Upload
u-cant-see-me
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
1/26
ASSIGNMENT:
1. Compare the importance of
a.) Nationalism Regionalism
b.) Regionalism Globalization
c.) Globalism Religionalization
THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIONALISM
The second question - that of importance - is seemingly the easiest question to
answer. Nationalism has been used to explain earth-shattering events such as the
break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and most recently the Soviet Union -
just to mention a few examples. Moreover, it is not just a force of the past; the Kurds,
the Basques, the Palestinians, and many other groups and conflicts testify to the
continued importance of nationalism. In sum, nationalism has behavioural
consequences which makes it well worth closer examination.
Still, it is possible to argue that factors other than nationalism was, and is, the
driving force behind the events ascribed to nationalism in the paragraph above. Maybe
economic variables best explain the collapse of the Soviet Union? Maybe religious
factors were more important than nationalism in the break-up of the Ottoman empire?
Maybe the Palestinian movement is best understood in term of the personal interests of
an elite?
Connor disagrees:
Explanation of behaviour in terms of pressure groups, elite ambitions, and
rational choice theory hint not at all the passions that motivate Kurdish, Tamil, and Tigre
guerrillas or Basque, Corsican, Irish, and Palestinian terrorists. Nor at the passions
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
2/26
leading to the massacre of Bengalis by Assamesc or Punjabis by Sikhs. In short, these
explanations are a poor guide to ethnonationally inspired behaviour (p. 74)
Thus, Connor argument is that explanations in terms of relative economic
deprivation, elite theory, and rational choice are falsified by historical experience.
History shows that nations demand independence regardless of their economic situation
compared to the rest of the state. The Basque are better off than the rest of Spain; the
Irish were worse off than the rest of the United Kingdom. History, Connor claims, also
shows that religious and class bonds are weaker than ethnic ties. Witness, for instance,
the failure of Lenin's call to the working class not to participate in World War I, and the
failure of religious leaders to prevent Christians from fighting Christians in the same war
(p. 156). Finally, focusing on the elite cannot explain why the masses so readily acceptthe message of nationalism. True, the elite may exploit, and manipulate nationalist
feelings, but surely there must be something to be exploited in the first place. In short,
alternative factors are not powerful enough - we need to examine nationalism in order to
explain important historic events.
If the importance of nationalism is beyond doubt, its precise nature, its
relationship to other concepts (such as the state), its causes, its consequences, and its
future are more debated. Moreover, in order to say that nationalism was, and is, an
important facto in shaping history we must at the very least have a rough idea about
what nationalism is. This is the topic to which I now turn.
What is nationalism?
According to Connor, a "nation consists of a group of people who believe they
are ancestrally related" (preface, xiv). Nationalism, in turn, is defined as "loyalty to the
ethnic group" (p. 40). Loyalty in this context implies willingness to sacrifice, for instance
being willing to give your life to defend the group in a war. This definition of nationalism
should be sharply distinguished from patriotism (loyalty to the state). In relatively
homogeneous societies - like Germany, Japan and Norway - the two are easily
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
3/26
confused, but in multi-ethnic societies there are many examples of conflicts between
loyalty to your ethnic group and loyalty to the state.
Having defined a nation and nationalism, Connor goes on to examine the causes
and the nature of these concepts. Why, for instance, do we believe that we are
ancesterally related to the members of our nation. The cause of this belief cannot be
rational evaluation of evidence, since the factual basis for arguing that, say, all Germans
descend from a common German Eve is clearly empirically false (p. 217). How, then, do
we explain why people believe in the myth of the nation and are nationalists?
One possible explanation is evolution. To explain this allow me to recall an
observation from Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene (I here rely on my fallible
memory). Lengthy observation of a bird colony established the following facts: A bird-
mother would almost always risk her life defending her children against an intruder. A
uncle, however, was less frequently willing to risk his life to protect a single child,
although he was more inclined to do so when the lives of two or three children were at
stake. Finally, even more distant relatives would only defend the children if more than
four lives were threatened. In short, the closer the DNA resemblance, the more the bird
were willing to sacrifice. Why should this be so? The obvious answer is evolution. A
species with a DNA code that told it to sacrifice its life defending everybody - even other
species - would become extinct. In the same way, one might speculate whether human
willingness to make sacrifices for your relatives (real or imagined) can be explained by
evolution.
Connor does not speculate on the evolutionary causes of nationalism. He simply
notes that "its well-spring remain shadowy and elusive" (p. 92). Moreover, the precise
nature of the bond is also elusive, although in general Connor argues that "the national
bond is subconscious and emotional rather than conscious and rational in its inspiration"
(preface, xiii).
