’s newly issued "World Trade Report 2013". In the 1990s and early 2000s there was an explosion in world trade. An increase in openness to trade in new emerging markets, led especially by trade reforms in India and China, helped push the ratio of world trade in goods and services to world GDP from about 20% to about 30%. Let us not forget that during this period there was a massive reduction in world poverty. Hundreds of millions of people in China and India could finally escape from a life of impoverishment and move into the ranks of the lower middle class. The world economy was then struck by the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. World trade contracted sharply in 2009, plunging 9% in a single year. Capital flows were also massively disrupted. We are still dealing with the awful consequences of this huge crisis. Yet fortunately, unlike in the 1930s, the world did not turn in a sharply protectionist direction. While Global Trade Alert has reminded us that the crisis saw the introduction of some protectionist measures, such as anti-dumping duties, producer subsidies and buy-local provisions, these policies have been largely piecemeal and ad hoc. They have not resulted in a significant closing of markets. Consequently, world trade quickly rebounded in 2010 and has been growing steadily ever since. In what sense could this globalisation be "in trouble"? Only if there was a serious prospect that this integration of markets could unravel and reverse itself. In contemplating this prospect, we should distinguish between globalisation driven by markets and globalisation driven by policy. The globalisation driven by market forces may be subsiding. It could be that the easy, initial gains from market opening in China, India and elsewhere have been exhausted. Outsourcing and offshoring are no longer in vogue, as they were a decade ago (to the fear of many), because costs have risen in the developing world. Instead, one hears about the return of manufacturing to America because of higher costs abroad and America’s low energy costs. But the rebalancing of economic activity around the world does not mean that globalisation is in trouble. There is no problem with the world trade to GDP ratio remaining stuck at 30% for the foreseeable future, or even declining if driven by market forces. A reversal of globalisation by government policies turning inward would be a different story. Yet we did not see this during the crisis; the backsliding was relatively modest. Public opinion did not demand protectionist policies. No one is protesting against the World Trade Organisation (remember the Battle of Seattle in 1999?) and the anti-globalisation crowd has moved on. The opening up of China, India and other developing countries is largely irreversible: the people of these countries have seen how trade has utterly transformed their economies for the better and they do not wish to see these gains reversed. Of course, the world is not moving in the direction of greater liberalisation. Policy is at a standstill. No one is protesting against the WTO because the WTO isn’t doing anything. The Doha Round is effectively dead. Regional trade negotiations are doing not much better. The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations face many hurdles and could stretch out for many years to come. The era of "hyper-globalisation", the rapid integration of the world’s economies in the 1990s and early 2000s driven by both markets and policy, may have hit diminishing returns. The globalisation process may take a breather. But does this mean that globalisation is in trouble? Hardly. As long as governments do not attempt to reduce the existing level of integration or interfere with existing trade flows, a high level of globalisation is here to stay. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 1.02 Mb. Share with your friends:
|