gs study guide
TRANSCRIPT
GS Study Guide 10/15/10 2:16 PM
Study Guide 2009-Key Concepts
Pillar 1: Governance, Pillar 2: Markets, Pillar 3: Culture
-Why keep coming back to the IT Revolution? Information a function of
technology; technology a function of markets; markets a function of
governance. IT reduces transaction costs ; the lower the costs, the easier it is
to move “things” around the system.
Transaction costs
o 1) Search and information costs (how much time is spent;
time=money) and money (i.e., subscription to Consumer’s
Digest) you spend to find the thing you want to buy at the
lowest price.
o 2) Bargaining costs: (how much you lose by bargaining) i.e.
you spend three days at the car dealership trying to get a
better price-that’s three days of some other thing you don’t
have)
o 3) Enforcement costs: (how much it costs to be sure the
contact is fulfilled) often associated with government.
We are mostly interested in enforcement costs when thinking about
Pillar 1; we are mostly interested in bargaining costs when thinking
about Pillar 2
-Not enough to say that “technology has changed things.” Technology
always changes things.
What is globalization?
o Movement towards greater interdependence and integration
o A social process-requires choice
o Process that moves at different paces with different levels of
“stickiness”
National interest-the traditional explanation for the policies of
nation-state. Assumes that it can be defined (i.e. it is objective)
o At a minimum, nation-state prefers to be as independent (in
choice) as possible
-State based theories of international politics assume a competitive
international system
-Interdependence-precursor to Globalization
Reflects growth in the number of links between nation-states
These links reflect nation-state’s self-interestyou wouldn’t do it if
it didn’t benefit you
Functional-they are intended to achieve some discrete goal
Risk: They can create dependence-leaving a relationship imposes
costs
Nothing fair about them-as long as your utility increases by 1, some
deal is better than no deal
Complicates sovereign decision-making: now you have to take
someone else into account
These decisions are still Governmental Politics!
-Trans-governmental politics
Non-governmental politics-things that affect states but are not done
by states
Role of Institutions
-Institutions
A venue within which nation-states can interact
A forum for accomplishing some discrete goal (i.e. Functionalism)
Can take on their own identity (don’t always)
Creates possibility of weakened nation-state
BUT a nation-state itself is an institution
Can be rules, norms, processes-formal or informal; can also be a
“thing” (UN, NATO)
Problem resolution
Provides transparencyconfidence
-Institutions can-but don’t always (or even often)-lead to Integration
Integration=the process by which global (or supra-regional)
institutions replace national or bilateral ones
An upward shift of sovereign authority
Creates a common and more widely shared understanding of Some
Thing
By joining an institution (i.e. European Union), each sovereign gives
up authority to make decisions over some issue-related areathe
closer that issue-area is to a national interest, the “weaker” the
nation-state member is.
o Example: bulls in Spain (look in notes)
-We live in a hybrid or mixed system
Some strong states, many weak states: some (few) strong
institutions, many weak ones; many that simply perform functions
for states
-PERHAPS moving from an International System-systems have rules,
hierarchies-to an International Society-less rule-bound, less formal
-What would an International Society look like?
Difference between Government and Governance
Government=institutionalized control (law, law enforcement,
consequences)
Governance=informal systems of control, including self-control (i.e.
good manners)
Systems of rule at all levels, from family to government
If International Society exists, then the effects of rule at level of (for
example) family can be “felt” at the level of the international
system
International Society would transcend borders, in the same way that
“American society” transcends state lines
-End of the Nation-State debate: asks what will be the effects of these
changes on the nation-state, if we assume that the nation-state is all about
power and power-maximizing
Firms (Markets) always resist state control
States want to control markets, to capture resources
If (see page 1), IT makes it easier for firms to move around because
transaction costs are lower, states have less control
Debate question: Does that mean the State is no longer relevant?
-Why would markets have that (possible) effect?
Trade requires cooperation; cooperation leads to more cooperation
and, therefore, more peace. This is a self-interest argument.