I have so far presented Connor's definition of nationalism and his discussion of
its nature and its causes. This leaves maybe the most important topic: The link between
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
4/26
nationalism and the events claimed to be caused by nationalism (like the collapse of
Empires). Exactly how did the ethnic bonds between people lead to, for example, the
collapse of Austria-Hungary?
Being a strong believer in methodological individualism, I want to explain events
by reference to the individuals who were involved. The key question is thus what forces
make an individual behave as he does. The most parsimonious answer to this question
- that employed by economists - is rational selfishness. In short, people do what they
think is best for themselves. In this perspective, only two main variables explain
behaviour: aims and beliefs. Of course, one might go further - as sociologists often do -
to try to explain the aims and beliefs we have. For instance, there are hot and cold
mechanisms that shape our beliefs, and our preferences are also shaped by variousmechanisms. Wishful-thinking is an example of hot belief-formation (beliefs influenced
by what we want to be true); Incorrect beliefs about the distance to an object when the
weather is good is an examples of cold belief-formation (beliefs influenced by
systematic cognitive mistakes); and sour-grapes is an example of preference formation
(that we do not want what we cannot get). Regardless of whether we try to explain
preferences and beliefs, the key to the economist approach is the prediction that of all
the possible actions an individual faces, he will choose the one that he believes is best
at satisfying his aims. Using this frame, rational choice theorists have lately invaded
political science. My question is then: Where nationalism fit into this picture (if at all).
Being loyal to your ethnic group, Connor's definition of nationalism, is not a belief
- nor is it an aim. Instead, it seems to be an action inspired by emotions (the bond we
feel to those we believe are our relatives). And emotions are not the only factor causing
problem for the narrow economic view of man. Another factor is norms which influence
behaviour without being an aim or a belief. For instance, rational-choice theory cannot
explain why people vote (the effort is simply not worth the small amount of influence
from one vote), while norms of duty ("it is my duty to vote") may explain voting. In sum,
to the question of what drives human beings we can give three main forces: Interests,
passions and reason. [For more on this distinction see Jon Elster (1996): Doing our
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
5/26
level best, The Times Literary Supplement, 29. March, pp. 12-13. Also available from
The Jon Elster Page at URL: www.geocities.com/hmelberg/elster.htm]
Interests are our selfish desires, and it is relatively obvious that our behaviour is
motivated by this factor - for instance, consumer behaviour. That we are motivated by
passions, should also be relatively obvious. For example, revenge and hate are rarely
rational, although often a powerful motivator for behaviour. Lastly, reason can be
associated with impartial rules: We want to have good reasons for our actions and we
feel that these reasons should go beyond pure self-interests. The reason we vote is
neither interests, nor passions, but that we think it is the right think to do.
What is the proper role of nationalism in this extended frame? As mentioned,
Connor believes nationalism is an action associated with an emotion. Emotions, in
general, have what one might call 'action tendencies'. As Jon Elster writes: " The first
urge of the envious person is to destroy the object of his envy or, if that is impossible, to
destroy its owner. The action tendency of shame is to hide or disappear; that of guilt, to
make atonements and repairs; that of anger, to strike: that of fear, to run; that of joy, to
dance." [Elster (1996), Rationality and the emotions, Economic Journal(September
1996), vol. 106 (438), pp.1386-1397. Also available from the Jon Elster Page.] The
'action tendency' of feeling related to a person, then, must be to protect and advance
that person; or more generally, to advance and protect the group.
Let me now return to the original question: What is the link - the causal
connections - between nationalism and the events ascribed to nationalism? Building a
new state can, in part, be viewed as facing a series of prisoner dilemma's problems. As
an example of this problem, consider the defence of a community. Could the community
be defended without a central authority with the power to coerce people? Without a
central authority, each individual would have to face the following question when a
potential danger loomed on the horizon: Should I leave my family and defend the
community? (Or, should I leave my family to fight for a new state?) Assume the payoffs
can be visualised in the following figure:
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
6/26
Pal
Fight Not fight
Fight 7, 7 1, 10
Igor
Not fight10, 1 3, 3
The motivation behind these payoffs is that if none of us fight, we will end up in a
relatively bad situation (occupied, but alive; everybody gets 3). If only Igor fights there is
a high probability that he will die, but he will also defend the country so Pal can live in
freedom (so, Igor's expected payoff is 1, while Pal gets 10: freedom and no fighting). If
both fight, they greatly reduce the probability of dying, and the expected payoff to each
is 7 (fighting is costly, but liberty is good).
