35

UNIT 1 Module 5 Opposition to Globalization

INTRODUCTION
To many people, globalization is often seen to wreak havoc on the lives of
vulnerable peoples and communities. As such, globalization has also been accompanied
by the emergence of new social movements (NSM). NSM researchers argue that the
traditional response of the labor movement to global capitalism based on class politics
has generally failed. Instead, analysis based on identity politics—such as gender,
sexuality, ethnicity, age, community, belief systems—is now seen as necessary to resist
sexism, racism, environmental damage, warmongering, capitalist exploitation and other
forms of injustice. These groups often produce their own research and documentation of
occurrences of injustice, sometimes in direct response to government activities. They
comprise a global network of activist groups who are loosely connected through new
media. NSM activists can be confrontational; most do not engage in the traditional tactics
of lobbying politicians as they do not consider participation in the normal channels to be
useful in furthering their interests.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

1. Discuss the claims of opposition to globalization
2. Debate on the disadvantages of globalization

Protest is often spontaneous, with the main challenges to global capitalism in the
economic sphere normally involving the disruption of the capacity of TNCs and global
financial institutions to accumulate private profits at the expense of their workforces, their
consumers and the communities affected by their activities. However, as globalization
has led to the dispersal of manufacturing processes into many discrete phases carried
out in many different places, disruptive actions by one group in one location will not
necessarily have a major impact on the TNC. Political protests are often directed at major
meetings of international policy actors; these tend to garner significant media interest.
The quick dissemination of video evidence (such as the live video streaming from Tahrir
Square during Egypt’s 2011 Revolution or the 2009 video of the killing of a young woman
in Iran who was a bystander to the Green Movement protests) allows dissidents to bypass
 36

official media outlets in order to publicize their version of the story to a global audience.
As both information and ideas are shared instantaneously across the globe, government
officials are increasingly finding it difficult to ignore the negative impacts of their policies
on particular groups of people; they will be challenged not only domestically but also
globally with respect to the alignment of their policies with universal and democratic codes
of conduct and professionalism.

Another effective strategy for NSM activists to affect political change involves
targeting economic as opposed to political actors; specifically, the mobilization of global
boycotts using social media. So, for example, after a building in Bangladesh collapsed in
2013 killing over 1,100 garment workers, the transnational advocacy group AVAAZ.org
launched an online petition. The pressure (and the threat of a boycott) was aimed at
retailers and major fashion brands such as Abercrombie and Fitch, GAP, Wal-Mart, H&M,
Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, to sign an enforceable fire and building safety
agreement. The goal was to garner a million signatures in order to leverage brand
reputation with safety. Targeting global consumers who will not feel the economic effects
of boycotts can be far more effective than lobbying governments. Unfortunately, however,
in a globalized world, transnational corporations can decide to pick up and move to
another jurisdiction. When this happens, the victims of poor safety practices are doubly
victimized when they lose their jobs. What is clear from this brief overview of globalization
is that its impacts are far reaching in economic, cultural, and political spheres. These
spheres are becoming less and less distinct, much the same as boundaries that delineate
nation-states. In an increasingly integrated world, the flow of ideas around the globe has
also precipitated the adoption of neo-liberal ideas of governance, but also new
perspectives on public administration.

Nationalistic politicians rising around the globe, in varying degrees, espouse an

our country first” mentality displaying skepticism or outright hostility toward globalization.

Globalization’s ills can be described not only in terms of loss of jobs through
imports and multinational companies, but also the transmission and blending of ideas,
lifestyles, cultures and phobias communicated by the internet. In 2017, 3.5 billion humans
access the internet. Bandwidth, less than 4.5 terabits per second in 2005, has escalated
to 400 terabits per second.

Humankind is developing an emerging “global consciousness” – a collective

sensitivity to noble thoughts as well as to phobias and ignoble protectionism. The same
channels that transmit the latest décolleté styles from Milan or Gangnam music from
Seoul to farm families outside Bombay or Basra also relay cultural unease or ambiguity.