But as states come to depend on trade, they will depend on the
firms that trade.
Therefore, they are not capturing the benefits of trade directly
Trade also produces a fourth kind of cost-distributive costs
-Distributive costs
Who pays and who benefits from trade?
More important: Can the state “help” (insulate, cushion the blow)
those who pay?
If the state is weaker, strictly speaking answer = No
But ability of the state to provide for citizens-Satisfy Citizens’
Expectations-is a central part of its legitimacy
If this form of Institution, the Nation-State, is no longer legitimate,
why do we have it? And if we feel we can get rid of it, doesn’t that
mean the End of the Nation-State?
Or just some Nation-states?
o Example: Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe in 2007-hyperinflation
undermined ability of states to do anything-one fell, one
didn’t-why? Hint: something about government/governance
-Governance (i.e. NOT government)
New norms (i.e. “universal human rights”)-is this the same as new
“rules”?
New ways of understanding
Do these create new expectations? Think of the Abolition movement
NGO’s and other activists attempt to change the rules of the game
by redefining what things mean
Could these new identities create new ties that we have as
individuals, away from our flags?
NGOs are predicated on a different set of rules than nation-states:
universalism, individualism, voluntarism, progressivism
Each rule on its ownjointly can challenge some or all nation-states
-Governance Networks
Voluntary, reciprocal, horizontal patterns of communication and
exchange
These networks can lead to fragmentation in Nation-State system
“Which rules do I follow”? NGOs can produce a rival “narrative” (i.e.
story)
Governance can be less hierarchical than Government
But these groups are often very fragmented themselves. Can the
Nation-State ignore them? Some nation-states? All nation-states?
We tend to like hierarchy-everyone knows his/her job
HOW is the old-school theory still powerful? Does Realism (or Neo-
Realism) still explain most of what we see because the Nation-State
is comparatively cohesive and strong in comparison to NGOs?
NGOs tend to focus on single issues-seems very important to them,
but may not be at all important to Nation-State, esp. if it forces the
Nation State to give up some core interest
In weak or failing states, by contrast, NGOs can effectively become
the government
-Transnational Activist Networks
Groups of like-minded people worldwide
Beholden to an IDEA, NOT a FLAG
Seek to limit the power of states, embed states in moral order, limit
ability of states to act independently, and ultimately redefine what
things are IN and OUT of the “national interest.”
Moving toward Pillar III-Do ideas have power?
NGO/TAN compete to define a new set of ideas
-Re-introducing Norms into International Relations
Set of expectations about routine forms of behavior
Can become habitual-if so, they change the rules of the game
(impacts on Pillar II and I-Robber barons were once admired, then
reveiledstock laws changed to prevent new Robber Barons from
rising)
If you change the way you think about Some Thing, you change the
way you deal with it as well
Often, not always, rooted in moral beliefs
BUT an important limitation-must have shared understanding of
what things mean (Huntington)
Requires SOME globalization of culture in order to lay the framework
of that understanding
Study Guide Part II 10/15/10 2:16 PM
Pillar II: MARKETS
Lecture 8) Did we miss the memo? Who said Free Markets Were Fair
Markets?
9) Gaps in the Global Market
10) Organizing the Global Marketplace: The Intersection of Pillars 1 & 2
11) Resisting Economic Globalization
PILLAR III: CULTURE
12) Three Yawns for Cultural Imperialism
13) Fundamentalism as Resistance
14) Fundamentalism as Trans-national Activism
15) Setting Rules: Culture as Governance, Governance as Culture
16) Selling Identity: Cultures as Markets, Markets as Cultures
17) Culture as Information: Can Information Cultures be a Threat?
18) A System of States, A Society of States, or a System of Societies?
PILLAR II: MARKETS
Markets are the oldest form of globalization and pre-date European nation-
state system.
Trade is inherently global
There are very few self sufficient parts of the world
Globalization of Markets:
Economic globalizationpolitical/cultural globalization
Specialization: Nation-states wish to capture resources
Efficiency: participating in markets is ALWAYS more efficient. We
change as the market changes.
