Globalization Perspectives.

We have two articles that seem to contradict each other, although one seems to be somewhat less biased, the main point that is shown when you combine the two is that there are strong advocates for globalization and those against.
As one encounters Martin Wolf's article, "Incensed about Inequality", one is exposed to a strong neo-liberal argument that comes off very strong and seems to have back up. This back up comes in the form of the World Bank's statistics that measure the levels of inequality, poverty, child labor, life expectancy, etc in the developing world. Through his article, Wolf takes these statistics to promote his central argument, which is that Globalization has not increased inequality but it has reduced it, just as it has reduced the incidence of poverty.
Wolf goes on in his article, rattling of statistics and acronyms like GDP, PPP, etc. and will sometimes have full paragraphs of comparing stats, although he does get his point across. Wolf believes that as the developing countries has reformed and integrated with the world market, faster they grow. He also discusses how the poverty levels drop along with infant mortality rates. There is also an increase in life expectancy and lower rates of child labor.
Wolf definitely shows you how globalization can be a good thing, but his article is soon questioned and rivaled by Robert Wade.
In Wade's article, "Is Globalization Reducing Poverty & Inequality?", He hits similar points as Wolf did, but with an anti-neoliberal spin. One can see how Wade is somewhat anti globalization and he presents his argument in the way of decimating Wolf's. Wade begins with the mentioning of how the neo-liberal argument relies on the use of the World Bank Statistics which have faults in their own. The margin of error present in the poverty stats from the World Bank begin with the fact that the poverty head count is very sensitive to international poverty lines, which means that a small percentage increase can skew the whole poverty line into a more impressive increase. The statistics are also relying on the reliability on household surveys. The stats also become impartial when you take China and India's PPP stats and try to compare them with GDP, in which there is an ad hoc price that seems to cause issues. Wade points out that the measurements have actually gone under new methodology but they are still compared to the stats with the old methodology making these stats at the least unreliable but in reality uncomparable.

Over all Wolf's argument seems fairly dismantled although Wade does state that it is "plausible and important that the proportion of the world's population in extreme poverty has probably fallen in the past two decades or so. Beyond this we cannot be confident." But Wade also states the whatever your views are on the spread of wealth and inequality, the "absolute income gaps are widening and will continue to do so."

-Aaron Price

Development and Environment

This article is presented through a report brought forth by the World Commission in order to discuss the contemporary issues that affect us all. Since we have seen the Earth from space, we have seen that the emphasis is not on humans. From space, one cannot see the man or woman but can see the clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils. The relevance of this is seen in the report itself, Focusing on the human impact on the environment.
What is the Commission?
The commission is an independent body, linked to but outside the control of governments and the UN system. Their objectives are: to re-examine the critical environment and development issues and to formulate realistic proposals for dealing with them; to propose new forms of international co-operation on these issues that will influence policies and events in the direction of needed changes; and to raise the levels of understanding and commitment to action of individuals, voluntary organizations, businesses, institutes, and governments.
The commission believes that people can build a better future that is prosperous and differs from the pace that we are going now. A new era of economic growth, one that must be based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base. This growth is believed to be essential to relieve the great poverty expanding in the world.
The report focuses on the fact that most of the pros of development have terrible cons. These are referred to as failures of "development". Examples of these failures may be the six million hectares of productive dryland that turns into worthless desert each year, or the 11 million hectares of forests that are destroyed yearly. The realization is coming about that it is impossible to separate economic development issues from environmental issues. The idea is that whatever you try and do developmentally, you have analyze such environmentally and vice versa.
The world is growing very rapidly and the UN projects the population could get between 8-14 billion people in this century. The rapid accumulation of people only serves to deepen the impact of poverty and other issues. These poverty stricken/underdeveloped nations who could soon be suffering from overpopulation have to repay debts to other nations. In order to do this, such countries have to exploit their resources, sometimes to the point of overexploitation. These developing countries are faced with trying to bridge the ever-widening gap between them and the industrialized. But the gap stays too large because the industrial world dominates the rule making. The inequality present, is the planet's main "environmental" problem and it is also the main "developmental" problem.Debts that cannot be payed force nations to overuse fragile soils, changing useful land into desert.This will eventually leave these nations with nothing if they every climb out of debt.
The worry leaks into the idea of security also. The environmental issues brings political unrest and tension to well armed, ill-disposed neighbors.
To fix such a problem, the commission believes, there needs to be not only a new era of economic growth for nations in which the majority are poor, but an assurance that those poor get their fair share of the resources required to sustain growth. The idea of the sustainable development on a global scale requires that people adopt lifestyles that fit the planet's ecological means. Not exploitation. Population and growth have to be in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.
The commission ends its report on the premise that sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but a process of change in which the use of resources, direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with the future as well as present needs. But like the developmental ideas going hand in hand with the environmental, sustainable development must rest on political will.

