Bonanno Stories of Gloalization

7/29/2019 Bonanno Stories of Gloalization

1/29

This book has two objectives. The first is to present salient aspects of globalization in a way that is

accessible to readers who are not necessarily familiar with this subject.Our second objective is to

provide a general view of globalization by presenting eight specific casesour stories of

globalization. Macroquantitative analyses have often been attacked for their inability to analyze

the social, historical, cultural, and geographical particularities of globalization, and for their tendency

to dissolve heterogeneous experiences and conditions into far-reaching generalizations.Simultaneously, microanalyses have been criticized for generalizing specific cases to other settings

and to society as a whole. In effect, the most common objection to qualitative microanalyses has

been to their assumed limited capacity to extrapolate general tendencies from circumscribed

observations.While the limits of these macro- and microstudies are well known and have been

addressed through a wealth of epistemological arguments, alternative approaches have infrequently

been sought.We have focused on the agriculture and food sector, arguably one of the most

globalized sectors in contemporary society. vii-viii

First, agrifood is one of the most globalized sectors in the contemporary economy.the prod and

consumption of agrifood products are a truly global affair.1

Finally, the study of the agrifood

sector is particularly interesting because, although it is one of the most

*Fatima sectors of the economy, its 'local" importance is considered para-

mount for the well-being of communities in North America and other parts of the world.

Arguably, the Local-global link is much more visible in agrifood than in a number of othersocioeconomic sectors.

2

From an economic and social point of view, a first step to lie taken in the

study of globalization is the identification of salient actors involved in the

process and the sociohistorical contexts within which they operate. For this

book, we selected three key protagonists of globalization: transnational cor-

porations (rna). groups who resist them, and the state, which constitutes

the primary mechanism through which the relationship between MN and

their opponents unfolds. The state is typically seen in terms of its relation-


2/29

ship with corporations and those who resist them, but also in terms of the emergence of new

transnational forms of the state and alternative entities

that have been taking over some of the historical roles of the state (i.e.,

nongovernmental organizations, or mos). We maintain that globalization is

both a political projecta more or less orchestrated design to enhance the

free mobility of capital worldwideand a historical phenomenon character-

ized by the implementation of this political project and the resistance that

it engenders. We further define globalization as the complex process of the

transnaticinalixation of social relations centered around the establishment of

conditions that favor, and are characterized by, the growth of rncs, fres-

market-miented policies that promote their growth, and the multifaceted

resistance that the expansion of rots generates.2

Our approach further identifies the origins of globalization in the crisis of

Fordism, the socioeconomic form of capitalism that emerged in the early

twentieth century and reached its peak in the first two decades after World

War H. Fordismlike globalizationdoes not refer simply to a system of

organization of production. Following Gramsci's classical definition, we

maintain that Fordism refers to a highly rationalized form of capitalism char-

acterized by mass production, mass consumption, and vertical integration,

but also to a new culture and, equally important, new political arrange-


3/29

ments.4

interventionist state successfully sustained steady growth,

balancing mass production and mass consumption, while private companies

generated very high levels of productivity by refining widely instituted Tay-

larist strategies. Managers substantially enhanced their technical control by

further centralizing and rationalising the labor process. While this strategy

sharpened the distinction between production workers and managerial, pro-

fessional, and technical employees, the labor force was pacified by steadily

increasing wages, job security, opportunity for advancement, and expanding

welfare (Harvey 1989; Lipiet. 1992).

This Fordist capitalism combined highly rationalized, centralized, and

vertically integrated firms with nationwide unions and a substantially ex-

panded state; it had highly specialized and mechanized production, bureau-

cratized firms, extensive planning, and top-to-bottom bureaucratic control.

...the high fordist state employed advanced keynesian policies of much r9oader fiscal controls,socioeconomic plans regul;ation, and health, education, and welfare.5

Fordism 60larin sonuna kadar doruk noktasini yasadi, snr new social moedments rise etmesiyle

fordist staility ozuldu, rise of the third world, eco downturns, increasing cost of the welfare

system, increasing competitiveness international markets 6

The new conditions that have emerged from the crisis of fordism have

been grouped under the concept of globalization. The globalization of econ-

omy and society entailed a number of strategies to revive capital accumula-


4/29

tion. McMichael (2002) refers to this process as the "globalization project."

From a socioeconomic view point, globalization's most decisive aspect has

been increased"flexibility" on a global scalemobile capital, free to colonize

and commodity practically every sphere, has shattered relatively fixed social

and temporal-spatial boundaries and has decentralized production. Produc-

tion is to a much greater extentbut not exclusivelydecomposed into

subunits and sultpre elution processes, carried out by globally dispersed horns

with highly divergent forms of labor, managerial, and financial organizations

that may even follow traditional and local business practices and customs.

