Das: Globalization and the Anti-Globalization Lobby

DK Das, “Globalization and the Anti-Globalization Lobby.” 2005.

This paper begins by denouncing the rabid anti-globalization protests, specifically in their iteration in Santiago, Chile in 2004. It is clear the author's distaste for these protesters' positions and methods. The author is keen to admit that globalization has winners and losers, but concludes that an objective account of the phenomena will show that the overall results of globalization are positive for the world's poor.

"This paper provides a dispassionate and objective analysis of favorable and unfavorable impact of globalization over global poverty and concludes that, all things considered, globalization has not hurt the poor segments of populations. On an average the incidence of poverty in the world has declined. Furthermore, expanding globalization is more likely to assist in achieving the first MDG than not and the large anti-globalization lobby needs to thoughtfully restrain itself" (4).

What is globalization? It has taken on a multi-disciplinary form that is necessarily hard to pin down. "From an economic point of view, globalization represents a process of increasing international division of labor and growing integration of national economies through trade in goods and services, cross-border corporate investment, capital flows and migration of human resources. Like economic growth, it is a complex meta-process" (4).

Globalization, in the view of the author, is responsible for the alleviation of large swaths of poverty in India and China. Sub-Saharan Africa can be seen as an example of a region that did not buy into the logic of globalization and therefore suffers from economic stagnation and no investment.

Das argues against the homogenizing effects of globalization on culture. Consumption does not reflect deep culture, but rather superficial culture. The effects are exceedingly week.

The author also claims that many anti-globalism arguments are empirically wrong or exceedingly weak and that, "The [arguments] that are valid, can easily be rectified" (8).

"Economists believe that at an aggregate level globalization is a substantial boon. If one sheds polemics and looks at globaliztiaon in a pragmatic manner, one finds that it is essentially a benevolent force that creates opportunities for rapid growth and faster poverty alleviation in the economies that are ready for it" (8).

The author admits that globalization can hurt the poor in the short run; a country must have established adequate legal and governance to deal with the effects of increased international competition.

What about globalization's affect on poverty? Overall, poverty has declined, though not universally.

Is GDP a good measure of well being? It's not perfect, but a pretty good proxy.

In the end, anti-globalists should find a better thing to be so worked up about. According to the author, globalization has done tremendous good.