The trend of economic \u2018globalisation\u2019 has been the focus of heated debate\nand protest in recent months. Bodies such as the World Bank, World Trade\nOrganisation (W.T.O.) and International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) are the subject\nof much criticism for their role in the globalised economy. Here we shall view the\npolicies of these institutions within the context of the development of global\ncapitalism since World War II. A study of the economic forces that lie behind\nglobalisation will demonstrate that we need to do more than simply call for the\nabolition of the World Bank, W.T.O. or I.M.F. There is, in fact, little scope\nfor countering the negative effects of the global market economy within\ncapitalism which is why we should seek an end to capitalism itself rather\nthan somehow seek to reverse the tide of globalisation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Protests, such as those in the year 2000 at Seattle and Prague, often claimed\nto be about opposition to capitalism but they were actually much more focused\nupon a particular trend within capitalism – what they refer to as ‘globalisation.\u2019\nThe International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.), World Trade Organisation (W.T.O) and\nthe World Bank are global bodies that are viewed as the agents of this\nglobalisation process. The so-called \u2018free trade\u2019 agreements, such as the\nGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (G.A.T.T.) and the North American Free\nTrade Agreement (N.A.F.T.A.) are seen as catalysts for increasing globalisation.\nHere we shall explore how these institutions and agreements arose within\ncapitalism, how they have impacted upon the global economy and whether there are\nalternatives to the policies they embody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Firstly, it is worth considering the meaning of this \u2018globalisation\u2019 that\nthey are often said to be pushing us towards. The term is often used in a\ngeneral way to refer collectively to a set of economic trends. One aspect of \u2018globalisation\u2019\nis the greater maneuverability of capital around the world. Another related\nelement is the removal of restrictions to global trade. \u2018Globalisation\u2019 is\nalso about the diminishing importance of national frontiers as far as the\noperations of companies are concerned. In short, globalisation means that the\neconomic activity of companies is to be increasingly understood as taking place\non an international , rather than a national stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to this kind of definition, it has been pointed out that\nglobalisation is nothing new. There has, after all, been a general increase in\ninternational trade since the middle ages when trade in goods such as spices and\nwine grew. Still, as shall be shown below, there is a justification for the\ncurrent ‘globalisation’ debate, focusing as it does upon certain post-war\ntrends within the global economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, the key debate is not whether globalisation has occurred or not but\nwhat the significance of it is and whether there are alternatives. Defenders of\nthe \u2018globalised\u2019, or ‘free market,’ capitalism claim that it provides a\nlevel playing field from which all nations can gain. Opponents view \u2018globalisation\u2019\nas biased towards the interests of corporations from the large industrial\nnations, such as the U.S.A. and Japan, at the expense of poorer countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Here the collective term of ‘The South’ shall be used to refer to the poorer\ncountries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, that have often been referred to as\n‘developing countries,’ or the ‘Third World.’ This is the word used within much\nof the current literature on the global economy. Again, to adopt a commonly used\nconvention, ‘The North’ shall be used to refer to the advanced industrial\nnations, including Western Europe, North America and Japan.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n An exploration of two key trends within this \u2018globalisation\u2019 enables us\nto build a picture of the forces lying behind globalisation. The first of these\ntrends is the rise of what is widely referred to as ‘free trade’, as defined by\ninternational trade agreements – most notably the G.A.T.T. rounds (from 1947\nonwards.) The second trend is one that has taken place in countries of the South\nand is termed \u2018structural adjustment.\u2019 This is a process, initiated by the\nI.M.F., which sets out criteria for countries of the South to become\nparticipants in the \u2018globalised economy.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n The anti-globalisation lobby rightly point out that the global market economy\nis a cause of many social and environmental problems. Their assumption is often\nthat these problems could be resolved by modifying global capitalism. The\nviability of some of their proposed solutions to the ills of a \u2018globalised\u2019\ncapitalism are considered in context of our analysis of its causes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Author: DG<\/p>\n\n\n\n Next: The move towards free trade<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n