More important, global companies are able to select strategies that fit their

interests with an unprecedentedalthough not totalfreedom. This free-

dom is the primary result of the implementation of free market policies,

reduced forms of regulation, favorable economic incentives, and an overall

cultural climate that welcomes xorporate moility and autonomy.7

These structural changes were justified by the adoption of neoliberalism

as the guiding political ideology of globalization, Introduced as the neces-

sary antidote to the agonizing Keynesianism and its ideological justification

for state intervention in the economic and the social spheres, neoliberalism

stressed the inevitable nature of deregulation and marketiaation of social


5/29

relations and the overwhelming positive effects that they generate for all

components of society., While the virtue of the "free" functioning of the

market had been proposed in the past, neoliberal theorists argued that new

technological developments (Le., computers and the Internet) and global

political conditions (the end of the cold war) had created a situation in

which past obstacles to the realization of "true free market and society"

were eliminated and no serious alternatives to neoliberalism and corporate

capitalism could he imagined (Friedman 2000; Fultnyama 1992; Smith 2007).8

Globalization is not a globalized system; it is a system of global

mobility and global actions that operates in reaction to conditions that manifest themselves in

local and regional enclaves. More specifically, globalization is a project to revive capital

accumulation and thereby counter many of the successes of democratic social movements that

Limited the ability of corporations to maintain profitable business operations. 9

Because many of the traditional forms and actors through which resistance

was carried out during the Fordist era have been weakened, however, its

most salient form has been grassroots-based resistance that emerged "from

below." The creation of the "anbiglabalization" movement, with its multicul-

tural and multifaceted membership and its network-based, flexible organiza-

tion, symbolizes this type of resistance. The case studies presented in the

following pages illustrate some instances'of this type of resistance and high-

light the different ways in which they originated. 9


6/29

Our choice stresses different readings of the three major actors explored in the hook:

transnational corporations, groups that resist them, and the statu. We organize the literature on

globalization into three groups: (a) authors who are skepticaL about the analytical importance ofthe concept of globalization and prefer to see it as a continuation of long-established trends

(grand duree); (b) those vvho see iNcs as the actors with the most power in terms of either

shaping the behavior of other social actors or opening opportunities of development andprosperity for a significant segment of the world (corporate domination); and (c) those who seeglobalization as a problematic and contradictory phenomenon (contradictory dimension of

globalization), 18

Grand Duree

The yrdnd duree camp consists of authors who make one or more of the following argumentsabout globalization: (I) globalization has existed for centuries; (2) it hds not transformed the

fundamental functioning cif capital-ism; and (3) it remains centered on the power of the nation-

state. For authors who write within this paradigm, globalization affected only the "form," ratherthan the "substance," through whicli society is reproduced. For instance. Christopher Chase-

Dunn (1998) illustrates the basic assumptions of the grand duree thesis through his apptication of

the world-system perspective to the study of globalization. 18

Leslie Sklair:Employing a class analysis, Leslie Sklair (2001) defines globalization as a

process orchestrated and controlled by the transnational capitalist class, or To-. White resistance

exists and is in fact fostered by the expansion of globMization, the Tcc is in firm control of

today's society and economy.. Robinson proposes a very similar thesis of globalization tied to

the emergence of the TCC. For Robinson, however, the TLC. should itictudt only those who ownthe means of produc-

tion and should exclude professional and middle-class groups (2004, 35). The TCC, he main-

tains, is a capitalist group that controls transnational capital. Apart from this difference, the

argument developed by Robinson in a number of works published in recent years (see for

example 2001 and 199 ) remains remarkably similar to that of klair. Like Skla-ir, Robinsonwrites from a Marxian point of view. However, the emergence of a transnational capitalist class

is also stressed by non-Marxian theorists. A relevant example is the work of David Becker and

Richard Sklar and their associates on the theory of "postimperialism" (see Becker and

Sklar 1999; Becker 1999; Sklar 1999 and 1976; Myers 1999). Becker and Sklar

define the current gtol:Pat system as postirriperialist to indicate the creation of a transnational

system that transcends the division of the world into nations. Accordingly, the idea that one orfew nations can dominate other nations (imperialism) is obsolete. This postimperialrist

world is 29

Change


7/29

The major changes from previous pha.ses of capitalism are the emergence of the TCC and

TNCS. The TCC is divided :1-Lto four groups: executives of nics (the corporate group);

globalizing bureaucrats and politicians (the state group); globalizing professionals the technicalgroup); and merchants and the media the consumerism group),' The nes four groups cooperate

together to

advance the globalization project and to clarinet the primary crises of the era: class polarization

and the ecological crisis. In order to operate success-

Wily in any given territory.. iv executives require the support of members of the other three

groups. AccordingEy, politicians, bureaucrats, and profes-

sionals are called into action to justify procorporate policies to their national constituencies. This

is often carried out by stressing Lite benefits that corpo-

rate investment would generate for the nation. This is a deceptive posture, however, as Tric.s are

not linked, nor do they offer allegiance, to any particu-

lar nalion-state. In effect, Sidair contends, to further their global profitabil-

ity, TNCS seek partners from an array of national enclaves and build their global networks

through the recruitment c..)f politicians, hureducriats, and professionals front dive se national

backgrounds. This apparent inclusiveness allows TNCS to broaden their scope of action and gainsuppnrt for their ac-

tions. The result is that the current form of capitalism is global It is global also because current

arrangements cannot be defined in terms of a nzitionat economyan economy sewing an

exc1usive1y sovereign national marketnor can they be defined in terms of an internationaleconomy, om in which pure national economies trafk among themselves. Current conditions are

based on social relations that transcend nationa' and the international

hountiarie , a global economy exists, however., it does not operate

unitoTmly around the work', as different counties and regions experience different outcomes of

the growt.h of TNCS and the Tf:c.