What will Pal and Igor choose? A rational and selfish person, say Igor, would
reason as follows: If Pal fights, it is best for me not to fight (I get 10 instead of 7). Now, if
Pal chooses not to fight, it is also best for me not to fight (I get 3 instead of 1). So,
whatever Pal chooses it is best for Igor not to fight, and this is what he will choose. But
the same reasoning applies to Pal, whatever Igor does, it is most profitable for him not
to fight, so this is what he will do. The end result is that both choose not to fight and they
both get 3 in payoff. The paradox, of course, is that they could have done much better if
they both had fought (get 7 each). But this solution is not available, if one person
chooses to fight the other has an incentive to cheat - to avoid fighting, to make the other
person carry the burden while you free ride. This shows how individual rationality can
create collectively disastrous results.
What is the solution to this problem? If a state is created with the power to punish
those who cheat, this will change the payoffs so as to make it profitable to fight. In this
way the state can solve the problem of the prisoner's dilemma (as it is called).
Moreover, defence is not the only example of a how individual rationality may create
collectively disastrous results. To mention a few examples: Individually fishermen have
an incentive to fish too much; factories an incentive to over-pollute; and people an
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
7/26
incentive to under-invest in prevention of epidemics. Faced with these problems most
countries have opted for some kind of state intervention.
In what way does nationalism affect the story above? Recall that Connor defines
nationalism in terms of willingness to make sacrifices for the group. Within my frame,
there are at least two ways of visualising this. First, to say that people will choose to
fight even when it is not in their material interests. Second, to argue that being a
nationalist changes that payoffs, so that it makes fighting more profitable - for instance
by including psychic gains from fighting on behalf of your group. In any case, the point is
that ethnic bonds between people can make the co-operative solution more likely since
it makes individuals more willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the group. This shows a
more detailed picture of how nationalism can explain the collapse of empires: Asnationalism grows in new nations, more and more people become willing to make the
sacrifices necessary to fight for nationhood - scarifies that are individually not profitable
but because of nationalism people are no longer propelled solely by selfish and material
cost-benefit considerations.
Can nationalism be studied scientifically?
A person can accept that nationalism is both important and roughly definable,
but still doubt the utility from studying nationalism. This, of course, depends on the aim
of our study. Three such aims are: to explain (historical events), to predict (future
events) and to recommend (finding policies to deal with nationalism).
One reason why focusing on nationalism may run into problems on all three
accounts, is that explanations based on emotions are very hard to quantify. Consider
the following competing arguments:
1. "Person X did Y since his aim was to become rich and action Y was believed
to earn him $1000"
2 "Person X did Y because his emotions made this the most profitable actions"
(Or, "because his emotions made him do Y")
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
8/26
The first argument can be tested, since it is possible to examine what the person
would do if he received less than $1000 to do Y (e.g. give less blood the less you are
paid). The second argument has a circular quality (everything can be explained by
saying that "he felt like doing it"), and it is much more difficult to test. The monetary
payoffs are observable, the emotional payoffs are not. This is one reason why
explanations based on emotions may be less reliable than rational choice explanations.
Lack of quantifiability, and lack of a formal mathematical model, also makes
predictions difficult. Rational choice supporters, on the other hand, have the advantage
that they can make predictions based on the "as-if" assumption. That is, when they
make predictions they need not assume that people actually are rational, only that they
behave "as-if" they were rational. For instance, if we were to predict the shot and angleof a pool-player, we might find that a quite complicated mathematical model accurately
predicts the strength and angle of his shot, but we need not claim that the pool player
actually goes through these calculations in his head before he makes the shot. There is,
I think, no similar argument available to make predictions based on emotional
behaviour.
Finally, policy recommendations may also be best when we use a framework
based on the belief that people respond to material incentives. For example, assume
that you want to reduce the crime rates in a country. Two alternative proposals are then
put forth:
1. To try to change people's norms and attitudes
2. To increase the sanctions (e.g. increase tickets for speeding)
The effect of these measures do not only depend on whether people are
motivated by norms or rational cost/benefit calculations when they commit crimes, but
also on the ease, predictability and relative efficiency of changing norms vs. incentives.
One may even admit that emotions are very important in certain kinds of crime, but as
long as there is some element of cost-benefit considerations the net payoff from
focusing on changing the incentives may be much larger than the net payoff from trying
to change attitudes. The simple reason is that it is hard to change attitudes (since the
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
9/26
causal mechanisms are relatively uncertain, and - moreover - it may take a long time
and be very costly), while it is easy to change the sanctions.
Return now to the original question: To what extent can nationalism be studied
scientifically? I have so far made general arguments to the effect that the lack of
quantifiability and precise models makes this study difficult - whether your aim is to
explain, to predict or to recommend. In the following I want to make this argument a bit
more precise, as well as discussing Connor's arguments on the possibility of scientific
study of nationalism.