Economic integration
Homogenization of consumer tastes
Anti-globalization Backlash:
Trend towards low-wage labor
Resources are exploited and exhauseted
Inequitable (unfair) distribution of gross world product
o Growth is an aggregate measure of changes in GDP
o Development differs from growth
o Free market is the best way to produce economic growth but
this does not necessarily lead to economic development
o GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT CONFLICT with EACH OTHER
-Globalization of Markets is the oldest form-we need to know what has
changed.
-Trade is inherently global, no matter how you define the globe (i.e. if the
Earth is flat and the edges of the map have dragons, that’s still “your globe”
for purposes of understanding)
-How old is the globalization of markets? Historical context:
Greco-Roman; by 600 BCE even “barbarians” understood benefits
Celts had a sophisticated trading culture
o Social contract, women/elder/children’s rights
o Duty to protect the sick
o Shipped throughout the known trading world, overland and
overseas transport of goods
Economic specialization improved their system of
governance
Celts traded throughout the Mediterranean and Atlantic Coastthey
were defeated by Rome because their systems of governance were
not hierarchical enough.
o Celts did not have a central government, all branches were
equal, no unity between branches so it was easy for Rome to
conquer the Celts
Rome had superior military technology because it could compel
service and sacrifice, became the most important trade partner
Systems of government directly related to markets
-Ohmae/Strange Thesis is challenged
Not clear that trade is sufficient enough to ensure stability in
governance
Not clear that all systems of governance support trade
Enforcing your individual rights in this marketplace = conflict
ADAPTATION: Chinese/Cuban communism
o Both actors gain through free trade because both value the
exchange
-The Main Story in I.R.: Nation-state prevailed as an Institution because it
was more efficient than any other form of organization at war-making
-Theories of trade were also based on self-interest
Nothing equal or egalitarian
Distribution of benefits of trade doesn’t have to be “even”-this could
be part of what leads to anti-globalization pushback, the goal is to
maximize the “joint benefits”
FREE TRADE: both participants get A benefit BUT don’t necessarily
get an EQUAL or EQUITABLE benefit
But which self-interest? You can get more aggregate trade but harm
workers in a key industry-how do you balance the costs and
benefits?
Pushback against differential costs-poor people, poor countries tend
to have “disproportionate” share of costs (through counter-
argument is that rich people & countries tend to create the wealth,
so we should get more)
Pushback against idea that wealth is concentrated and stays that
way (counter-narrative: we use more because we generate more, so
we should get more)
Nation-state systems still matters because no nation state wants to
give up benefits for an alternate system
LECTURE 9: MARKETS
In the same way that there isn’t one globalization, there isn’t ONE
type of markets
-Reflects Appadurai’s notion of a “Global Cultural Economy”-what ways of
knowing do we have about markets?
A transactions-based understanding
“Global Cultural Economy”-do different cultures produce different
effects in the global marketplace?
-Is this a “globalization of markets” or “globalization of culture”?
BOTH
Example: Student with a cultural artifact on (Italian sweatshirt)
could mean he is VERY Italian or he could be wearing his friend’s
sweatshirt that has no ties to himneed to be careful when
imparting meaning from this situation.
Globalization is a set of transactions-by individuals, groups, states,
Institutions, systems
Transactions=exchanges-essence of market activity
Introduces all-important concept of CHOICE
This idea is similar to our earlier concept of “transcendence”
People engage in transactions with people they have never
interacted with beforeproduces change (gives one a more
educated viewpoint)
-2 ways of change:
1) Evolutionary: moves slowly over time-probably not globalization
the way we think of it-possibly reversible, non-threatening
o Immigration is a source of evolutionary change
Example: Britain exports Chicken Tikka Masala to India
(tastes change as Indians move to Britain, tasted light
“Indian” food and actually liked it)NATURAL
2) Punctuated Equilibrium: a sudden change to a customary way of
doing things-at level of Pillar III culture, we’re confronted with the
need to redefine WHO we are, threatening
System is characterized by long periods of stability so a sudden
change (can materialize from any number of domains) produces
massive ripple effectscitizens become vunerable.