Causes

For Sklair, the growth of the global capitalist system is the outcome of the crisis of capitalaccumulation of the 1970s. Reagan's and Thatcher's neolib-

eral policies of the 1980s represented the proposition of a multifaceted (eco-

nomic, ideoh,gical, and political) global project aimed at restarting capital accumulation., while

responding to cha lien es coming from, and the power of, subordinate groups, particularly labor.,

This neoliberal proposition repre-


8/29

sented a new .-legemonic strategy aimed at establishing the domination of

characterized by transnational class formation based on the tendency of dominant social classes

in different countries to coalesce, that is, to combine with one another in pursuit of their commoninterest? (1999, 3). While the emergence of a transnational working class is embryonic and

facilitated by the crisis of existing labor organizations (see Myers 1999), the emerging

transnational bourgeoisie is much more unified and purposeful than any other class. Sharplydeparting from Sklar's and Robinson's argument about the negative socioeconomic effects of the

TCC, Becker and Sklar maintain that its development promotes more, rather than less,. equitable

development among countries because it moderates the global distribution of wealth., For asimilar view about globalization's reduction of economic inequality wotldwid.f2. see rizebaugh

and Goesling (2004).

the Tcc. The new global. system was based on the spatial and technical dispersal of the

production process in a variety of discrete phases. This mobility of capital allowed TNCS toavoid production dependence on one particutar factory and/or workforce and therefore to control

resistance honk below. Sklair notes that TN& actions have been "too powerful for the local.organiza.tion of tabor" (2001, 2138). Because of TN& mobility, the threat of lost jobs allowed

corporations to enhance control over the labor force. Workers were required to work harder and

longer.. and received less pay, in order to meet international. competition, This "rare to thebottom" turned out to be one of the most powerful strategies at the disposal. of TNCS.

This system has been supported by the ideology of consumerism, an ideoLogy of dominationthat equates "quality of Life" and "social peace" with the "ability to consume: and defines our

existence in terms of what we possess. The effort to expand the ideo1ogy of consumerism

involved the development of inclusionary and good citizenship claims. Sklair maintains that theidea that globalization and localization are mutually exclusive is groundless. mcs are notnecessarily interested in destroying the local. They cite interetecl in making profits. Accordingly,

the local is used to enhance sales and promote products that, either directly or indirectly, refer to

andler find in the local a profitable market. TNCS often "localize" their operations to take on thesemblance of lucat operations. In essence, it is more advantageous for TNCS to include than to

exclude various locales and local groups in the project of mass consumption.

Transnational Corporation.

TNCS are the. dominant actors in the global capitalist systerri. The gtobal scope of TNCS restson three basic conditions. First, it is extremely difficult to clearly link ownership of a TNC tO a

specific nation-state. White it is possible to identify the national origins of rnanagment in one

corporationfor in-

stance, only a fevy-:By_ and Toyota executives are foreigners ownership re-

mains linked to stockholdelL ii.vho operate in stock markets guided by the priority of making

profits. Profit making does not recognize national bound-


9/29

aries. Second, the fact that a company is identified with a nation does not prevent it from

gtobalizing its operations, nor does it change its relationship with any local context within which

the company operates. As Robert Reich (1991) has written, Sklair stresses that, "as far asAmerican prosperity is concerned, Toyota plants in the USA were more American than Gm

plants in Japan" (Sklair ?OW., 142). Third, the connection between TN& actions and national

interests is often expressed as the globalization project advances

within national territories_ It is possible., therefore, clearly to distinguish TNCS from multi

national coiporations, Multinational corporations are compa-

nies that have strong national attachments and whose international subsidi-

aries are branches of the national corporation* iNcs are corpoTations that globalize their

operations through denationalization. They have no specific attachment to their nations of origin

and their global units are not exten-

sions of the home base. Iii effect, the distinction between home-based and

foreign operations be blurred to the point that is it virtually impossible to distinguish between

the two, Sklair contends that as long as the world is made up of nation-states, corporations

cannot operate without considering those states. There is thus no such thing as a completelystateless (purely global) corporation. The overwhelming majority of the top corporations in the

world want to globalize their operations. Siclair maintains that we should tan< about globatizing,

rather than global, corporations; TNCS are globalizing corporations.

Because claims of social irresponsibility on the part of 7NCS can threaten their market share of

consumption,. 7NCS must promote an image that shows social responsibilitythat is, good

citizenship. Siclair maintains that r!..412s-

pursue a four-component strategy of global_ citizenship: 0) corporate gayer-

naRCQ: (TNC2; inli.St tic, responsible for Ole vird.1-beirty of theft iniployees); (2) community

development (rNics must be responsible for the well being of the communitie.s associated withcorporate operations): (3) health anti safety (they must address health and safety issues for

consumers and employees: and (4) environmental concerns (the. y 3rust maintain an

environmentally responsible posture). The T CC thus actively promotes an ideology of sustain-

ble development that reconciles TNCS profit-making interests with social, economic, and

envirortmental. responsibility. According to this ideology, sound environmental practices andcorporate interests are viewed as recon-

cilable. In addition, the environmental crisis is seen as a set of discrete crises that can beaddressed ndividziaHy.. The ides that contemporary society faces a singular environmental crisis

is rejected altogether. Environmental groups interested in this vision are supported by corporate

actions and become part of the sustainable development hegernonic bloc. Because corporatepoticies have increasingly been recognized as more sensitive to the environment than they used


10/29

to her Sklair concludes that the corporate hegemonic project of sustainable deve[opment is

successful in contemporary gtobal capi:atism,

Outlook

KCS and the T CC have created a hegernonic bloc that allows them to dominate social andeconomic relations in the global capitalist system, but certain

sod al groups and movements resist this llegentonic Mot: by denouncing and attacking corporate

practices. The process of resistance has a twofold set. at implications. First, it forces TNCS,

nation-states, and othei institutions and organizations that support the Ti ; to modify their actionsto meet the re-

quests of anticorporate groups. 'The resistance of opposition groups has led iNcs to Lake some

steps toward democratic governance and practices. Second, anticorporate resistance denounce5the limits of the globalization project and its nega4,:ive soda', consequences. Each corporate

action, Sklair main-

tai T1S, can potentially trigger opposition and the public denunciation of ta.bor exploitation,

human rights violations, and envitonmental. degiadation. The future of social relations under

globalization will be determined by the out-

come of the struggle between the .11:c and opposition group s and movements.

