International
trade and investment is not actually a new phenomenon in itself. The growth of
trade and investment across borders began over five hundred years ago as part
of European imperialism.
In
this day and age though, it is becoming increasingly easier for corporations to
move investment from one country to another, in many cases this also involves
national governmental support. For example, in the Mexican financial crisis of
late 1994-early 1995 where American interest rates rose seven times in 12
months, caused billions to flow out of Mexico in response to the good news of
higher interest rates in America, causing Mexico to run out out of foreign
exchange reserves (US$6bn by December 1994). This caused the Mexican government
to devalue the peso, causing this time foreign capital to flow out of Mexico in
fear of greater devaluation! Eventually a US$52bn rescue package accumulated by
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for Mexico, meant that Mexico lost
control over its own economy. The outside world, the IMF and the USA began to
dictate how Mexico would run its monetary policies (Thurow, L., p.31).
This
is just one example of how global economics affect nations worldwide. But
increasingly so, in the last fifty years the size of overseas investment by
European, North American and East Asian corporations has seen a dramatic surge.
This dramatic surge has seen corporations grow more powerful and increasingly
playing a commanding role in international economic policies. Their products
are now able to dominate consumer markets across the world, helping to rename
these establishments as 'transnational corporations' (TNCs).
In
the mid-1970s, business corporations in industrialised countries faced an
energy crisis which threatened their increasing profits, in order to overcome
this they started to take advantage of nations with cheap labour where they in
turn, increased their investment in. Exploitation of cheap labour overseas was
key strategy to produce even cheaper products enabling them to dominate
consumer markets worldwide. Also during this time, international trade barriers
such as tariffs, subsidies, import controls and taxes on imports were
successfully removed. Hence the creation of the 'free market'; free in the
sense that corporations had more freedom to accumulate profits.
In
countries where workers did not have social rights in the first place, their
governments and the 'free market' refused to recognise these rights which lead
to violent worker's repression, loss of social protection, cuts in government
spending on welfare and education, privatisation of public services and
utilities, and cheaper unprotected labour for exploitation.
With
reference to the acclaimed documentary, 'The Corporation', TNCs have actually
been classed as mentally insane if one was to take their status as a legal
'person'. This is why globalisation is sometimes also defined as 'capitalism is
the age of electronics' (Greenfield, G. and Pringle, T.; 2001).
Change.
Today. Fast.
'Half of humanity has never made a
phone-call' (Thabo
Mbeki, G7 summit [1])
Not
all developing countries have been fortunate enough to experience the great
advancements in information technology this global revolution has bestowed upon
us. Despite the rapid expansion of the Internet, information technology
inequalities do exist, and a great portion of the globe are still bereft of its
benefits. One of the main obstacles is the lack of a modern and robust
telecommunications infrastructure. Forty-nine countries (thirty-five of which
are African) have less than one telephone per 100 people. India has eight
million phone lines for over 900 million people (Al-Suwaidi, J., p.2). This indicates that the information gap
between developed and developing nations is in fact, increasing.
Another
factor is that the network society is dominated by natives and ethnic
majorities. For foreigners and ethnic minorities who lack the skills and do not
speak or command the dominant English language, they are alienated even further
from joining the global revolution (Van Dijk, J., 1999).
Information
is not, in itself, power, but it aids those who possess power and the mass
media plays a crucial role in the maintenance of information levels both for
citizens and governments. During the 1950s, structural-functionalist thinking
was dominant and sought to explain the developing world's need to move from a
'traditional' to a hegemonous 'modern' set of attitudes and behaviours. The
basic psychology of the traditional individual was needed to be altered to one
that veers away from religion to secularism with emphasis on acceptance of
scepticism, risk-taking and personal efficacy, social trust and the environment.
This shift rendered traditional values as deficient and hindering to the
mobilization process. The consequences were mass media operated for the
interests of the dominant elite, a rise in numbers of criminal/disturbed
individuals suffering from psychological disorientation, increased drug use,
crimes, and fraudulent spirituality (Morgan, D. p.93).
This
dominance of elite's version of modernity brought up in 1966 by Barrington
Moore, was also echoed in 1971 by Antonio Gramsci who spoke of the concept of
'hegemony'. Gramsci conceptualized hegemony to be stemmed from the notion that
the most dominant social group in society has the ability to influence
direction, intellectually and morally, over a society not by mere military
force but by creating consent through ideological control of 'cultural
production and distribution'. And that such a system exists through the control
of mass media, schools and religious bodies. Whereby authority is bestowed by
the government, this consent is 'organised' and those that are consenting are
'educated to do so' (Thussu, D., 2006).
Despite
all this globalization hype, according to the Human Development Report (UNDP,
2003) per capita levels declined in 54 countries in the 1990s and 1.38 billion
workers across the world lived on less than $2 a day (ILO, 2004); poverty
elimination and inequalities between 'haves' and 'have nots' is clearly not a
major issue on the 'elitist' agenda.
Conclusion
Although
the age of globalisation has brought many changes in its tide, some positive
and others negative, instability in this phase of transition to an increasingly
global world, is imminent. But instabilities are not created by the
technologies though, they are only exasperated by them. Unless all nations
become full participatory actors in this global revolution, the gap between the
rich and the poor will widen; increasing marginalisation in tow. And this gap
will increase cultural, religious and ethnic conflicts inter-regionally and
across borders.
Kofi
Annan at the World Bank conference said that, '[w]hat is so thrilling about our
time is that the privilege of information is now an instant and globally
accessible privilege. It is our duty and responsibility to see that gift
bestowed on all the world's people, so that all may live lives of knowledge and
understanding [2]'
(Global Knowledge Conference, June 1997).
The future is truly in our hands.
References
Al-Suwaidi, J. The Information Revolution and
the Arab World: It’s Impact on State and Society, The Emirates Centre for
Strategic Studies and Research, 1998, p.2, 3
Thurow, L. The Information-Communications
Revolution and the Global Economy, (1997) p.11, 31
Thussu, D. International Communication:
Continuity and Change, 2006, Hodder Education, p.53, 97
Dijk, J. The Network Society, 1999, Sage
Publications, p. 148
UNDP, Human Development Report 2003: Millennium
Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human Poverty, 2003, Oxford
University Press
ILO, World of Work Magazine No. 50, March
2004: Toward a fair globalisation, Global Employment Trends, 2004
(http://www.ilo.org/wow/Articles/lang--en/WCMS_081345/index.htm)
[1] Quoted in Al-Suwaidi, J. The Information Revolution and The Arab World, p. 2
[2] Quoted in Al-Suwaidi, J. The
Information Revolution and The Arab World, p. 3
No comments:
Post a Comment