o Ex: Hurricane Katrina devastation creates major changes
(composition of city is shifting as African American
neighborhoods were destroyedproduces a cultural change)
CANNOT PREDICT THIS TYPE OF CHANGE
o Ex 2: 911culture of fear, leads to a sacrifice of constitutional
rights to government in order to feel safe again
BOTTOM LINE:
Things tend to change slowly because quick change in inefficient
A community’s growth changes its culture
Adaptation to a place changes its culture
o Example: Chicago style blues (urban) versus Delta Blues
(country), comes about in a natural way, sticks!
IS this one of the things that weakens that Nation-State? States (i.e.
governments) depend on routine
-Can the evolution of a global marketplace be a source of cultural change?
(Kelts says YES)
Assume a group with a specific culture is brought into the global
market.
Assume the group has NO agency (power)
Question: What type of actor in global governance (Pillar 1) would
we expect to see?
For those who don’t have a voice, we look for NGOs to fill gaps for
those people.
o Sting’s Rain Forest Foundation
o “Every year an area of rainforest the size of England and
Wales is cut down.”-BAD unless you are in the logging
business (however, most are entrepreneurs from those
regions so what do you do?)
o These two belief systems are in conflict
o Sting is trying to make his particular understanding of culture
prevail versus Brazilian logging entrepreneurs/Brazilian
government understandings
Australia got rich from cutting trees but now Brazil can’t
do the same
Is it normally correct to exploit your environmental resources for
your own economic gain?
“This leaves local people homeless,”
What is this Rain Forest Foundation trying to do? How would we
describe what it is doing in global governance?
NGOs try to get “their story” recognized in governance
Promote a different way of thinking about the problem
REPRESENTATIONS-Look at the intersection of Pillars 2 & 3, focus=impact of
markets on human societies.
Appadurai coins many new terms; “scapes”ignore specifics but
understand what they imply.
Different kinds of domains that exist out there
What is a landscape?
o Literally the contours of the earth but also a representation of
the earth (like a painting)
Globalization=the actual changes and why we about them
Appadurai argues that we support globalization and while we
criticize the effects, we never start from the presumption that there
is any other way
Mediascapes: global information market (info in itself is commodity)
o This is a problem for governance: it is transcendent and is
unable to be controlled, new source of influence?
Addadurai scapes: meanings are NOT fixed (for example; the
meaning of the word “gay” has changed)
These “blank-scapes” are useful for what they make us think about-
changes in market activity at the level of system forces us to
engage in new transactions at all levels, from ideas to identities to
goods and services
-Globalization as a system of representations-“What does it mean to be..”?
-Global media market=a market for meaning
Human, American, black, white, Catholic, female…
All of these can be changed through transactions, encounters with
new ideas, goods, opportunities, etc.
Information itself is a transaction (between the individual and the
market or culture)
Culture is NOT FIXED, creates a threat to traditionalists, if your
culture is not fixed, who are you? What is your place in the system?
Example: John Frum cargo cult-Melanesian one day, Some other
thing the next-a rational response to market opportunity-I will trade
my Melanesian identity for a new one in order to capture benefits of
trade-What does this assume (didn’t value identity much)? Or just
valued trade more?
Back to IT-what role does it play in these kinds of transactions?
What role did it play in the movement from Complex
Interdependence to Globalization?
ORGANIZING GLOBAL MARKETS
-There are two ways that the global market is organized
1) By private economic actors (like NIKE)
2) By nation-states
-What is the relationship between changes in markets to changes in global
governance?
Market=a source of rules by which the system is governed
Private economic activity is changing the rules of the game in the
international system
Nation-states essentially become buyers as they compete for
commoditiesthis activity is a set of governing rules
-Complex Interdependence is a theoretical analysis of how Nation-States can
become embedded in each other.