On several occasions Connor seems very sympathetic to the argument that
nationalism cannot be studied scientifically. For instance, he discusses an article by
Ladis Kristof to the effect that: "Dissection and logic, even in concert, may prove not
only inadequate but misleading when applied to the study of sensory loyalties" (p. 112).
Similarly, he quoted Freud who writes about "many obscure and emotional forces,
which were the more powerful the less they could be expressed in words" (p. 203).
Finally, Connor himself writes that "... nations, national identity, and nationalism are 'the
stuff that dreams are made of,' and this helps to account both for their emotional appeal
and for their resistance to rational inquiry" (p. 210).
This does not imply that the study of nationalism is worthless. As Connor argues,
nationalism "can be analysedbut not explained rationally" (p. 204, my emphasis). By
analysed, he means that it is possible to examine "the type of catalysists to which it
responds ..." (p. 204). In short, what factors make nationalism grow or decline, and what
factors shape its form. This kind of examination is possible within a "normal" scientific
frame, using historical examples, surveys and statistics.
I am not too convinced by the argument that emotions are resistant to rational
investigation. Too see why we must distinguish between rational (or scientific)
investigation and explanations based on rational choice. Given a set of evidence, I may
rationally conclude that a person was motivated by love (or hate) when he did X.
Rationality or scientific investigation, is then simply a way of evaluating evidence. There
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
10/26
is nothing inherently impossible in "rationally" concluding that people sometimes are
"irrational" - in fact there is a great deal of evidence which points in this direction (see,
for instance, experiments by Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky).
Conclusion
I started with the question of why I should be interested in nationalism. While I
think nationalism both has important consequences, and that it is possible to gain a
rough understanding of what it is, I am less certain whether a focus on nationalism is
"useful" if the aim is to find reliable scientific theories that can be used to shape policy.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that we after much work have a "scientifically" good
argument that the situation in Kazakhstan would improve if they started to follow the
civic model of national integration. The problem, of course, is that the elite need not bemotivated by the "scientifically" best policy, but simply by more brute considerations of
what is best for the elite and how they can maintain their power. In sum, I am not yet
convinced that the study of nationalism is useful from a policy perspective, but I am
more convinced that it is important from a historian's standpoint - to explain historical
events. However, even there doubts remain about its reliability. But, then again, no
explanation is certain!
THE IMPORTANCE OF REGIONALISM
In "New Regionalism: How Globalization Reorders the Three Worlds
of Development," Reynolds provides an intellectual methodology for
focusing beyond national macroeconomic policy so that the particular
policy needs of localities and regions can be analyzed and addressed.
The article highlights the importance of local and regional institutions
and political, financial and civic leaders. It encourages their inclusions
in policy making. It emphasizes the interdisciplinary factors involved in
development economics analysis and policy making at the local and
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
11/26
regional level.
"Regions are endowed with different cultures, historical backgrounds,
climates, proximity to national and world markets, and endowments of
natural resources. Increased international exchange and the regional
integration of national economies may well cause clashes among
cultures, races, gender groups, workers and management, regional
versus national authorities, and those who espouse different economic
systems.
The "Three
Worlds" of
globalization:
The three worlds of Cold War analytical discourse
have thankfully become irrelevant with the end of that
conflict.
&
The current world
order has divided
itself in general
terms into three
segments based
on "a new pattern
of international and
interregional
economic
stratification"
similarly useful for
current analytical
discourse.
There is a clear new pattern now, Reynolds points out.
This current world order has also divided itself in general
terms into three segments based on "a new pattern of
international and interregional economic stratification"
similarly useful for current analytical discourse. These
three segments "show patterns ofconvergence and
divergence among nation states and their subregions."
&
The Cold War "First World" remains - defined now by its
advanced economic and political development. However,
the nonaligned Cold War "Third World" has divided into
those nations that to some substantial extent have aligned
themselves with globalization and the processes of
economic development and those that in general terms do
not participate in any meaningful way in international
commerce and thus fail to develop economically or
politically. The Cold War Soviet bloc "Second World" has
disappeared - its constituent parts similarly spinning off
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
12/26
into these two economic development spheres - some
even migrating into the European Union and eventual
"First World" status.
&
For purposes of analysis, Reynolds regroups these
nations from the Cold War second and third worlds into a
postwar grouping of "Second World" developing nations
and "Third World" nations with little or no participation in
international commerce and thus little or no economic
development. (These Third World nations remain
chronically undeveloped despite decades of massive aid
flows and hectoring advice from international institutions.)&
He then goes several steps further to group localities and
regions into these categories to facilitate consideration of
Third World regions and localities that may exist even
within and across the borders of First World and Second
World nations. Similarly, there are localities within
economically Third World nations that rate Second World
or even First World status. Reynolds mentions many
examples - most noteworthy the differences among
regions and localities within China, India and Mexico.
