The Controversy Over Economic Globalization

The geopolitics of rich and poor

The world's nations, regions, and people are sharply divided: rich and poor. They present economic globalization in two contrasting global organizations. Wolfgang Sachs lays this out well.

The World Economic Forum

The global elite assembles at Davos, Switzerland, for the annual meeting of the WEF. See Wikipedia entry. The official doctrine of WEF is Neo-liberalism

The World Social Forum

The global South has no role among the capitalist elites gathered at Davos. They have built a counter-organization and counter-movement under the slogan: Another World is Possible! This is the World Social Forum (WSF). See Wikipedia entry.

Wealth flows from poor countries to rich countries.

How can this happen? Economic globalization predicts the inverse: Historically, the global balance sheet has favored poor countries. But with the advent of globalized markets, capital began to move in the other direction, and the South now exports capital to the North, at a skyrocketing rate. According to the United Nations, in 2006 the net transfer of capital from poorer countries to rich ones was $784 billion, up from $229 billion in 2002. (In 1997, the balance was even.) Even the poorest countries, like those in sub-Saharan Africa, are now money exporters. (Tina Rosenberg, Reverse Foreign Aid,New York Times: March 25, 2007)

Economic globalization ravages the global commons and all regional environments

A major component of the anti-globalization movement comes from environmentalists -- many of whom supported NAFTA. This is a diverse grouping. Recognize that social ecology is not a form of environmentalism.

The outcomes of economic globalization are unfair in that it widens global and national distribution of income and wealth.

Read Sachs, Cavanagh and Mander here. This conclusion troubles many not in the anti-globalization camp and carries profound ethical implications.

The regime of economic globalization is harmful to labor.

A big deal at home in U.S. and around the world. In U.S., controversy over outsourcing continues. Harmful working conditions persist around the developing world. Yet, WTO insists that working conditions not its purview or responsibility -- then whose responsibility is it?