-A state-centered story, nation-states were independent. Now conflict is less
likely because all states have economic ties to each other
Complicates their decision-making
What is the “national interest” when MY well-being depends on
YOUR well-being?
Driven by economic activity that the state could-at margins anyway-
control (taxes, tariffs, trade policy)
GLOBALIZATION CHANGES THE STORY because now the key actor is
THE FIRM
o We have to create situations where our companies are
welcome.
-Under Globalization a lot of that economic activity is all-private-states can’t
capture it
Does that get to the End of the Nation-State idea?
Economic activity was once vertically organized; hierarchical-suited
Nation-States
Now it is horizontally organized;
o Nokia has facilities in 10 countries
o Employs over 125,000 people worldwide
o 5th most valuable brand in the world
What makes it “Finnish”?
-These types of highly diffused business model also diffuse authority-
China, UK, Hungary, India are 4 Nokia countries, how do they
control a company from Finland?
-Global Commodity Chain (Chapter 18)
In essence, the entire globe is part of a global supply network
We are all vested in one production process (i.e. mobile phones)
Each bit of the globe is linked backwards and forwards-much
greater dependency than Complex Interdependence, but often not
at the same level of the nation-state (individual level)
Where Nokia is located is influenced by governmental politics-not
rational to be in a hostile environment
Presence of Nokia influences government politics-once you have
them, you don’t want to lose them.
Normative question: What does one make of being a cog in the
machine? Commodified?
If a Nation-State is part of a Global Commodity Chain, how does it
enforce its particular social contract?
o Do Chinese workers at a Finnish factory get “ideas”?
o If Nokia wants the state to relax environmental protection
standards or risk losing the factory, can the state refuse?
o How does that affect legitimacy-do we lose faith in the state?
o How does that affect change-do we start seeing ourselves as
something different?
Labor is part of that global chain
o The more freely capital can move (because Nation-State is
weaker), the more Labor has to be prepared to move
o Movement of labor uproots people, cuts them off from the
familiar
o Risk to cultures?
o What price is the trade-off? Is that a fair price to demand? Is it
fair to demand a price?
Global north-south split
o South is where the production takes place because labor is
cheap and laws are more forgiving, etc.
“Developing” versus “developed”
Richard Rosecrance: “head” and “body” states
o “Head” states do all the thinking (white states) and gain all
the economic benefit
o “Body” states do all the work (not white states)
-RESISTANCE TO GLOBALIZATION
There is resistance to global markets-6 reasons (all relate to the impact of
global markets on societies)
1) Culture
2) Global poverty
o The rich get richer, and the poorer get richer BUT the distance
increases, they are still not able to close the gap.
3) Global climate
o Climate change is a negative economic effect
4) Incentive structures
o Outsourcing is the best known example. Capitalists outsource
always (IowaMissouri) but now with cheaper labor available
(IowaChina)
5) Exploitation
o There are more people being economically exploited because
there are more opportunities to exploit people. Demand
driven business created by a market (human trafficking)
6) Norms
o The more exposure you have to the marketplace, the harder it
is to protect nation-states’ values
-Risks of market globalization
Locks in economic disparity
o Economic growth is NOT synonymous with economic
development
Produces migration (Joe the Migrant)
o Presence of migrants undermines the culture of the host
nation AND can destabilize countries in between.
o 3 zones: 1) Point of origin, 2) transit zone, 3) target country.
Being in the transit zone (most in developing world)
doesn’t exempt you from negative consequences, there
is always spill over/contagion
-But migration is also a (weak) source of economic development
Developing countries have an interest in migration because
immigrants begin to send money back home, source of revenue.
Brain-drain: people with smarts are moving because there is NO
incentive for them to stay. The people that are needed for
development are the first to LEAVE.
Migrants’ remittances that go back tends to be less compared to the
amount of people who leave because citizens are migrating from
countries that are less impoverished.