&
The "New Regionalism" is offered by Reynolds in the
hope that identification of Third World regions and
localities within Second World and even First World
nations will help focus analysis and direct policy
responses appropriate to their needs. It is his hope that
First World assistance and creativity will find ways of
encouraging the development of the "enterprise, civil
society and good governance" needed by Third World
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
13/26
nations in place of the coercive and populist governance
they currently suffer from.
&
The good news is that the economic First World
continues to widen. "High income/high productivity"
regions now include even "enclaves of prosperity" in
emerging nations, as well as in areas of Russia, eastern
Europe, eastern China, major parts of Japan, and in Hong
Kong and Singapore.
&
More good news is found in the increasing ranks of the
economic Second World. These "emerging marketregions" include large parts of eastern China, some key
provinces in India, sections of Mexico's northern states
and a few other of its subregions, and areas of Brazil, and
Argentina, among others.
&
But there is still a disappointing Third World - still falling
behind - still failing to participate in international
commerce - and still continuing to lack the political,
economic and societal essentials for the development of
prosperous market systems. Typically, in these states, the
politically influential flourish, rent-seeking activities are
widespread, and the people's commerce is of little or no
concern to government.
"[Political] elites and private wealth-holders who capturea large share of the growth dividend often operate out of
short-term self-interest rather than long-term stability and
sustainability. They fail to address the needs of those in
the developing regions of their own countries -- part of
today's 'New Third World' -- just as the beneficiaries of
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
14/26
globalization in the First World tend to ignore those who
lag behind at home as well as abroad."
The importance of competent, "far-sighted"
leadership is stressed by Reynolds. Governments must
not only facilitate commerce at the national level, they
must analyze and overcome particular barriers to
participation and the financial obstacles within their
subregions. They must cushion the adverse impacts of
change to defuse opposition. Reynolds mentions as an
example the allocation of funds from rapidly developing
eastern regions in China for construction of railroad links
in the western provinces.
"The old school of development economics no longer
commands center stage, having made its major
contributions during the period of post-World War II
reconstruction and the Cold War. The new approach must
factor in regional differences in comparative advantage
based on different endowments of natural and humanresources, social access, technological know-how and the
limitations that arise when a labor-abundant region subject
to a dominant currency can't devalue to match its lower
productivity."
Reynolds mentions some of the myriad policy areas
that may need attention by particular nations and regions.
These include agricultural protectionism, aging
populations, declining industries, minority groups and
migrant workers, macroeconomic constraints and policies,
education and physical infrastructure, tax policy, access to
national and global markets, access to financial capital,
institutional and cultural change, safety net provisions to
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
15/26
cushion the problems inevitable with rapid change, and
much more.
&
Globalization is a complex, many faceted economic
structure. Productivity governs demand - today's
production provides value for yesterday's savings - both
productivity and production increasingly rely on an
interdependent global market system. And as always,
human capital is the vital ingredient that provides the
"entrepreneurship, creativity, leadership, and hard work"
that makes the system function.
"Cultures matter as well, and history, and the psychology
of expectations. So entrepreneurship must be cultural as
well as economic, and politics must reflect a broader
spectrum of interest, even though this may slow the
process of exchange. Solutions in a second-best world
must be second-best."
Each locality and
region has its own
peculiar mix of
advantages and
disadvantages that
must be addressed
with suitable mixes
of policies.
The unequal nature of the global economic advance
is emphasized by the author. Each locality and region has
its own peculiar mix of advantages and disadvantages
that must be addressed with suitable mixes of policies.
Indeed, that is the reason that he developed the "New
Regionalism" analytical framework.
"Each region has its own character, resources, and
conditions of supply and demand that determine its
economic potential. But the long-term competitiveness of
a region may differ sharply from its short-term conditions.
A region's long-term potential can be transformed into
short-term competitiveness -- long term comparative
advantage becomes short-term competitive advantage --
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
16/26
by the right mix of technology, entrepreneurship, risk-
taking finance, and public policy to provide the necessary
economic and social infrastructure."
Revenue sharing is an important policy tool, but can
easily be overdone.
"Russia and Argentina provide examples of the noxious
impacts when all or most revenues for regional
governance come from the central government.
Separation of local and regional spending authority from
the responsibility for revenue generation can destroy the
incentive for conscientious efforts by local and regional
officials to facilitate local and regional commerce."
Risk-taking should properly be left in private hands.