29-33

For Sassen (1995, 1998, 200), globalization features the denationalization of socioeconomic

processes, which generates a crisis of national sovereignty. Denationalization refers to the"offshoring" of economic activities engi-

neered to enhance corporate platit and promoted as a toot to revitalize na-

tional economies. The crisis of sovereignty refers to the growing inability of the riatioit-sLaie to

control socioeconomic processes that now unfold largely out5ide its regulatory umbre[14. The

contradictory dimension of this situa-

tion rests on the fact that the nation-staters pursuit of econc-mic well-being

is canied out through processes of deregulation and liberalization that Limit the nation'ssovereignty, A in the case of other aspects of globalization, this process does not take place inthe same way in- every sector or in devel-

oped and developing regions, Globalization is not a homogenous pi.ocess. Change

In developed countries economic globalization signified the transfer of pro-


11/29

duction and service facilities across national borders. This process makes it difficult for nation

states to collect taxes and enforce regulations, SinuAta-

neously, however, the sites of corporate headquarters remain concentrated

in developed countries Accaidingly,

1.vhile production is decentralized, con-

trol_ stays in selected geographicaL areas. The result is that the potential_ for democTatic

decentralization of economic activities is denied for a situation in vellich highl. integratedcorporate structures concentrate profit appropria-

tion. In developing cour.trie denationalization consists primarily in the cre-

ation of trade and export manufacturing zones designed to attract global investments. iarcs locate

facilities without being !subjected to local taxes and regulations. in this case there is a de facto

abaten-.ent cif the jurisdiction of the nation-state, -v.,thich tIanstats into a denationalization of

the area. While the circulation of commodities and the globiil spread tif r3Ioduction processes

pxulifelate, attempts to control the circulation of labor Sasser con-

trasts the globalization of production and financial. capital with the national-

ization of politicsthe lifting of border commits for capital and goods and the tightening of

restrictions on the MObility of tabor. Nation-states reassert their claims over the control cif

national torritories. The global search for more profitable investments worldwide has createddisinvestment in middle-

class jobs. This situation promotes the search for profitable short-term op-

portunities rather than tong-term socioeconomic development, which dimin-

ishes the financial capacity of nation-states to maintain entitlements at their Fordist levels,

Finally, the giubalization of the economy and society has eroded Wetfate state entitlements and

citizen access to publicly funded economic and social support.

Causes


12/29

Must of the teatures associated with globalization are the outcome of corpo-

rate actions. TNCS responded to established forms of social and economic gay-

ernance characterized by social spending and regulation deemed too high to guarantee

acceptabi.e profit Levels. 'MB thus moved p:oductiori offshore and concentrated finance andznanagerlat control in selected regions of the ad-

vanced world. But globalization, in Sassen's view, cannot be. attributed sim-

ply to Tlicsi tendency to transnationallize productiom it is the outcome of broader forces in acomplex aryl evolving situation. In particular, alient ion should be paid to the fact that nation-

states themselves have been pro-

moters of processes that "opened" local economies and societies.' More spi-

cificaRy, deregulation of economic and social po(icies has limited the effectiveness of state-engineered forms of control. Deregulation has gener-

ated the proliferation of global financial markets, which has greatly dimin-

ished the ribility of nation-states to control the economy, For instance, the emergence of foreignexchange and bond markets has reduced the capacity it central banks to regulate nations' interest

rates, which are now affected more by market fkuctuations than by the decisions of central

bank.s.

Transnationof Corporations

These corporations have decentralized production by dispersing pmduction units worldwide totake advantage of favorable conditions of pm:ILK:IA(1H. This geographical dispersal of

factories is paralleled by the concentration of corporate operations. In effect, Tiqcs' dispersal of

productive operations re-

quires a s rstern. of coordination and control. that is achieved largely through pioces.3es ofconcentration of central fu.nctIonsi.e,, planning, financial, rnanageriaL, legal, and accounting

functions necessary for the operation of

firms. These functions have been concentrated in developing countries. MS' push to glabalizetheir operations has been a strategic move to increase profits by using advantageous conditions

and factors of production and avoid stringent national and/or local regulations. While TNCS

have been suc-


13/29

cessful in reducing the powers of nation-states and their ability to regulate, they still need

systems of coordination and .regulationfal example, they still need the guarantee of property-

rights and contracts that allow commod-

5. This point has been stressed by a number of authors who have explored the globaliza.-

tion. of the economy and society. Employing the case of the North American garment industry,

Gereffi and his associates (Gereffi, Spener, and Bair 2002) argue that the development of global

production chains has been enhanced by the "opening" of the economies of less devel-

oped regions. In the case of the garment industry, the opening of the economies of Mexico and

other Central American countries, and the concomitant alaandonrrEent of "Fordise eco-

nomic measures, have facilitated the decentralization of production once carried out in the

1.1rLited States. The hypermobility of INC capital, therefore, is not simply the outcome of

corporate strategy but a much more complex proces-5 in which nation-states and their neoliberal

principles play a significant role,

ities and assets to be moved globally. These functions were once performed by the nation-state.