This becomes part of the cultural narrative
-Inequity also creates opportunity
-Climate change
As climate changes, growing patterns change
o Example: spruce bark beetles in Alaska
As growing patterns change, agricultural workers move to cities for
work (urbanization)
Unfortunately, rural workers lack the skills necessary to compete for
jobs in the city
o Example: Rio de Janiero: groups of Brazilians that are unable
to make it in an urban environment so they turn to crime.
Lagos, Nigeria58 people immigrate an hour but 58 jobs are NOT
created an hour. This is why immigration is a threat to
governments.
o All of these overpopulated countries are Muslim.
o Bush: “poor people are vulnerable to religious
extremists”terrorism in the poorest countries (defense
department’s belief)
Air pollution in NYC is 13, Shanghai’s is 99this has a huge impact
on the market of Shanghai
-Resistance to globalization is a reaction to the GCC concept
“Unfair”-to culture, to the poor, to the environment, to the
incentives that govern our lives
Of these, the impact of globalized markets on the incentive
structures of (states, firms, people) is the most important in GS
Negative effects:
o A) Urbanization in places like Mumbai and Mexico City-
overstressed urban environments are Labor chases
capitalpoor cut off from traditional ways of knowing, social
contractseasily exploitable (i.e. by Capital or Ideologues)
o Illiteracy, poverty make accumulation of surplus capital nearly
impossible
o More densely crowded the city, more pollution, especially per
capita GDP is low
o Rural communities suffer exploitation to keep urban
communities relatively quiet
-Global food crisis
Reduction in transaction costs for Capital means wages don’t rise
with the costs of living
Capital accumulation is the key to economic developmentmore
you have to direct to basic needs, less likely you’ll accumulate
capital
Less money to go around at preciously the same time food prices
are rising.
o Wages not rising as fast as prices of food (wages are often
fixed)
Remember: Capital Accumulation, how can you accumulate capital
when the prices of food are rising way faster than your earnings?
Yet you need capital!
o Unalienable rights
The less surplus capital you have, the greater the percentage of
your wealth goes to sustaining it/providing basic sustenance.
100 million people in 74 countries across the world depend on food
from the U.N.-charity cases.
U.N.’s World Food Program-capabilities directly related to economic
conditions in member states
o Economic health of the world food programmember-
statesglobalization of markets (source of hunger in the first
place)
WFP needed 6.4 billion for 2010; as of June, UN member-stats
donated 1.88 billion (less than 30% of total need)
o Member-states have not gained enough economic capital so
they continue to throw people under the bus
-As mean world temperatures rise, amount of arable land decreases
Joe is physically able to make less
Depends more on U.N. aid
U.N. food aid depends on contributions
Contributions depend on changes in GDP
Joe is completely isolated from politics yet an economic crisis way
beyond his understanding produces a material, negative effect on
his life.
US gave more money to world aid than any other country in the
system but in 2007, US gave the least in foreign aid which is why it
is so hard for UN to predict how much they will be able to do per
year.
In absolute terms, US gave a lot of money, but in terms of need, it
gave almost nothing.
o What incentive does the US have to give more than .16 %?
The idea/norm that it is the right thing to do in insufficient
because states purely exist to do what is BEST FOR ITS
CITIZENSJOE’S PARADOX.
If you have surplus capital, you have the money to absorb the hit (of
costs in prices of food rising).
As prices of grain rise, price of downstream commodities rise
o The bread-maker will charge MORE because everyone is a
rational actor.
Avg. grain prices 2010-2020 will increase 15-40% in real terms than
1997-2007 (Joe will need 25% more money to feed his family, even
as there is less land for him to farm on)
-Human effects
2007, 25,000 farmers in India committed suicide because they
couldn’t feed their families
Of 36 countries facing food crisis, 21 are in AFRICA
o Even as prices of food are expected to rise, the demand for
food will DOUBLE in southeast Asia and Africa (doing most
reproducing) by 2030
By 2050, global pop=9.1 billion
o Will require 70% increase in global farm production
Hunger kills more people worldwide than AIDS, etc.
