The war on terrorism and in Iraq has distracted much of the world's attention from the pressing issue of how globalization should be managed so that it benefits everyone. A new report, issued by the International Labor Organization's (ILO) Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization, reminds us how far the Bush administration is out of line with the global consensus.
The ILO is a tripartite organization with representatives of labor, government, and business. The commission, chaired by the presidents of Finland and Tanzania, has 24 members (of whom I was one) drawn from different nationalities, interests groups, and intellectual persuasions, including members as diverse as the head of Toshiba and the leader of the AFL-CIO. Yet this very heterogeneous group was able to crystallize the emerging global consensus that globalization, despite its positive potential, has not only failed to live up to that potential, but has actually contributed to social distress.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The fault lies with how globalization has been managed -- partly by countries, but most importantly, by the international community, including institutions like the World Bank, WTO and the IMF, which are responsible for establishing the "rules of the game." The Commission even reached consensus on a number of concrete measures to help put a "human face" on globalization -- or at least mitigate some of its worst effects.
The gap between the emerging consensus on globalization, which this report reflects, and the Bush administration's international economic policies help explain today's widespread hostility towards America's government.
Consider two issues that have been part of recent bilateral trade agreements pushed aggressively by the Bush administration. The crises in East Asia and the recent recessions in Latin America show that premature capital market liberalization can result in enormous economic volatility, increasing poverty, and destruction of the middle class.
Even the IMF now recognizes that capital market liberalization has delivered neither growth nor stability to many developing countries. Yet, whether driven by narrow ideology or responding to the demands of special interests, the Bush administration is still demanding an extreme form of such liberalization in its bilateral trade agreements.
The second issue concerns the unbalanced intellectual property provisions (TRIPs) of the Uruguay Round of trade talks, dictated by the US' pharmaceutical and entertainment industries. These provisions restricted countries from making generic imitations of drugs, making many critically important medicines unaffordable in developing countries.
Spearheaded by worries about AIDS, activists around the world demanded that something be done. Just before last year's trade talks in Cancun, the US made some concessions, so that it was no longer the only holdout. In its bilateral trade agreements, however, the US is demanding what is becoming known as "TRIPs plus," which would strengthen intellectual property rights further, to ensure that countries only have the right to produce inexpensive generic drugs during epidemics and other emergencies.
The global consensus, reflected in the commission report, calls for more exceptions, so that, say, drugs can be made available in any case where to do so could save a life. To those confronting the prospect of death, what matters is access to life-saving drugs, not whether what is killing the person is part of an epidemic.
Bilateral agreements form the basis of enhanced ties of friendship between countries. But America's intransigence in this area is sparking protests in countries facing the "threat" of such an agreement, such as Morocco, and is forming the basis of long-lasting resentment.
The commission highlights other issues that have received insufficient global attention - such as tax competition among developing countries, which shifts more of the tax burden from business to workers. In still other areas, the commission's report argues for more "balanced" perspectives. On exchange rates, for example, it is more sympathetic towards mixed systems -- in contrast to the traditional belief that countries must choose between the extremes of a completely flexible system and a hard peg (of the kind that contributed so importantly to Argentina's woes).
As this example shows, bringing different voices to the table in discussions of globalization brings new perspectives. Until now, the main worry for most experts on globalization has been excessive government intervention in the economy. The commission fears just the opposite. It argues that the state has a role to play in cushioning individuals and society from the impact of rapid economic change.
The way that globalization has been managed, however, has eroded the ability of the state to play its proper role. At the root of this problem is the global political system -- if such it can be called. Key players like the IMF and World Bank must become more transparent and their voting structures must be changed to reflect the current distribution of economic power -- as opposed to that prevailing in 1945 -- let alone to reflect basic democratic principles.
Whatever one thinks of the many concrete suggestions made by the commission, this much is clear: we need a more inclusive debate about globalization, one in which more voices are heard, and in which there is more focus on the social dimensions of globalization.?
This is a message the world would do well to heed, lest discontent with globalization continue to grow.
Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a member of the Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US