Today there is a tendency to transfer these organizational functions to private transnationalinstitutions and regimes that establish new forms of regulations heavily affected by liberalist

ideology.

Outlook

Globalization dois not automatically mean that the natioli-state is withering away. Globalphenomena do manifest themselves in national territory and are mediated by national institutions

and cultures. Additionally, the destabilization of sovereignty through denationalization of

territories does not signal an ovezall inability to control global processes. Sovereignty has beendecentralized and partialLy redistributed to other entities. Some of these entities are trarisnaiunal

political organizations such as the European Union, and sorne are international agreements and

processes such as the international agreements on human rights. Others are networks of smallergeographical entities such as cities. Because flexible *bat flows must and do materialize at the

local level, the centers where these materializations occur more frequently (i.e.., the global cities)

represent important new components of the global system, Owing to the fact that both

supranational organizations and networks are needed ior the continuous growth of capital_accumulation, it is at these levels that new farms of resistance and democratization can be and

ultimatety are developed.

47-50

The tuna-dolphin controversy covers a thirty-year struggle beLtween environ-


14/29

mental_ groups, transnationai. corporations (nics), tuna fishermen, and vaTi-

ous nation-states and_ supranational organizations to define the regulations of the easterntropicLit Pacific (ET) tuna fishery, The focus of the controversy is the Marine Mammal

Protection Act o! 1972 (MMPA). the "dolphin-safe' label on tuna calls is an outcome of this

strugg[e and the first ecolabet for fisheries products. This chapter traces the history of the tuna-dolphin controversy arid the resulting debate over M.MPA to make three analytical points !egar

ding globalization. The first is that globalization is characterized by the power aid growth of

TNCS. The tuna-dolphin controversy demonstrates that tuna TNCS exeIcised considerablepower in the industry and over the nation-state by taking advantage of the hypeimobility of

capital and using global sourc-

ing, Our point, however, is that despite the power of tuna 7Ncs, globalization is a contested

process, as resistance to TNCS emerged from various segments of the state and. from social

groups that operate from "betwvv.' in this case, different groups used their resources to advance

competing definnions re-

garding the regulation of the ETP tuna-dolphin fishery. These struggles have been carried out

within the nation-state, between nation-states, and in-

creasingly under the purview of supranationat trade organizations.

The second analytical point is that globalization limits the ability of the nation-state to carry out

its historical_ rotes. More specifically, globalization hinders the ability of the nation-state tomediate among relevant social

57

The third point deals with the consequences of globalization. Globalization has serious

implications for the welfare of workers and other subordinate groups. As the tuna industry

restructured to avoid. the MMFA regulations, thousands of tuna fisherman and processingworkers on the U.S. mainland, in Puerto Rico, and in Latin America lost their jobs. Additionally,

t he early success of the environmental movement as a countervailing force to the tuna TN cs

was compromised as the. environmentalist coalition split into "mainstream" and "grassroots.'

segments, The mainntream groups aligned themselves With the tuna industry, while thegrassroots groups remained committed to eliminating dolphin deaths associated with tuna

fishing. 58


15/29

Through the previous two stories of globalization, we established that the

dominant power of s ites is opposed by state action and weakened by internal

contradictions. In this chapter we continue to probe the power of sacs under

globalization by analyzing their ability to affect the functioning of the mar-

ket. More specifically, we attempt to shed some light on the often mentioned

ability of nose to organize global production in ways that affect the market

and avoid the regulatory actions of nation-states. 107

Because of

the emergence of rocs, the nation-state has been transformed into an instru-

ment of transnational capital and is therefore unable to regulate capitalism

(e.g., Akard 1992; Antonio and Bonanno 1996; Constance and Heffernan

1991; Ross and Teachte 1990; Sasser 1999; Yergin and Stanislaw 1998), As

we have seen in the preceding chapters, this point is illustrated by these

stories of globalization.109

In the 1990s ADM was one of the Leading food processors in the United States

and the world (Sorkin 1997); it remains so today (non 2006). one is in the

business of procuring. transporting, storing, processing, and selling agricul-


16/29

tural commodities and related products. Some of its major divisions are corn

processing, bioproducts, oils, produce, and grains, while its products include

vegetable and seed oils, hydroponically grown vegetables, Devoting agents,

sweeteners. animal feed, amino acids. and several other commodities.

..ADM'S main competitors in the lysine business are the Japan-based rats

Kyowa Hakko and Ajinomoto. Kyowa Hatch, and its U.S.-based subsidiary

Piokyowa, were the first companies to make lysine using the fermentation

process (Henkoff 1996). Kyowa Hakko is a major manufacturer of pharmaceu-

ticals, liquor, food, and chemical products, and one of the largest makers of

amino acids worldwide (Japan Economic Institute 1991). Ajinomoto is the leading supplies of

technical assistance for using feed-grade amino acids.