Australia experienced 60% reduction in wheat crop in 2007
Why no Australian food crisis?
GOVERNING CAPACITY-Australian’s governance were able to absorb
the problem and find solutions.
This is why you need to think of GOVERNANCE AND MARKETS
together
We expect the government to keep us from starving-and
government mostly does BECAUSE we have a social contract.-->So
government must be a rational actor.
-A society that is getting richer can eat more meat, meat-consumption is
usually a sign of economic health of a country
When people are in famine, they begin to eat their livestock as a
last resort.
Demand for meat creates a need for cattle/grain to feed cattle SO
there is less grain for other things/people.
Increase in the price of oil makes farming more expensivedrives
up cost of farming (need oil for transportation, fertilizers, etc)
Drives up the cost of producecost of finished commoditydrives
up cost of food.
o In US we provide farmers with subsidies to help out with this
but we can do this, not every country can.
-When we say “globalization of markets”, we are referring to both inputs and
outputs
Labor is an input
We are referring to the Global Commodity Chain (look in last week’s
readings!), we all become inputs but we also become targets.
None of us is insulated from price change BUT some of us can
absorb price change better because we have capital accumulation.
Joe the Subsistence Farmer suffers because there is less market
available to him, experiences the effects of changes in technology
available to Joe the Industrial Farmer in Denmark/USA/Canada, etc.
If Joe the Industrial adapts technology, Joe the Subsistence Farmer
suffers (but not enough for us to actually care).
-Complex interdependence; Joe the Chicago Commodities Broker and Jane
the Malian Subsistence Farmer are “neighbors”Joe sets the price for Jane’s
produce.
Resistance is about human effects, not the business model
97% of global population is in the “Global South”, 50% of global
population is in India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh &
Indonesia (no change, no governance)
-Climate change increases length, severity of droughts (matters to us!)
Direct effects: 45% of Malawi’s population are
malnourishedcannot work as hard.
162 million on < $1 per day
-Education is a key part of the developmental story
Economic realities produce “externalities” on culture, which feeds
back into the market-globalization loop
About half of all adults in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East are
illiterateour literacy goes up much more rapidly and much more
significantly
-What does it mean to Globalize culture?
What is culture?
What role does it play in government, governance? Is there an
“American” way of doing things (is this why we are failing in
Afghanistan?)
Culture=how we represent ourselves-how we “know”
Problem of “Culture Imperialism”
-Cultural Imperialism
Go back to Appaduraiif people choose that transaction, can it be
“Imperialist”?
Supply-push: We force McDonald’s down their throats (only apply
here)
Demand-pull: McDonald’s is a firm: rational choice: if there is a
market, go there because people want it.
Cultural artifacts-if Lebanese do hip-hop, are they “Americanized”?
Must be open to possibility that we give things a meaning they may
not “really” have, but which comports with our pre-existing culture,
our ways of knowing.
Have to admit that what we “know” is American (for example)
might not be recognizably “American” elsewhere-may be instead
exotic
-Messages that we can take from the video…
Culture was a signifier of who you are, your place in a particular
political ordering
Example: Ottoman empire: Greeks, Serbians trading lands…gets
very confusing
For the Joes, all of these forces were out of their control, all they
had was their cultureall of this got upset, had governance and
market implications.
Professor Brown: you had to completely change your life in order to
save your life
Markets & Information:
o Culture is a subset of information that tells you things about
yourself
o Change is being forced on people
o Consider “demand-side” function
We need to take into consideration that people WANT
these cultural artifacts
Expressing individuality (nobody compels you to do this,
it is your choice)
-Why do people adopt “American” cultural forms?
-Is it U.S. market power or consumer preference?
Consider “supply-side” function
o Why do American firms export cultural commodities?
o *Are things recognizably American?
o Supply-push (capitalists need this and so they force it on
individuals) or demand pull (no capitalists are innocent,
consumers want this in the market)
Consider enabling conditions
o What makes supply/demand interaction possible?
