Protect Globalization?

By guest blogger Devin McIntire,
based on a conversation with Natasha Hanshaw about the article

"The political threats to globalisation" in the Financial Times

We are still far away from fair or even free global trade and yet protectionism, on a national level, is still a pretty bad idea.

This article was a bit peculiar in that it tried to analyze political threats to globalization objectively, yet gave an illusory definition of globalization and by discussing "threats" rather than "course corrections", "evolution of" or even just new globalization this guy made clear that he's endorsing his narrow thatcher/regan-did-it view.

You can't talk about globalization productively without giving a precise definition and there are hundreds of readily available definitions so it's basically plug and play, you just have to remember to respect whichever you choose.

I like my globalization big and holistic. Yes we've had periods of "globalization" before, yes today's trends are largely driven by economics, yes it's state-enabled, but as some of our complex system folks will remind us us, globalization is really just a convenient label for the state and trajectory of our increasingly complex 'people universe.' Globalization is an infinite number of Thomas Friedman's silly reductionist "ah-ha" platitudes.

Globalization has depth, layers and complexity. It's not some conception of elites in western countries despite how much havoc they cause. It's far bigger than that, like a strong ocean current, when it pulls you sometimes you have no choice but to follow, other times you know you better get up and start swimming.

There are no threats to globalization, because globalization doesn't represent them or anyone else, it simply is. Political gaffes, imbeciles taking us back to the 20th century so we can do nationalism again, and people who believe that I don't deserve bananas all year-round in the US; these are all simply bad things. Yes they're implicitly part of globalization, but so is cell-phone banking in Africa, so are pro-local consumer movements around the world and so are technological advances in health solutions driven by India's and China's hundreds of thousands of doctors and engineers.

In with the Good out with the Bad.

Mighty Currents of Hope: Economic Possibilities

“Let the future say of our generation that we sent forth mighty currents of hope, and that we worked together to heal the world,” writes Jeffery Sachs, author of bestselling The End of Poverty and director of the Earth Institute of Columbia University. In this brief but effective statement, Sachs uncovers the pressing reality that in order to address the global pandemic of poverty, health problems like HIV/AIDS, and improve economic and human development through capacity building and education, sustainability must be central to our ideals as the driving force behind our personal decisions and greater national policies.

Sustainability is today’s buzzword, used to articulate our envisioned solutions, but more often than not, is nothing more than semantics and PR. Sustainability requires action. Not just simple action, but action on a scale that becomes daunting to those who, at first glance, are interested in change. This action must come from both governments and grassroots organizations, and increasingly civil society and larger non-governmental organizations. To address the types of global problems discussed in Sachs’ book, serious commitment and dedication are required by everyone from donor countries to the developing world. And, according to Sachs, the world can still do it on the timeline established by the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Sachs is an economist, whose view of the world and the possibilities it holds, is shaped by markets. In some circles, markets are the very intangible demons that have contributed to the cycle of poverty in developing nations. Consumerism, inequality, unsustainable production practices, and environmental degradation plagues the idea of industrialization, the very concept that the West sees as the solution to the developing world’s problems of poverty. Although pioneers such as Amartya Sen have contributed drastic changes to the way we conceive of development, the field is still dominated by institutions driven by national and donor interests, and continues to rely on economic development as a driving force. So what can Sachs and his economic ideals contribute to the discussion? Apparently, quite a lot.

As special advisor to the UN Secretary General and countries such as Bolivia, Poland, Russia, and China, Sachs’ experience and economic expertise has helped to stop hyperinflation, aid in transition economies, and develop goals to reduce poverty worldwide. He is accurate to point out that development is plagued by the search for a magic bullet, one that will rid the world of its problems with one lump sum and one golden policy. He is an advocate for what he calls “a clinical approach” to development, one that “should train the development practitioner to hone in much more effectively on the key underlying causes of economic distress, and to prescribe appropriate remedies that are well tailored to each country’s specific condition.” This idea flies in the face of the popular structural adjustment programs that do little to address unique country specificities, but rather push for free markets and privatization that has little, if any, proven track record.

If that idea isn’t enough, Sachs is also an advocate for debt forgiveness in particular circumstances. Countries with a heavy debt burden have no possible way to pay off debt AND fund social and economic programs that will help to advance the well being of the citizenry. In addition, he also calls for donor money to be reallocated so that more money reaches projects on the ground, rather going towards experts who consult in the field. Sachs goes through nearly half the book sharing his experiences, but also makes considerable recommendations on how to improve the well being of people around the world by 2025.

Why has Sachs made so many enemies in the development field? It depends on where you stand relative to his position. If you’re a big donor country, he has lost you money by calling for debt forgiveness, and in many cases, has won. If you’re against markets because lack of access to them creates greater inequality, you have a good argument. But he provides a series of possible solutions on how to make access to markets more feasible in the developing world. If you are a US politician who campaigns on the solution to national security as the war on terror, he counters the argument by saying national security is improved when poverty is reduced and education is increased, so we should be focusing our time and money on poverty reduction. If you believe that countries are poor because they “choose to be,” he demonstrates why circumstance, geography, and history all combine and contribute to inequality.

