Frontiers of Growth
Taking Back Globalization
Olivier De Schutter
|
|
|
|
DAVOS – The World Economic Forum’s annual gathering is normally little more than a toast to the benefits of increasing global GDP, trade, and investment. But this year’s meeting comes at a time when economic expansion can no longer be taken for granted, and when the uneven benefits of past growth are sparking mass social unrest.
So it is little wonder that doomsday scenarios about the “seeds of dystopia” and the risks of “rolling back the globalization process” are being dangled in Davos. The world’s economic and political leaders stand warned: do globalization better, or it will be derailed by the growing legions of the discontented.
Leaders would be unwise to ignore this warning. Discussions in Davos must go beyond how to rectify the imbalances in developed countries’ debt-to-GDP ratios. They must finally pay attention to the wider imbalances generated by unfettered globalization.
Popular anger is directed not only at the bank bailouts, soaring public debt, and bleak employment prospects of recent years. All around the world, people have fallen afoul of a two-track economic process whereby whole industries have been sacrificed to cheaper imports, whole regions have been consigned to abandonment or degradation, and whole populations have been frozen out of economic progress.
Nowhere are these imbalances more evident than in the global food system. Globalization has been wholeheartedly embraced in the service of feeding the world: bilateral and multilateral trade agreements have been put in place to allow food to flow from food-surplus to food-deficit regions.
Yet this model has failed spectacularly. The food bills of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) increased five- or six-fold between 1992 and 2008. Imports now account for around 25% of their current food consumption. The more they are told to rely on trade, the less they invest in domestic agriculture. And the less they support their own farmers, the more they have to rely on trade. Countries that fall into this vicious cycle leave their citizens vulnerable to historically volatile prices on international markets, which means increased hunger and insecurity.
Despite the persistent challenges of hunger and food inequality, people are told to embrace more open markets, more trade, and more globalized economic processes. Yet open markets do not function as perfectly as many at Davos would like to think. Food moves where purchasing power is highest, not where the need for it is most urgent.
This blind embrace of globalization from above means missing out on key opportunities that do not fit the dogma. If we were to support developing-world small landholders, who are often the poorest groups, we could enable them to move out of poverty and enable local food production to meet local needs. Trade would complement local production, rather than justifying its abandonment.
Trade and investment agreements are the gateways through which globalization passes on its way to redefining a country’s economic landscape, and they are increasing at an impressive pace. There are 6,092 bilateral investment agreements currently in force, with 56 concluded in 2010 alone.
That growth reflects the flawed economic model of the pre-crisis years, which relied on indifference to where growth came from, how sustainable it was, and who was benefiting from it. If we are to learn anything from the ongoing crisis, it must be to start asking the right questions.
Every new bilateral agreement, every chapter of globalization, should be measured against new criteria. How sustainable and how evenly spread will the macroeconomic benefits be? Will they facilitate genuine development and provide dignified opportunities to those who become economically displaced?
An EU-India free-trade agreement is now imminent – and could be the litmus test for how we reengage with globalization in the wake of the crisis. Some estimates suggest that the proposed tariff liberalization in the dairy and poultry sectors could threaten the livelihoods of 14 million very poor households in India, half of them landless.
Globalization involves winners and losers – that has been established. But losing out, for a subsistence farmer, means sinking into dire poverty and hunger. Is the denial of a vulnerable population’s right to food an acceptable byproduct of a trade deal? Should the primary goal be to multiply the interests of powerful multinationals? Are these the economic processes that we want, or need?
These are the questions that leaders must ask at Davos. Globalization can survive the crisis. But not as we know it. Globalization must be taken back for the interests of the many.
Olivier De Schutter is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food. On March 6, he will present to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva a set of guiding principles for assessments of trade and investment agreements’ impact on human rights.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.
www.project-syndicate.org
You might also like to read more from Olivier De Schutter or return to our home page.
|
|
Zsolt 10:53 25 Jan 12
I think there are some points we need to explore deeper.
1. Globalization is a not a process that is in our hands and we could switch it on and off as we like. Globalization is an evolutionary process, where through multuiple factors mainly driven by inherent, expansive and pleasure oriented, basic human nature and population growth we have evolved into a totally interconnected and interdependent global network. The presence of this closed network is a well establisehd fact, we have the connections in between us, the only question is how we use them.
2. Our inherent nature is subjective, we always make self calculations and in every situation within any condition we are looking for more profits, rewards for ourselves even if we have to exploit others or our environment in the process.
This selfish and greedy human nature in a closed, interdependent system, with limited natural resources has become harmful to the point of destructive. Again it is objectively established, and the deepening crisis is providing evidence with every passing day.