Anti-globalization sentiment springs from varying sources. In developing nations,

the reaction stems from threats to tradition due to an influx of foreign products and ideas.
 37

Valentine’s Day is an example. Valentine, 226–278 CE, of Italy was relatively obscure
among the more than 10,000 Catholic saints until the 1850s, when American
entrepreneurs began marketing greeting cards. In the mid-20th century, Valentine’s Day
was unknown outside the United States or Britain. Nowadays, every February 14, crowds
throng malls in Asian cities, book restaurants and shows, and loosely celebrate a near
mythical figure from centuries ago and a continent away.

Middle-class Asians like additional holidays, but not all. Demonstrations against
Valentine’s Day in India involve vandalism of shops and harassment of couples. Hindu
fundamentalist groups protest the incursion of foreign practices as eroding traditional
culture. A few generations ago, markers of identity in India and other developing nations
were based on local religion, traditions and familial relationships. Today, children squint
at small screens, and “all the world’s a stage.”

In richer nations, laid-off workers in the rust belts of Ohio or France blame
globalization for misfortunes, job losses and economic stagnation. An analysis by
the McKinsey Global Institute concludes that in six industrialized nations, the majority
of households over the last 15 years saw a flattening or drop in their wages and
investment income, a legitimate concern that some politicians latch onto and magnify.

Employees in the U.S. and Europe work harder and are more apprehensive
because of greater competition in the labor market, aided by a relentless drive for
productivity gains. There is a psychological letdown because after two centuries of
economic progress, generations can no longer assume they will be better off than their
parents.

The angst is real, though politicians grossly overstate diagnoses by blaming

international trade, offshoring of production and immigrants taking jobs. For every one
U.S. job lost through international trade from 1980 to 2016, researchers conclude that
about four jobs have been lost because of automation, robotics, information technology
and other productivity boosters.

Automation more than international trade has boosted U.S. productivity, and three
groups benefit most from these gains: consumers who pay lower prices, managers who
earn higher salaries and shareholders enriched by dividends and equity growth. Labor
has not benefited. Union membership in the U.S. and France, for example, has fallen to
less than 10 percent of the workforce. The most workers now hope for is to keep jobs at
the same pay levels as before.

On the import side, international trade has undoubtedly resulted in some job
losses, but far fewer than from automation. The pain of import-induced job losses tends
to be geographically concentrated in certain regions, sometimes with disproportionate
 38

impact on elections. By contrast, the benefits of low-cost imports are widely dispersed.
On the export side, international trade creates millions of new jobs.

Most studies concur that immigrants, on average, produce a net benefit for
countries over the long run. This is small comfort to anyone laid-off, many unskilled with
lower incomes. The pain of job competition is concentrated among a few while the
benefits of immigration and imports – from low-cost goods to innovations – are spread
over entire populations.

Immigrants comprise up to 14 percent of the population for countries with the

largest numbers. In the United States, the H1-B visa quota for 2017 is a fraction of a
percent, 85,000 slots in a workforce of 124 million. All immigrants, legal and
undocumented, constitute about 13 percent of the overall U.S. population. Germany,
France and the UK have similar percentages. Nations with vast territory including
Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia are the exception, welcoming selected immigrants
to boost GDP.

An irony of the victory of anti-globalization forces in the U.S. presidential election

and Brexit vote was that in areas where immigrants are scarce, such as Wyoming or
Lincolnshire, residents are ideal targets for scaremongering and votes went to nativist
politicians. By contrast, metropolitan areas, prosperous with more educated residents
than in outlying areas, are less threatened by multicultural ideas and ethnicities.

In cold-blooded actuarial terms, the likelihood of an American being killed by a

foreign-born terrorist is miniscule – lifetime odds, roughly comparable to tornado or
lightning-strike deaths, are 1 in 60,000. But fear sells products and political platforms. In
the year 2000, Americans received most news from reliable sources such as The New
York Times; the British public relied on the BBC and the Times of London.
Today, many turn to Facebook, Twitter, family and friends. Trust in media institutions has
eroded to the point where politicians can openly mock traditional news to thunderous
applause.