He has ruffled feathers in different disciplines, countries, and international institutions, which makes this writer think he may actually be on to something big. Business as usual will only continue to increase inequality in the current generation, and does nothing to address the problems the next generation will face. Sachs’ ideas are certainly not a magic bullet, but he doesn’t pretend them to be. Rather, his ideas are tools for the toolbox as we push for global action and change.

Sustainability in the Eyes of an Economist?

My good friend Angeline just sent me a very interesting article. It is definitely from an economist point of view pointing at wildlife professionals and environmentalists. Extremists in both don't want to compromise that the best solution is a sustainable one. You all can read the article for yourselves, but I thought I'd give you my take one what they are saying.

I don't necessarily agree with hunting all of the time...especially for sport, and I'm not saying it is right, but sustainable use is the best way to preserve any kind of resource. I know I'm preaching to the choir. Endangered species at least need to be protected until populations reach a level of sustainable use--and can subsequently be removed from lists/protection (i.e. wolves and bears in the US are a good example). Then, the world needs to agree upon and enforce sustainable use.

The editorial mentions the "other reasons" that species are endangered, but it doesn't discuss the importance of addressing those "other reasons".
I do agree that wildlife needs to be viewed as more valuable to man, but I don't agree with their use of the term sustainable exploitation. They do bring up a point about what they are terming sustainable exploitation in that it makes money and saves species. Tourism, which they mention, is a way to allow people to view wildlife in a more valuable manner, but not once their population levels reach carrying capacity.

I do agree with the statement that many groups are more concerned with the harm to individuals than a population, and once again, I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, but a happy medium works for everyone including the wildlife and other resources. We wildlife professionals, if I can term myself one because of my academic background, are being taught to understand carrying capacity and sustainability. We also discuss what is known as the Bambi Effect. After the movie Bambi was released, there was a large anti-hunting and not just wildlife, but animal, protection movement. I'm not saying those movements didn't help with monumental legislation and aren't still helping, but in order to maintain a healthy population, carrying capacity must not be breached, which leads us to the most sustainable solution that is use in a manner that allows the population to continue and remain fit. Fitness, in biological terms, does not mean being the toughest in the group, but it is the ability to reproduce viable offspring and continue a population. If carrying capacity is reached, it is just as dangerous and inhumane as slaughtering entire populations because that is, in a sense what it does...it destroys populations in what is known as a crashing population.

I'm not sure if I agree with their statement about lifting bans to save species. Lifting bans to bring populations back to or below their carrying capacity is one thing, but I do not believe it is right to lift bans on populations that can not sustain themselves. If a population can not sustain itself, then that defeats the purpose of sustainable use...or in their terms...sustainable exploitation (I don't like that term...).

Sustainable use of populations and individuals allows for us to use resources effectively, but also maintain them for future generations of wildlife and human populations including poverty stricken areas. Sustainable use of populations also allows for a very important aspect that is forgotten in everyday life...biodiversity. Biodiversity is what maintains the ability for populations, communities, and biomes to adapt to change. Biodiversity can be termed as genetic diversity, but is not necessarily limited to that. So, it is important that we work together to create a sustainable future...for the right reasons.

What are your thoughts OT blog?

The Story of Stuff

Take 20 minutes to watch this video. Then tell me what you think.

Don't go away without checking out this part of the website too.

The Coal Dilemma

Of all the fossil fuels we burn, coal produces the greatest amount of carbon dioxide per energy output, meaning it contributes the most to climate destabilization. Unfortunately, the majority of our electricity comes from coal because it is the cheapest power source under our current economic structure. If we accounted for its real costs, including economic externalities (such as respiratory problems, mercury pollution, and environmental destruction caused by some coal mining), it would no longer be considered the cheapest source of energy. Unfortunately, our current economic system does not account for these costs, so we continue to harm people's health and exacerbate climate change, while enjoying falsely cheap energy.



The dilemma is that people want cheap energy so they have more money to support their families. If we pay less for our utility bill, we can spend more on food, gas, clothes, cars, houses, cell phones, entertainment.... But is it worth it? Are people really willing to sacrifice their children's health and clean environment for cheaper electricity today? Would you be willing to sacrifice some of the "extra" things you purchase so that you could use cleaner energy? What monthly purchase would you be willing to forgo so you could purchase clean energy?

What we're up against

The US and Austrailian governments refuse to demand an actual cut in emissions levels despite warnings from the IPCC reports that say we must not only stop our current emissions levels - we should actually cut them back to avoid serious disaster within the next century. Major studies warn of mass extinctions, climate changes that will disrupt resource availability and natural habitats, and sea-level rises that will disrupt major communities. If we don't REDUCE our emissions, these disasters will affect us within the next 50 years, and they will only get worse after that. Yet these leaders refuse to make sacrifices now to minimize the disasters that our children and grandchildren will have to face. Did the leaders not read the scientific reports, or do they just not believe them? Or do they just not care about their grandchildren? Maybe they think that the "economic growth" built on energy from fossil fuels will be enough to protect their progeny. Why don't they have faith in the economic potential of investing in alternative energies? Plenty of historical examples show that banning one product leads to innovation in alternatives. The only logical explanation (that I can think of) for the behavior of these leaders is that they have some good buds in the fossil fuel industry who haven't yet invested seriously in renewable, clean energy.