The problem is how to convince ourselves, especially those who make decisions about this situation, and initiate wholesome changes.
Even if we start to understand how harmful our present attitude and lifestyle is in theory we still behave like the alcoholic who was told to stop drinking based on minimal symptoms and some blood results, but still thinks that 1-2 more glasses, or maybe another week of heavy drinking should not be a problem. He sort of understands in his mind the problem and the recommended solution, but his discomfort, pain is not strong enough to turn him off drinking.
This is the question today: are we wise enought to start changing and start planning, living and acting mutually and equally, taking the well being of the whole global system as our priority ahead of our self interest based on the clear information around us, or we wait until things turn really bad, with complete economical collapse, violent riots even wars to convince us we "need to stop drinking"?
Archie_ 11:36 25 Jan 12
Globalisation favours lowest cost producer and also most efficient producer. Policy makers may not yet fully grasp the second bit of that. This seems to be the case in advanced countries where high automation manufacturing is still loosing business to the developing world.
MarkPitts 12:40 26 Jan 12
The author parrots the latest fad - the problems of inequality. In fact, there has been no "mass social unrest" against unequal economic growth. Many protests, yes, but mostly against engrained political elites. And as for the losers from globalization, let's not forget that thanks to globalization, in the last 30 years almost a billion people in the third world have escaped poverty and entered the middle class.
gamesmith94134 08:19 25 Jan 12
Gamesmith94134: global finance’s Supply-chain Revolution
“Open feedback mechanisms ensure a supply chain’s ability to respond to a changing environment, but, in the case of financial supply chains, feedback mechanisms can amplify shocks until the whole system blows up.” It was because there is no firewall available during the crisis, and the pipeline was open with few operators in the financial control like Mr. Sheng said, also, there is even fewer currencies like Euro-dollar only was available in most transactions, even though the public funds like sovereignty debts were being privatized in the open trade, and it create the explosion by volume in sum of money was credited. Firewalls I took off the technical terminology means there is no safety transitory zone established physically, that our financial system allowed the flow in the supply chain freely as the computerized transaction allowed, and there is less time available for reexamination on lack of control, source of origin, birth of credits.
Especially, when the parties took the international reserves for granted that Fed and ECB cut it interest rates to its minimal for the non-inflationary measure that many would consider money are free if they can beat the time. Generally, the 22 players turned the international financial market into their casino. When their governments were the ones who called to upbeat its economies from the recession after the expansion of the debts hitting it fiscal ceiling, and the slow down cut their productivity in near recession. At the same time, the rigid exchange rate went lopsided that created the tension between the debtor and creditor. It exploded.
At present, the financial system must evolve itself with firewalls that stop contagion of the collateral damage over the money with no backing, and shrink the pool of cash for credit lending. Some might call it deleverage of the past 20 years mishaps, or change of climate in our global financial that the supply-chain must stop and check itself; besides, most of us would know by now that money supply and productivity are not on the same parallel at certain point under the influence of inflation an deflation. Without the assurance of the balance payment or imbalance of its exchange rates, the supply-chain will reverse itself.
Perhaps, I like it better if the sovereignty debt and private investment should not be classified as same in enjoying the low interest rate, that sovereignty debt should be handled separately by the Central Banks and World Bank if it does affect the exchange rate when evaluated by IMF for it answer to lack of control.
Transfer Unions must be established to void unsafe transaction and the Trans-continental Zoning to confirm the source of the origin on all transactions when the transaction is registered to enter its zones, or cut hot cashes that undervaluing ones currency from another that influences the international currency exchange rate. Besides, I see the floating rate system is a joke if it put sovereignty in defensive; and it should go with its yardstick like performance that values at each quarters.
Finally, international banks are “too big to fall” should became a legend only, and they must be downsized that international is not licensed to evade sovereignty. There are more of reforms available in regional account and obey to safety net where it allows. Perhaps, if the banker can purchase these sovereignty bonds and metro bonds from the central bank like FED or ECB instead of chasing the wild goose in the open market; the general public can have some credits available for doing business.
If someone question on the equities dealing among the banks, why only the politicians who talk over the policy on financial and there is no financial police system to oversight the banking as a whole. I think the United Nations Security Council can build a better division on financial security than G7 or G20, and it is inclusive for the globalized finance and my past experience tells me so. Evolve or not, we may stand by and watch the outcome of our present crisis and it not over yet till everyone would feel safe from hegemony through these firewalls. If some suggest cooperation from community in forgiving ones’ debt, it would be worse than my New Year project in losing weight every year, and I have been laughing at myself all my life. Without firewall in safeguard one’s wealth, each would isolate itself from contagion for a long, long time.
May the Buddha bless you?