-Aaron Price

The Global Information Web As A Threat to State Authority

Monroe E. Price begins the excerpt by the bold statement that, "Every new medium, every new technology for transmitting information, causes responses by those who feel threatened." This statement is reiterated throughout Price's excerpt and remains his main opinion on the state's attempts to keep up with the global exchange of information. Price first shows this trend in the world by the example of the radio. After its introduction, the radio was soon seen to be a threat to national sovereignty so in the 1920s and 1930s measures were made to try and maintain a control over the flow of information through boundaries. Internet now serves as the present day nuisance to the state and Price dares to question how one could control it.
These technologies such as the radio or internet are put forth as "technologies of freedom" in the sense that they have the capacity to overwhelm boundaries and as a result they become key to the spread of democracy. The idea that in these technologies not only information is being exhibited is a problem for those states who wish to be separate in the case of natural sovereignty. If democracy is being shown by the mere use of the technology then the nation wanting to avoid democracy must try to avoid the use of said technology. How becomes the new question.
There are many good things that come as a result of the transmission of information through new technologies such as the enlargement of the marketplace of ideas which helps reduce the intense separatist identities that could lead to war and genocide. But along with the pros of using such a medium of transnational transmission comes the contrast through the interest of a state. States concern themselves with the sustenance of their language, enrichment of their history, and strengthening of their internal political and creative processes. Theses interests along with the ideas of national security limit a states want for involvement in such technologies. So what you end up getting from the state is the function of law making in order to limit use of the transmission technologies.
Price describes the attempt of law-making in the field of media regulation, is like building castles in the sand where complex structures will be forcefully erased by an overwhelming cascade of waves. Still there is a need and desire for moral controls, regulation for indecency, and a restoration of a sense of order and security. This paradox describes many of the states reactions to the situation at hand.
Price then tackles the idea of legislation put forth to limit the technologies justified by a means of preserving national identity, when really national identity can be reframed as the set of political views and cultural attitudes that help maintain the existing power structure. He also mentions that the main incentive to change media law or reregulate occurs, within a state, when the cartel of political allegiances can no longer maintain its position of civil dominance. Price is focusing on the fact that deep down the need for legislation from the states remains in their attempt to re-grasp power over the ever-changing technology.
Price gives an example of a state trying to resist such "technologies of freedom" by India's monopoly on terrestrial broadcasting, justified by the satellite tv channel programs' "adverse impact... on Indian values and culture." In presenting more bans and regulations on the "freedom technologies" India is said to be trying to promote the values of national integration, religious harmony, scientific temper and Indian culture", but ultimately the question is whether the technologies of freedom can be stopped. A question that Price compares to the situation of trying to stop the sun from shining by holding an umbrella. The more you try, the more you encourage people to watch.

The Hollowness of State Authority

Susan Strange writes her article mainly focused on her opinion on the current Global World Market and how it is diminishing the power of the state. Strange begins her argument by showing the disillusionment in the current world when she says that the people no longer believe in the politicians who believe they have the answers to the economic and social problems. Strange even gives examples of states that have been brought down by the citizens becoming unsatisfied with leaders as what happened in the Soviet Union and some central European States. Strange shows the possibility of collapse to exhibit her severity in her argument.
Strange's possibilities of how even the state should be run is fueled by her faith in the common man. "Perceptions of ordinary citizens are more to be trusted than the pretensions of national leader and bureaucracies that serve them." She even states that the commonsense of the common people are a better guide than the theories taught in unversities. This bold statement is Strange's somewhat rebellion against the globalized market that looks over the commoner and focuses on the corporation.
Strange argues that the world markets are now more powerful than the states to whom the political authority over society and economy is supposed to belong. Even that the markets are now masters of the government states and not the other way around.

Strange goes on about her three paradoxes that exist in this economy. The first being that the state intervenes with the everyday life of people in different ways, whether it be laws for health, transport systems, etc. But the state's power is still diminishing. Fundamental reason for the state is the need for political authority of some kind. Something the market cannot give but apparently the state can't either.
Paradox number two involves the governments of the developed states suffering due to the loss of real authority while at the same time there is an increase in the minority societies to become their own nation. The idea of autonomy for such ethnic or cultural societies is not possible in the world market so the best given to them, if it is given, is statehood.
The third and final paradox is the idea that this issue of diminishing authority is only a western phenomenon. The examples are given from the Asian states who are not facing the same issues, whether that is because of historical occurrences, market freedom, etc., but soon will pressured more. The need to open their economy to competition, even foreign, is rising to benefit their consumers and producers. These authoritarian states will be susceptible to the market and lose their power just like other nations have.