Ajinometo established its U.S. subsidiary, Heartland, in 1984 and opened its

main lysine plant in Iowa in 1986 (Heartland 1998).110-111

In the previous chapters we established that opposition to corporate actions

can come from the state, Although they are often controlled by soot, various

segments of the state have been able to contest corporate designs. Govern-

ments are not the only source of resistance to rues, however. In this and

the following two chapters we investigate resistance "from below," that is,

resistance generated by local social groups in response to the presence and

consequences of corporate operations.

...The case of Sanderson Farms is a good example of the community resistance that can arise

when the government lacks the capacity to mediate between contrasting interests.125


17/29

The state's assistance to Sand-

erson EL M S, its lack of support for the regulator of animal-feeding opera-

itons, and the inadequacy of its research into these and other issues reveal

the limits of local state agencies in mediating conflicting demands. The

opening of local communities to economic globalization has not been accom-

panied by institutions capable of buffering the unwanted consequences of

the growth of capitalism and controlling its most powerful actors. This situa-

iton can engender fierce resistance to the corporate globalization project.144

This chapter documents an episode of local resistance to the hypermobility of capital and global

sourcing. 141

Our choice of this case was motivated primarily by the fact that the timber

industry has been one of the most difficult arenas for the development of an

alliance between environmentalists and labor. This industry has historically

been the target of strong environmental protests, to which timber companies

have responded by threatening to fire workers who refused to oppose envi-

ronmentalists' goals. A common result has been conflict between labor and

environmentalists in the form of accusations, distrust, and often overt vio-

lence. 173


18/29

The vacuum created y this withdrawal of the state has been partially filled by non-governmental

orgs. This chapter addresses the establishment of an NGO, the Marine Steward191

this chapter addresses the estalishment of an ngo, the marine stewardship Council (msc), that was

created to certify that the commercial exploita-

tion of marine fish stocks was ecologically sound. The non was the product

of collaboration between an agnfood rat, Unilever, and one of the world's

largest environmental organizations, the World Wildlife fund for Nature

(wpm). Initiated by Unilever, the purpose of this collaboration was to create

an international organization that, through a formal certification process,

would guarantee that Unilever fish commodities, and fish products sold

through other venues, were produced following sound environmental prac-

tices. Motivated by consumer concerns and the reward of reduced govern-

ment oversight, Unilever proposed a certification model that would appease

critics and satisfy consumers. White broad segments of the business commu-

nity and environmental organizations praised the initiative, others protested

the MSC. This resistance made Unilevets commitment to buy only Hsc-certi-

if ed products by 2C1.05. difficult to fulfill and stresses the contested nature of

this initiative

In 1997 the United Rations Food and Agricultural Organization (tits) reported that more than 70

percent of the world's commercially important marine

ifsh stocks were overexploited, fully exploited, depleted, or recovering from

overexploitation. 191-192

In February 1996 Unilever and the wee announced the creation of a joint


19/29

venture called the Marine Stewardship Council, designed to create a global

system of sustainable fisheries. The msc would "provide powerful economic

incentives for sustainable well-managed fishing" (wart 1996a, 1) and thereby

"halt a catastrophic decline in the world's fish stocks by harnessing consumer

power" (Llunggren 1996). The goat of the msc was to link market incentives

to consumer preferences through a sustainable fisheries certification and

ecolabeling program.193

The msc was formally established in london in february 1997 as an idependent, not for-profit,non-governmental body. 195

At the time of the initiative the Whir was the world's largest private, non-

profit conservation organization, with 4.7 million supporters and a global

network of twenty-six national organizations, twenty-two grogram offices,

Eve associates, and thirty-five hundred employees worldwide (wise 19976)...

While the wive and Unilever may have had different motives, their shared

objective was to ensure the long-term viability of global fish populations.194

Cue concern about the use had to do with questions of equity. According to one observer, theagreement between the "powerful one and the famous international environmental organization"

seemed to have ignored the wel-

fare of the fisherpeople, in that the expansion of the European market, with a bias in favor of

industrial fisheries, has been the "major factor in the price slump which has affected the welfareof fishermen" (Samudra 1996e, 5).


20/29

198

Another concern was preserving the diversity of fishing traditions around the world; how would

the coo accomplish this? Some critics thought that the introduction of new ecoconditions onmarkets would benefit only well-off consumers in Europe, Japan, and the United States.

Consumers and 'arcs in those countries might be imposing their definition of a responsible

fishery on developing countries. The promotion of ecofriendly fish imports to devel-

oped countries whose food requirements had already been met, and the simultaneous neglect ofless developed countries' needs, hardly exemplified

the principles of sustainable development, critics charged (Saundra 1995e).198-199

...the call for "codes of conduct" and sustainable

fishing practices were but a "green mantle" adopted by those who were di-

rectly responsible for the fisheries crisis in the first place, a transparent

attempt to "deflect public rage at what has already occurred, while serving

to maintain the perpetrators in the future fishery."199

While in

democratic institutions each person has one vote, this is not the case in

market-dominated systems, especially in the Third World, where the history

of extreme economic inequality had undermined "blind faith" in the "al-

mighty market's ability to correct all economic and environmental ills" (Sa-

undra 1946d, 13). Global southerners understood that depleted fish stocks

were the result of First World industrial fishing techniques in Third World

waters. Moreover, because Unilever, one of the world's largest fish buyers,

would retain quasi-monopoly control over a large segment of the market,


21/29

many small-scale commercial ventures that did not fit into the hoc certifica-

tion process would very possibly be left out of the value-added ecolabeling

program. And since fish are an important export of many Third World counrties, their

