38.6.5: Reactions against Globalization

Reactions to processes contributing to globalization have varied widely with a history as long as extraterritorial contact and trade. Proponents of economic growth, expansion, and development generally view globalizing processes as desirable or necessary to the well-being of human society. Not everybody affected by globalization believes there are benefits to its spread, however. Many individuals within the anti-globalization movement have witnessed unrest within their home communities and the world at large and questioned the basis for continuing the trend due to the sustainability of long-term and continuous economic expansion, the social structural inequality caused by these processes, and the colonial, imperialistic, or hegemonic ethnocentrism that underlie such processes. Critics argue that globalization requires nations to give up their political, economic, and cultural sovereignty and adapt to Western ways.

Xenophobia can and has manifested itself in many ways as a result of globalization, involving the relations and perceptions of an in-group towards an out-group, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of activities, aggression, and the desire to eliminate another group’s presence to secure a presumed purity. While globalization has eased the flow of international trade and contributed to greater efficiency within market economies, it has also been partially to blame for global economic crises. Additionally, globalization is not simply an economic project–it also heavily influences the world environmentally, politically, and socially. While the forces of globalization have led to the spread of Western-style democracy, this has been accompanied by an increase in inter-ethnic tension and violence as free market economic policies combine with democratic processes of universal suffrage as well as an escalation in militarization to impose democratic principles as a means to conflict resolution.

Monument to Multiculturalism. Monument to Multiculturalism by Francesco Perilli in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Four identical sculptures are located in Buffalo City, South Africa; Changchun, China; Sarajevo, Bosnia; and Sydney, Australia

Public Opinion

A 2005 study by Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch found a large increase in articles negative towards globalization in the years prior. In 1998, negative articles outpaced positive articles by two to one. In 2008, Greg Ip claimed this rise in opposition to globalization could be explained, at least in part, by economic self-interest. The number of newspaper articles showing negative framing rose from about 10% of the total in 1991 to 55% of the total in 1999. This increase occurred during a period when the total number of articles concerning globalization nearly doubled.

A number of international polls have shown that residents of Africa and Asia tend to view globalization more favorably than residents of Europe or North America. In Africa, a Gallup poll found that 70% of the population views globalization favorably. The BBC found that 50% of people believed that economic globalization was proceeding too rapidly, while 35% believed it was proceeding too slowly. In 2004, Philip Gordon stated that “a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative effects”. The main opposition within the EU consisted of socialists, environmental groups, and nationalists. Residents of the EU did not appear to feel threatened by globalization in 2004. The EU job market was more stable and workers were less likely to accept wage/benefit cuts. Social spending was much higher than in the U.S. In a 2007 Danish poll, 76% of respondents said that globalization was a good thing. Yet a 2016 referendum vote on whether to leave or stay within the UK saw a majority of British voters opting to withdraw from the EU.

Fiss and Hirsch also surveyed U.S. opinion in 1993 and found that more than 40% of respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of globalization. When the survey was repeated in 1998, 89% of the respondents had a polarized view of globalization as being either good or bad. Polarization increased dramatically after the establishment of the WTO in 1995; this event and subsequent protests led to a larger scale anti-globalization movement. Initially, college-educated workers were likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended to be opponents. The situation changed after the financial crisis of 2007. According to a 1997 poll, 58% of college graduates said globalization had been good for the U.S. By 2008 only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high school education also became more opposed.

Economics

The literature analyzing the economics of free trade is rich with information on its theoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society. However, some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as a promotion of corporate interests. Many claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policies of countries, crowding out the moral claims of poor and working classes as well as environmental concerns. For example, globalization allows corporations to outsource manufacturing and service jobs from high-cost locations, creating economic opportunities with the most competitive wages and worker benefits, which critics say disadvantages poorer countries.

While it is true that free trade encourages globalization among countries, some countries try to protect their domestic suppliers. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural productions. Larger countries often subsidize their farmers (e.g., the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy), which lowers the market price for foreign crops. Thus, globalization can be described as an uneven process due to the global integration of some groups alongside the marginalization or exclusion of others.

Additionally, the global economic crisis of 2007-2008, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, can be credited partially to neo-liberal globalization. Although globalization promised an improved standard of living, it has actually worsened the financial situation of many homes and has made the financial crisis global through the influences of international financial institutions such as the World Bank. Globalization limits development and civilization to a path that only leads to a Western and capitalistic system. Because of the political and structural differences in countries, the implementation of globalization has been detrimental for many countries.

Politics

Globalization has fueled the rise of transnational corporations, and their power has vaulted to the point where they can now rival many nation states. Of the world’s 100 largest economies, 42 of them are corporations. Many of these transnational corporations now hold sway over many nation states as their fates are intertwined with the nations where they are located. Transnational corporations could offer massive influence regarding the Third World and bring about more pressure to help increase worker salaries and working conditions in sweatshops. On account of doing business globally, transnational corporations have a huge influence in many nation states.

In the process of implementing globalization in developing countries, the creation of winners and losers is often predetermined. Multinational corporations typically benefit from globalization while poor, indigenous locals are negatively affected. Globalization can be seen as a new form of colonization, as economic inequality and the rise in unemployment have followed its implementation. Globalization has been criticized for benefiting those who are already large and in power at the risk and growing vulnerability of the countries’ indigenous population. Furthermore, globalization is non-democratic, as it is enforced through top-down methods.

Globalization requires a country to give up some sovereignty for the sake of executing Western ideals. As a result, sovereignty is safest with those whose views and ideals are being implemented. In the name of free markets and with the promise of an improved standard of living, countries give up their political and social powers to international organizations. Thus, globalization carries the potential to raise the power of international organizations at the expense of local state institutions, which must in turn diminish in influence.

Environmental Impacts

International trade in petroleum products has expanded significantly through globalization. There is also a corresponding increase in activities within the petroleum industry to meet the ever-increasing demand for petroleum products. As a result, it gives rise to further environmental pollution. Petroleum is toxic to almost all forms of life and its extraction fuels climate change, including air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, land degradation, and erosion. As international commerce develops new trade routes, markets, and products, the spread of invasive species is also facilitated. On account of the development of larger and faster forms of transport, commercial trade propels rising annual and cumulative rates of invasion.

Attributions

• Reactions against Globalization
  • “Xenophobia.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
  • “Globalization: Support and criticism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
  • “Criticisms of globalization.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_globalization. Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0.
  • “Reach_Toronto.jpg.” https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reach_Toronto.jpg. Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 2.0.