Government should not pick winners and losers. However,
government and non-government organizations at local
and regional level have vital roles in coordinating
business, labor and community interests, facilitating the
people's commerce, and attending to the financial, fiscal
and infrastructure needs of backwards regions.
"For those
economies that
wish to enter the
global race to
prosperity it isnecessary to open
up access in terms
of laws and
institutions that
"This is where an inclusive approach to development
economics meets the new regionalism. It requires
cooperation and far-sighted planning to provide education,
infrastructure, access to technology, credit, and
information about future opportunities at home and abroad-- including other regions in the same nation state."
Migration policy is an obvious area where national policy
must be tailored to suit regional and local conditions.
Reynolds points out, for example, that NAFTA fails to
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
17/26
provide the basis
for those
enterprises that
prove able to take
advantage of the
expanding world
market."
consider local and regional factors, but this omission is
mitigated somewhat by cross-border cooperation among
civil authorities, employers and labor organizations.
"Much depends on access to the market and on
institutions that ensure a level playing field for those in a
world that looks flat but is really uneven. Access is
everything. For those economies that wish to enter the
global race to prosperity it is necessary to open up access
in terms of laws and institutions that provide the basis for
those enterprises that prove able to take advantage of the
expanding world market.
Small businesses and large businesses play a role, as
well as foreign investment and mergers to help access
markets. Innovation, branding, and the ability to access
expanding global demand are among the ways that firms
enjoy sufficient receipts to earn increasing profits, pay
higher wages, improve the quality of products, innovate,and provide safeguards for the environment - "and avoid
the pitfalls of 'commodity hell' -- in which all goods and
services are reduced to generic commodities, and the
entrepreneur is relegated to a bureaucrat."
"In this paper I call for legal and institutional change to
spread the benefits of growth more broadly and to open
access to all. But there is immense skepticism about
political regimes that are slow to act for interests other
than their own, about cultures that reinforce stagnation
and repression, and appeals to traditional values that
foster reaction."
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
18/26
Fortunately, prosperity has enabled the beneficiaries of
First World prosperity to entertain philanthropic
tendencies and concerns for the less fortunate. But that
concern must be guided by analysis with a regional and
even a local focus if it is to generate effective assistance
policies.
THE IMPORTANCE OF GLOBALIZATION
A famous economist, Joseph Schumpeter, once discussed the nature of
capitalism. To him, capitalism is creative destruction, a way of responding to major
waves of technological change. The United States has represented the incarnation of
this ideal and will continue to do so in the future. Capitalism relies on the free flow of
information and goods. This is key not only to domestic economies but to the global
economy as a whole. This week there will be a meeting of both the IMF and the World
Bank. Just as Seattle was lined with protesters that did much to hamper any progress
that could be made at the WTO meeting last November, protests are planned at the IMFand World Bank meetings.
Most protestors come with a purpose; to protect the environment, to prevent
child labor, to protect industries. Others claim that globalization will exploit weaker
nations or steal markets from the richer. The sad thing about all of this is that the
protests do little to aid their causes and in most cases, actually end up hurting the world
in general. To see what I mean, let me give my take on each of these issues.
(Granted, I am strongly biased in my opinion.)
The environment. Let me start off on the right foot, I strongly believe in
protecting the environment, and I hope I can make this evident. Increasing trade will
hurt the environment. Where's the argument? Businesses tend to hurt the
environment so we should make sure that growing nations like China will not grow so
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
19/26
they won't hurt their environment. There is some truth to this argument. The industrial
revolution in Britain churned up so much smoke and soot that the trees were lined with
black soot. It had disastrous effects for the environment and for the health of the
English population. What happened? Progress happened, simply put,and the British
passed a certain level of income. This development led them to stop worrying about the
bare necessities like food and clothing, and they began concerning themselves with
other goods such as clean air and water (yes clean air and water can be thought of as
goods; they are called public goods.). Economists can show that for pretty much every
country, this is true. Once individuals in the country reach a certain level of income
(now it is around 4-5 thousand), they began to spend more on public goods. It makes
intuitive sense that if I can provide for my family, I am more willing to spend to protect
the environment. This trend pushes the idea that we should allow all nations free
access to the global economy so that they can grow and develop. The richer a nation
is, after this 4,000 to 5,000 income level, the more concerned it will become about
protecting the environment. Therefore it is vital that the developed nations aid the
undeveloped through freer markets.