governments were unlikely to openly support the msc.199

, the msc had no clear plan for addressing social issues in develeoping countries and expressedthe fear that the msc would develop its principles and policies in the north and then administer

them in the south. 200

The contract with Unilever, a major interna-

tional foods company, is another strong indication that it is a goad business

strategy. We look forward to signing more contracts." Unilever chairman An-

tony Burgreans also applauded the certification of the hold fishery....New Zealand hold is the

second fish with the tisc logo to be sold by Uni-

lever. 204

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Satiety reported that it was stunned

that the wee had denied the appeal and upheld certification despite acknowl-

edging that the fishery did not meet sustainability criteria. "The Hoki fishery

is one of New Zealand's most destructive fisheries and it is impossible to see

how it might he regarded as sustainable," said Barry Weeber. 206

While the roc started out by approving small, politically uncontroversial

fisheries such as the Thames herring fishery and the western Australian rock

lobster fishery, the certification of the New Zealand hold fishery proved to

he much more controversial (McCall 2003). In May 2001 the roc came under


22/29

increasing criticism from environmentalists for being a "cover for industrial fishing methods that

kill seals and seabirds, damage the seabed, and empty

the seas of scarce fish stocks." 207

The hoki controversy and the news of the nascent certification of the

Gulf of Alaska Pollack Fishery prompted environmentalists to question the independe3nce of the

MSC and the sustainibility of the hoki fishery once again. they maintained that the recent

campaign by unilever to get european consumers to replace cod with hoki was a cynical attempttoimprove unilever's profits...207-208

Later in 2004 the one faced increased criticism from several environmental

groups for its certification of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pollock fish-

eries, which accounted for about a third of all seafood landings in the United

States (Pemberton 2004). The groups argued that the certifying party had

ignored significant recent drops in Stellar sea lion populations and pollock

populations, especially in the Gulf of Alaska.209

A study of the use certification

of the South African Cape hake fishery sponsored by Trala (Trade Law Centre

for Southern Africa) noted that Unilever pursued certification as a source of

whitefish for "fish and chips" in response to the loss of confidence in the

qualify of the product from the New Zealand hoki fishery. The report concluded that the case

illutrated that 'ecolaeling not in the name of science and systemic management 209-210

Concluded that The case illustrated that ecolaeling is sought in the context of competitive

pressures, pol economies, and specific interpretations, not simply on the basis of value-free

science or systemic management alone.210


23/29

the msc is a prime example of what uttel calls a green ngo occupying the regulatory spaces

vacated y failures ofn the nation-state system...The case of the use does in fact provide evidencethat GICSin this case

Unilevercan co-opt their detractors and persuade them to embrace their

agenda and viStOT. Tees have shown that they can establish a Socially legiti-

mate system of standards that enhances capital accumulation while at the

same time giving the appearance of environmental sustainability and social

responsibility. The procorporate component of the km is dear. It is funded

by private foundations, staffed by previous members of the oven and Western

governments, and supported by the World Rank, which considers it a model

for other market transformation initiatives. In this view, the usr is an agent

that rationalizes and restructures both developing and developed nations'

economies by incorporating them into reo-dominated global investment and

consumption circuits, while appeasing critics with an environmentally...214

The Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development (rime) created the nor to provide a global system

for regulating foreign direct investment and thereby supporting global capi-

tal accumulation. It was designed to enhance the freedom of movement of

global capital and provide r "set of rights" for rocs in their dealings with host

countries. Renato Ruggeri of the woo describes the MAI as an early attempt

to write part of the "constitution for the single global economy." The ear


24/29

was quickly criticized as a "corporate bill of rights" and was challenged by a

broad-based coalition made up of ears and developing countries. Developing

countries saw the err as an attack on thou sovereignty, while 1140S main-

tained that the oar was an illegitimate attack on democracy and the sover-

eignty of nation-states that would result in a "race to the bottom" in

environmental and labor protection. The combination of internal conflict

among OECD countries and mounting challenges from outside NGOS and devel-

oping countries led to the abandonment of the omo-sponsorediniliative. The

"corporate bill of rights" agenda resurfaced quickly, however, this time as

the Multilateral Investment Agreement (tar) under the auspices of the WIO.

217

This case demonstrates that attempts at global governance of investment

regulations in support of global capital accumulation created a legitimation

crisis and gave rise to an organized antiglohalization movement. More spe-

cifically, it illustrates four points. First, the rear is a form of global gover-

nance advanced by supporters of the globalization project. Second, the oECeS

attempt at global governance was resisted at a variety of levels and in a

number of venues. Third, woos played a dominant role in representing the

interests of subordinate groups in opposition to the globalization project.

Finally, while the globalization of economy and society is proceeding, the

shape and form of the process is contested terrain, and the outcome is still


25/29

uncertain. 218

In 1996 the mai began to aTTRACT more criticism. First, the French filmmakers demanded a

cultural exemption to protect their industry from penetration y Hollywood. Thenrepresentatives of the developing world argued that their countries needed the ability to e

selective and set conditions on FDI and the actions of TNCsin December Indonesia announced

that it rejected the MAI, arguing that under the MAI it would be able to decide on the kinds of investment it wanted to pursue (Xinhua

News

1995). As more developing countries expressed their fear that the ear

would undermine their sovereignty, calls to move the negotiations to the

wee orMILS increased. As more information about the

nut became available, criticism grew. Friends of the Earth (Fes) attacked the

initiative, saying that the proponents of free trade and globalization ha d

turned to foreign investment as their next target for liberalization and de -

regulation. They warned that the MAI would open up all sectors of countries'

economies to eel, deny nations the right to differentiate between local and

foreign companies, ban performance requirements related to wages, environ-

mental compliance, and hiring locally, and allow xacs to challenge countries'

laws directly through its binding dispute-settlement process (Bleifuss 1997;

FOE 1997b). 221-222

The mai did not include provisions allowing governments to sue corporations or to counteranticompetitive business practices such as price-fixing (Bleifuss 1997). Critics argued that the

absence of these provi-

sions would have a "chilling effect" on environmental, health, and labor

legislation. 222-223

Fos also argued that the er, would pressure developing nations to agree

to a regulated system of global trade in which they had no input (FOE 1997b).

