COPING WITH GLOBALISATION AND MARKET FORCES

Sydney University, 5 April 2001
Present: Frank, Ryan, Georgina, Nick, Mary, Dave, Michelle, Mark, Jo, Lorien.
Facilitator: Dave.
Notes: Lorien.

GLOBALISATION

(i) Frank Stilwell made the following points by way of background:

  • Globalisation enables more interaction between cultures, and therefore greater mutual understanding. It can bring people closer. It also holds the possibility of homogenisation. ·
  • There is nothing wrong with globalisation per se`. It's the economic drivers behind it which matter. These involve a concentration of global economic power in the hands of unaccountable corporations, which undermines democracy and places profits above people.
  • There is simultaneously a globalised activist movement which is growing to resist these developments. They focus on revealing and exploiting the contradictions in the globalisation of capital, for example the impending global recession.
  • Is globalisation inexorable? Note that what drives it, even more than technological change, are the economic rationalist policies implemented by national governments. Tariffs and other controls on capital are removed to create a "level playing field" for capitalist activities to occur globally. In Australia, Keating had a personal role in promoting globalisation. The argument goes that countries must expose themselves to the international marketplace, and this will improve efficiency, benefit consumers, lead to better industries, and thus more economic growth. It is presented as the only viable alternative - we must compete, and do it well.
  • Can any one country stand against it? Is Australia dependent on globalisation? Several countries have become isolationist "basket cases" - like Burma, the former Albania, North Korea. On the other hand, Japan very much protects its own industries from external competition, and has policies to nurture and develop industries in a planned way. Sweden also maintains a high standard of living by regulating economic and social life. Australia happens to be in a particularly strong position to chart an independent economic policy. We can grow anything and make anything, albeit not as cheaply as the imported version. We could become relatively independent.
  • It is important to focus on real productive activity as a measure of economic health, more than financial market indicators. The challenge is to ensure the latter doesn't hinder the former. If many people believe financial market indicators are critical, then they will make decisions which reflect this, and a "self-fulfilling prophecy" is generated. The Government needs to insulate the real economy from these damaging financial games.

    (ii) The group responded with the following points:

  • The notion that globalisation is inexorable, is too limited on its own. Even if we can't go backwards, there are many options for going forwards. That is, there are many different options in the kinds of globalisation that can unfold. Consequently there is capacity for input and influence into this evolution. While some forces have their own momentum (eg. technology, transport), there are also countless policy choices which are made by governments, with distinct effects. In addition, group behaviours on a large scale have substantial consequences, eg. consumerist culture is a central driver of economic globalisation.
  • Given that there could be much better versions of globalisation, we need to structure economies and cultures to take account of existing forces and momentums, thereby avoiding or dampening the worst damages.
  • There is also a need to identify more clearly what globablisation means to different people. It is a buzz word which emerged around the same time as the fall of communism, and became an umbrella which people use as a generalised causal explanation for changes around them. There is a tendency for people to see changes in their own lives as irrevocably caused by changes occuring elsewhere. But used in this way as a general explanatory term for almost anything, 'globalisation' can become meaningless or contradictory.
  • 'Corporate globalisation' was identified as a term which describes the concentration of economic (and consequently, political and cultural) power in the hands of multinational corporations.
  • (iii) Each participant put forward a major 'pro' and 'con' of 'globalisation' (defined variously):
    PROs
    CONs
    Efficient utilisation of resources. Inequality in the distribution of resources and economic power.
    Multiculturalism and exchange of cultures. Americanisation.
    Breaking down barriers to the free flow of ideas, eg. internet. There are always winners and losers, and we need to identify them
    Utopia of specialisation, in which each country does what its best at. The Third World can't compete on the "level playing field" and will be permanently subordinated.
    The unification of activists in the fight against globalisation, eg. S11, united against the clear culprits - corporations. The power of corporations to loot and pillage across national borders, aprofiting a small global elite.
    Corporations offer an interesting productive model under a 'systems and processes' view. Corporations exist outside of democratic accountability and responsibility, or any cultural ideals.
    The potential for global democracy - more powerful international bodies, reformed to make them more democratic (eg.UN currently has votes per dollars system). Imposition of a set of ideals or other constrainst on people, eg. forcing countries to deregulate in order to obtain development aid.
    .The potential for grassroots and community organisations becoming united globally. Difficult to enforce regulations and sanctions against corporations on a global scale.
    Greater freedom of choice in our lifestyles. Freedom of choice for whom?
    Flow of information makes it hard to ignore the poorest. Failure of individuals to see or care about the global repercussions of their actions.

    (iv) Further discussion:

  • We need to embrace the tools of change. Not to accept them uncritically, but reword them, reform them to our own ends by recognising the influences which have shaped them hitherto.
  • We have the power to disseminate ideas. There is a huge information inequality, which corresponds to a power inequality. Provide equal access to information.
  • We need clearer a clearer definition of 'globalisation'.
  • Break down traditional dichotomies. It is possible to profit and nurture. It is possible to use Third World countries as a resource in a fair and reciprocal way. It is possible to regulate the power of corporations.
  • Focus on basic needs first, alongside less consumerism in wealthy countries. Promote real development for poor countries, not just economic development.
  • Transfer resources from wealthy to poor countries.