What about child labor and the world's poor? Globalization is not to blame for
the domestic policies of one nation. The Chinese government should be responsible for
making sure that its citizens are safe and healthy. Trade is often used as a bargaining
chip, but what people don't realize is that it's a costly chip. Not only for the US, but for
the world's poor as well. Why use economic sanctions and trade barriers to force a
government to change its domestic policies towards the impoverished? These
sanctions themselves hurt the poor. I am not a politician, but there has to be a better
way. In a recent article, the Economist magazine was quoted as saying, "Governments
are apologizing for globalization and promising to civilize it. Instead, if they had any
regard for the plight of the poor, they would be accelerating it, celebrating it, exulting in it
- and if all that were too much for the public, they would at least be trying to explain it."
(Which is what I am attempting to do.)
Capitalism is creative destruction. Some industries are inefficient, and
sometimes resources are re-allocated with freer flows of trade. What people have to
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
20/26
realize is that international trade doesn't represent a threat, it represents an
opportunity. Short term losses are always outweighed by the long term gains from
trade. This opportunity is for increased gains from trade and a more efficient and
productive economy. This is not a new concept. It was introduced hundreds of years
ago by a man named David Ricardo as comparative advantage, and today it is the
cornerstone of all international economics. The idea is simple, that increased trade will
lead to higher productivity and more prosperity.
Often the argument is made that globalization exploits developing nations or
globalization will hurt the developed countries as jobs will be lost to cheaper working
competitors. Ross Perot mentioned a "great sucking sound" as NAFTA would cause
US jobs to make a run for the border. NAFTA's been around. Neither Mexico nor theUS has experienced either of these two effects. In fact, the economic effects of NAFTA
have been positive, if anything. Economics can show that freer trade, if it has any
effect, will have a positive effect for both nations. Developing nations, where economic
growth is so important, especially should gain from freer trade.
International cooperation is key to the success of the world's economy. The
purpose of this article is to attempt to dispel some misinformation in one of the most
pressing economic issues of the day. Globalization is a source of progress and not
harm. Countries are nothing but lines on a map. People are people, and there's no
reason why in today's world a large proportion of the world's 6 billion should have to live
below the poverty line.
THE IMPORTANCE OF GLOBALISM AND REGIONALISM
Two major trends are affecting the international economic system today:
globalization on one side, and regionalization and regionalism on the other side.
Much literature has so far studied the interaction between these two attitudes in the
international politico-economic framework. This interaction is indicative of a significant
factor which has greatly affected the developments in the world economic order,
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
21/26
particularly after the World War II and the Uruguay Round.
In this article we attempt to identify the strategic interrelation between globalization and
regionalization. The main question here is: What impact has the globalization process
had on the regionalization of economic relations? Will the developments caused by
regionalization accelerate the globalization process, or slow it down?
Any analysis of the economic globalization should be made in the framework of
an international system, emerged after the Cold War; because following that period all
international issues are looked into from an international perspective which is much
different from the past.
New Wave of Regionalization: Major expansive political, economic and
technological developments in the world have caused new definitions to be set forth for
economic and trade growth which is driven by the attitude to regionalize economic
relations among nations.
These developments include interdependence at international level;
international productivity; end of militarism and the bipolar strategy; emergence of an
international tripolar trade system with its centers in Europe, Southeast Asia and
America; and the extensive economic and political presence of new industrial nations.
After the Cold War, globalization prompted countries to enter into regional groupings in
a bid to gain a more economic maneuver power.
The first wave for regionalization of trade and economic relations after the
World War II emerged in Europe. The United States fully supported this trend in 1950s
in the framework of the multilateral hegemonic orderwhich it initiated after the War.
Since 1980s and especially in 1990s a new, growing wave of regionalizing trade and
economic relations emerged both in industrial and developing countries in form of
NAFTA, APEC and other regional pacts. At a theoretic level, regionalization can be
viewed in various ways:
1. As a reaction against globalization of economy
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
22/26
2. As a preliminary phase in globalizing foreign trade and economic relations and to
accelerate the world economic unification
3. As a strategic choice (for the US) vis--vis the problems that international economic
development system has created.
Globalization Vs. Regionalization: Some economic and political experts
believe that globalization is related to a set of international elements which accelerate
the interaction and interdependence between governments and also between civil
societies at the politico-economic international system.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that
globalization is mainly indicative of a trend which includes the development of
international trade and foreign direct investments, growing internationalization of
monetary, financial and credit markets and also the growth and development of foreign
capital markets.
In this perspective, globalization of economy is referred to as sectorial
economic unification process which necessitates a deep interpenetration of national
economies and also a direct advanced competition between them.
MacEwan states in Between Globalization and Nationalism, Socialist Register that the
globalization of economy is moving toward development and more expansive, free
international distribution without any limitation in trade and economic relations.
However, economist Paul Krugment defines globalization as opening of the national
markets to international trade.