Such nations would be mole penetrable and could he held accountable for

infractions of thhe mai rules... the mai guaranteed unrestricted capital mobility..223


26/29

Although the mu had been the center of attention for ant/globalization ac-

tivists for seine time, the wro was beginning to attract increasing criticism,

especially in the developing world. The me was created during the Uruguay

Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in January 1995

for the purpose of reducing barriers to trade worldwide (Madeley 1999). The

wro, successor of the war, forms the "trade arm" of the triad of global eco-

nomic institutionsthe other two are the World Bank and the piecreated

at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, after World War II to regulate global socio-

economic development (Kraker and Dawkins 1999). Whereas the GATT was

voluntary and contained no enforcement mechanisms, membership in the

wee entails formal responsibilities to reduce trade barriers and a binding dis-

pute-resolution mechanism, By 1999 the woo had 134 member countries,

about one hundred of which felt into the category of "developing country'

(European Report 1999e).232

233 mai 1994 te olmesine karsin eu spurred a new initiative to negotiate the agreement in the wto

(GATT) ama india cua Pakistan Egypt Malaysia china gii ulekelr oppose etti 233

1999da seattle demonstration tens of thousands of antigloalization activiosts 234

Oxfam said that cancun failed ndue to the power and cohesion of developing countries 234

It can be argued that the osco-sponsored MAI was an attempt on the part


27/29

of the advanced countries and their neoliberal political regimes to formalize

and firm up same of the key rules of the globalization project, advancing

what au opponents called a "corporate bill of rights." ...The MAI story also demonstrates that as

the globalization project pro-

ceeds, redefining the role nation-states perform in coordinating socioeco-

nomic development, aura have emerged as powerful actors to fill some of the

space vacated by nation-states. In this caseunlike the case of the Marine

Stewardship Council (Chapter 8)oars have supported the interests of sub-

ordinate groups and challenged the legitimacy of the globalization project.

While environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth and populist

organizations like the Council of Canadians were early critics of the MAI,

the anti-mm coalition grew quickly to include hundreds of environmental,

consumer, labor, religious, developing country, and indigenous people's or-

ganizations_ The anti-mki actions of these moos were coordinated through the

Internet via the tent-see listserv. After the death of the MAI, the coalition

turned its attention to other perceived threats, such as the praa and the

The success of the sco-based antiglobalization movement in the nor case supports the view of

those who see moos as providing valuable avenues for democratic action in the face of thedeclining power of nation-states.

A point often made in this book is that the globalization project is met with ongoing resistance.236-237


28/29

The effectiveness the anti-nAr coalition notwithstanding, it is likely

that the deciding facto, in the demise of the mai was the inability of the

dominant OECD members, the United States and European Union, to agree on

the KAI parameters.....While the ear case does support the "corporate domination" thesis,

it pro-

vides stronger evidence in support of the "contradictory dimension of global-

ization" thesis. 238

The cases discussed in this book provide abundant evidence of the power

that TIM enjoy under globalization. In the stories of Fervors, ADM, Mazxam,

and other companies, we saw that incs exercise a great deal of control over

nation-states and those who resist them.Contrary to some of the most radical

interpretations of the tower of TNCs, their power is restricted y social moements. 241

The stories summarized in this volume also suggest that nos maintain a

contradictory relationship with nation-states, Although they attempt to by-

pass governmental laws and regulations and pressure governments to back

corporate agendas, race also need government assistance, both in the busi-

ness of making money and in attempting to justify their profit margins to

various segments of society. In essence, rocs ability to circumvent state laws

works only partially in their favor. ...The loss of state power is part of a broader crisis of the

nation-state, the

most relevant aspect of which is its reduced ability to legitimize globalized

social relations. The nation-state, in other words, is required to justify phe-


29/29

nomena that are increasingly outside its sphere of control. 242

The self-contradictory position of the nation-state is magnified by the fact that it is fragmented:

subordinate groups control some of its parts. Be

cause of this fragmentation, the class nature of the nation-state does not automatically translateinto its total subordination to the interests of domi-

nant groups. Indeed, this situation makes the nation-state the site of resis-

tance to dominant groups' designs, as the opposition of subordinate groups complicates the state's

legitimizing role.

It is important to stress that this situation does not translate automati-

cally into an overt crisis of legitimation. The economic expansion of the last

decade, IN& success in co-opting opposition, and the failure of alternative

projects like socialism have greatly contributed to the legitimation of the

status quo. 260-261

The crisis of the nation-state and the covert nature of the operations of transnational odies like

the WTO and iMF clash with the concept and practice of democratic popular particip[ation inpulic life.265

Documents

Bonanno Stories of Gloalization