Algorithms for social media sites deduce preferences and steer users toward news
sources liked by their social network. Such algorithms perpetuate self-reinforcing “filters”
that attract and keep viewers by presenting facts they like, while downplaying news that
is dissonant or uncomfortable for the particular viewer. Algorithms thus increase views
and advertising revenue, but segregate the public into separate camps, polarizing
audiences in the U.S., Europe, and even Turkey and India. Do not blame the internet for
this institutional failure, but rather the drive for profits superseding journalistic duty to
serve the public interest.
 39

Globalization is not in retreat regardless of such trends and though trade growth
has slowed since 2005. Increasing nationalism may result in greater protectionism for
some categories of products. Immigration may level off or decline in certain countries. But
nations welcome incoming foreign investment. Cross-border data and communication
flows grow rapidly. While sections of America and Europe engage in bouts of angst, many
developing nations optimistically forge ahead. China’s and India’s giant domestic markets
are far from a saturation point for foreign products and ideas. China’s One Belt, One
Road, designed to connect China with Europe and Southeast Asia, add thousands of
kilometers of rail and road along with a string of ports along the Pacific and Indian oceans.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with 70 emerging countries as members,
has subscribed capital of $100 billion to sponsor projects in Asia and Africa.

Globalization is accused of causing job losses, culture shocks and xenophobia,

but modernization of lifestyles and industries alter work and life patterns more
fundamentally. Politicians who blame globalization are really alluding to larger
socioeconomic issues – 25 years of hyper-competition, with intense focus on company
stock values and profits. The power of unions has shrunk – tilting the social balance in
favor of capital investors, managers and consumers who demand better products at low
prices. Before the 1980s, unions in several manufacturing sectors were perhaps overly
strong, resulting in inefficiencies and meager profits. Each society must find the proper
balance for allocating benefits among labor, consumers, management and shareholders.

Globalization is a symptom of human desire and ambition leading to ever-

increasing connections that brings prosperity, but also pain and opposition. The focus on
only negative consequences amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Globalization has been a topic of debate for many years. While it has brought about
many benefits, it has also led to some negative consequences. According to the World
Economic Forum, globalization results in increased trade and lower prices. It heightens
competition within domestic product, capital, and labour markets, as well as among
countries adopting different trade and investment strategies.
However, there are also some potential disadvantages of globalization for world
economies. These include possible monopolization, structural unemployment, inter-
dependence and tax avoidance. In addition, the loss of unique cultures is one of the major
downsides of globalization. No longer can a society be completely self-sufficient; if a
people want electricity to power their homes or need medicine for their children, they must
participate in the global economy.

It is important to note that globalization has both positive and negative

effects. While it has led to increased economic growth and job creation, it has also
widened the gap between the elites and the rest of the world.
 40

Regardless of the downsides, globalization is here to stay. The result is a smaller,

more connected world. Socially, globalization has facilitated the exchange of ideas and
cultures, contributing to a world view in which people are more open and tolerant of one
another.

You may take a break.

ACTIVITY

1. Write a two-page opinion of your stand on the peoples’ opposition to

globalization.

References

1. Steger, M.B. (2009). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

2. Waters, Malcolm. 2001. Globalization (2nd edition). London, New York: Routledge.
3. Ocaña et. al, (The Contemporary World, 2nd ed.. Mutya Publishing Inc.

4. Savas, E.S. 1987. Privatization: The Key to Better Government. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.

5. Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001) Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of ... Accessed online: 3rd
August 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu

6. Bennis, Warren B. 1968. ‘Beyond Bureaucracy’, in Warren B. Bennis and Philip Slater (eds),
The Temporary Society. Harper and Row Publishers. Reprinted in an abridged version in Nigro,
F. and G. Nigro. 1983. Readings in Public Administration. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.