In order to explain how to benefit from globalization, it is assumed that free
transfer of economic resources including capital, labor and also competition will
encourage economic and technological cooperation between economic systems of
participating countries.
Many definitions have so far been proposed for the process of regionalization of
trade and economy. Some authors believe that this process is initiated in a specific
geographical area between countries which have accepted common values among
themselves and base their foreign economic relations and policies on these accepted
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
23/26
values. Seeking a common identity could be another motive for countries which
regionalize their economies. These countries have a feature in common: They adopt
discriminatory privileges and procedures against non-member countries.
In a general perspective, regional settings are based on the followings:
1. Gaining interest through increasing incomes and more effective regional production
system
2. Achieving more political and economic power in negotiating with other regional
groupings, and
3. Facilitating economic and political cooperation in the framework of regional unions.
Finally, various forms of regional settings include:
1. Joint ventures in specific manufacturing sectors
2. Free economic zones
3. Customs unions
4. Common markets
5. Economic and political unions
The birth of WTO has been a giant stride toward globalization of economy and
trade, but despite this success, many blows have been exerted on the collective and
multilateral liberalized trade as basis for free world economy by the new wave of
regionalization.During the 1980s and especially in 1990s the growing partnership between
countries both industrial and developing has played a major role in creation of new
regional economic blocs.
It can now be concluded that undermining pluralism and multilateral system in
the world economic negotiations and the growing rise of regional economic and trade
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
24/26
ties indicate a sort of resistance against globalization. Meanwhile, the interaction
between regionalism and globalization are quite obvious, but very complicated. In other
words, in spite of the fact that eye-catching progress has been made toward further
regionalization of economic ties, the trend of globalization is a much powerful and
nonstop preference at international level, specifically in financial and monetary
structures as well as manufacturing.
Impact of Globalization on Economic Regionalization: The viewpoints of experts
regarding the positive and negative impacts of globalization on regionalization of
economic ties are quite mixed. Advocates of globalization argue that this trend can bring
the underdeveloped and developing economies in a united trade system in which
members are equal and do not sustain any discrimination. Thus globalization canencourage the benefits of trade for both developed and developing countries.
It should not be forgotten that the level of positive effects of globalization by both groups
of countries totally depends on the competitiveness and economic power of them,
meaning that industrial countries are the first who would get the benefits of globalization
while poorer countries may sustain great losses as a result. Therefore, globalization
may bring about two completely opposite phenomena: encouraging economic and
political unification of countries into an international system and escalation of economic,
political and social instability in member countries.
The resistance of vulnerable countries which are at a lower level in terms of
power and competitiveness would appear in form of regional economic associations.
Advocates of regionalization are seeking to somehow reduce the above-said negative
impacts of globalization. Regionalization is aimed at preserving the economic power,
national and regional competitiveness of countries which have felt to be threatened by
globalization.
Regional resistance movements are especially supported and encouraged by
national beneficiary groups and companies which cannot match their foreign rivals in
terms of competitiveness.
In another viewpoint, regionalization can be looked at as a strategic choice. In
this line the policies for creation or strengthening regional associations are reviewed
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
25/26
based on the principle of convergence of interests in the economic, political and trade
dimensions between multinational companies and their respective governments.
This alignment of governments and multinational companies interests are basically
aimed at preserving and encouraging the responsiveness of countries to structural and
fundamental developments which occur in the international economic system. This is
not limited to developing countries, but occurs in large industrial nations.
On the other hand, pursuing the objective of raising competitiveness of countries in the
international system has brought about unsecured economic and manufacturing
conditions. These negative impacts could lead to huge economic, social and political
crises in developing and less developed countries and even, in a limited form, in
industrial countries. The progress of computerized communications and information
dissemination has created such conditions under which the economic power depends
less on manpower and is instead dependent on exploiting computer information
technology properly. This has led to lowering the living standards of labor force
especially in developing countries. To combat such poor conditions some countries
have decided to protect their domestic industries in resistance against economic
globalization.
The objective of regional economic blocs which are the foundation for moving
toward regionalizing trade and economic ties, is mainly creating of a sort of harmony
among the following opposing objectives:
1. Further expansion of predicted benefits and privileges of flexible specialization
2. Protecting domestic and regional industries which have relatively lower competitive
power.
Also, the globalization of economy in some dimensions has led to declining the
countries political power. In spite of the fact that globalization is a solution to economic,
political and environmental problems which necessitate a collective and global
management, in some cases it has led to undermining political interests of national
8/3/2019 Y DX OR X DY
26/26
governments. Because of such negative impacts of globalization, it is expected that the
international politico-economic system would witness conflicts between economic blocs.