Strange's point of view on the constant change of technology is that it illuminates changes in the power of states and the power of markets. And the increasing change, then increases the market which in turn gives the market more power. The inevitable part is also that there is no reason to believe the advancement of technology will ever stop.

My point of view of Susan Strange's argument is one of not complete compliance. I agree with much of what she argued but where can we go from here? The fact that the 100 wealthiest nations includes 49 corporations is very close to home especially in the current issues facing the United States economy. But the hope is that someone can change that, that someone could hold us above sea level before we drown.
I really agree with the severity that Strange brought to her argument, and that we can't just take all of this lightly, but the reader is left with no solution. I fear that the only way to be once again prominent is to start over but to be able to do so would mean that something would have to fall. And falling may be easier done then we, as happy citizens, are willing to admit. Just like the Soviet Union fell, the disbelief in our politicians is already a strong characteristic in our economy and that loss of hegemony could mean the replacement with something else. Commonly when there is a lack of hegemony, there comes a rise in force. Would America rise and change the situation by force before the all is lost or will we still pray to our hegemonic society that the elites somehow can pull us onward to a better World?

-Aaron Price

"The Modern World-System as A Capitalist Economy"

I believe Immanuel Wallerstein’s main objective in writing “The Modern World-System as A Capitalist World-Economy” was to inform readers of the economy being implemented around them. This article does not show enough bias to be considered opinion in my eyes but more to let the reader decide for or against such an economy.

Wallerstein starts his outline of the Capitalistic Economy by stating that the Capitalist model cannot work without a world economy. Capitalism, having the objective of gaining as much capital as possible, needs the widest scale in order to benefit from the capital collected. Wallerstein is also sure to point out that the market is considered the essential feature in the capitalistic economy and without it the system cannot perform. Wallerstein also provides his definition of the market in which that “a market is both a concrete local structure in which individuals or firms sell and buy goods, and a virtual institution across space where the same kind of exchange occurs.”

Wallerstein shows the reader what work in a capitalistic economy and what regulates it by saying that there is a need not for a literally free market but a virtually free one. The idea of a totally free market is just that, an idea, a myth. If the market were to be totally free then profit from the economy would be miniscule which is considered uninteresting to producers which is then considered removing basic social underpinnings of such a system. What the sellers prefer over an actually free market is a monopoly because you are free to create a relatively wide margin between the costs of production and the sales price, thus making higher profits.

To best use the monopoly part of the capitalist economy, producers set up quasi monopolies that are somewhat easy to create due to many things: Patents, protectionist measures, state subsidies, tax benefits, etc. Also the strong states can set up such monopolies by suppressing the weaker states’ counter-protectionist measures and then states acting as large scale buyers willing to pay excessive prices. Without these interferences the capitalist system could not thrive and therefore could not survive.

Other main factors of this economy mentioned by Wallerstein were the fact that there are two in built anti-monopolistic features in the capitalist world economy. In this way the quasi monopolies are self liquidating, but lasting long enough (30 yrs) to ensure considerable accumulation of capital. Once one monopoly ends, the producers then move on to the next leading product.

Firms also play a large role in Capitalism because of their fierce competitiveness. Firms’ cycle of bankruptcy makes bankruptcy the daily bread of a capitalistic economy.

The ideas displayed by Wallerstein are very true and he presents it in a way that bias isn’t present, but allow me to infer my own opinion. Wallerstein has neglected to comment on the hypocrisy that takes place in such an economy. Producers supposedly wanting free markets but really do not. Producers best option are monopolies but their exists regulations to liquidate them, which then in turn benefits them. There is a giant cycle of fad chasing which may accumulate the wanted capital but also deteriorate a set up economy. The overuse and abuse of such an economy has got to be taking a toll on the big picture of what value is itself. Wallerstein also neglects to show the reader the side effects of the measures at which producers go to to gain capital. The use of subsidies ends up inflicting upon other small economies, like the NAFTA trade agreement among North America. America can very freely use their machinery and farm techniques to overproduce crops like corn and then sell them to Mexico for less than it takes to produce them. Mexican farmers living off of their vending of corn crops find their once lived economy in utter depression giving them no other option but to find other work. Other work may mean moving legally or illegally into another country. All this is a result of the need for more capital put in place by this tyrannical economic system.