Basic globalization enabling conditionspread of
information and technology
Culture is nearly infinitely elastic (culture is not fixed or
brittle, it is flexible)
Example: US lack of culture IS its culture
Innate appeal
Weakening of traditional cultures in face of globalization
(Pillars 1 & 2)
Micro-level of human systems gets broken
uphomogenization of tastes
People take what’s available (reflect market
domination of tastes)
Consider implications (or reasons for resistance)
o Loss of tradition
o “Cultural tourism”
If you overvalue traditional culture…bad
o Weakening of ties to government/regimedelegitimizing
government/regime
Today we look more closely at information as a challenge to
governance
Broader definition of “cultural”
o All forms of “other” information
o “Ideation” or systems of ideas
Historically not “new”!
Information and IT have undermined governments in the past
o Example: Axis Sally, worked in Nazi Germany + did
propaganda broadcasts to US troops
o Example: Lord Haw-Haw “ “
Radio threatened states in the same way Internet is said to today
o A) Speed of information
o B) Identities of people involved are blurry
o C) Diversity & amount of information
o D) No costs (no barriers)
o E) Much harder to regulate
o F) Radio travels through the air, can be jammed but Internet
is much more mysterious
o G) Can consume the Internet much easier than you can the
radio (agents for the state would look for signals)
o ACCESS TO INFORMATION
o Threat to illiberal regimes
o Threat to whichever cultures legitimate those regimes
o A “technology of freedom”why it is viewed as a threat
Assumption that your identity is fixed and cannot be changed…
assume that information will change the minds of the citizens
The radio also threatens cultures
o 1970s: Carol Rubenstein (ethno-musicologist) collected love
songs of the Dayak peopleintroducing radio in Sarawak
eliminated indigenous language within 20 years (the people
didn’t seem to mind)
o Russell Means is very aggressive about promoting indigenous
languages on US reservations
Means argues that within 10 or 15 years the Lakoka
peoples will all be deadno language = no people
Not rational for a young Lakoka su to learn Lakoka
because no SATs, jobs, etc in the language
o States are very concerned about language because language
strengthens political and creative processes (France is very
concerned with this)
Why would this be inconsistent with exposure to “outside” ideas?
Intersection of Pillar II and III effects Pillar I
Is culture an ordering principle for the state?
Think about the stories a nation tells about itself
Cultural narrativeswhat function do they perform in governance?
How does a market for information threaten them?
o If you accept information that has been proven false; if I was
wrong about that, what else was I wrong about?
o America is a “Christian nation” (?)
-Hybridization vs. Homogenization
Cultural Imperialism assumes a one-way transaction, which isn’t a
transaction at all.
If Globalization means “democratization” in some sense, should
people be free to choose?
Why would a government resist (i.e. limits on Internet)-threat to
systems of Control-Global norms of Governance can threaten Local
norms of Government
-Cultural Narratives
o When we make arguments about “protecting culture,” what
stories do we tell?
o Are these stories “true” or are they rationalizations? Or both?
o How does the presence of market for info-culture, broadly
defined, threaten that?
o Corollary-market for Fundamentalism
Assumes “foreign” is identifiable and “local” is
identifiable
Assumes that “foreign” must be a threat
Fundamentalisms tend to be about protecting status
quo
Threat posed by de-territorialism
-De-territorialization
Literally globalization
Some new way of understanding something (i.e. women’s rights)
loses its association with a specific place or countryno land
association
Makes it more dangerous (from some POVs)
More easily adopted, more readily available-compare
Pentecostalism with Catholicism
Notion that there is no “one space” for Thing X-movement toward
“Global Culture”?
-Pillar II Links-the IT revolution and the spread of IT globally makes the
spread of new (and potentially rival) ideas possible (tech makes pillar II more
competitive)
You can easily acquire alternate avenues for gaining information-go
around the state
Changes in IT always come faster than governments can adapt
-New ideas impact Governance-from Pillar III to Pillar I (thanks to Pillar II)
“Hybrid” International System
Governance takes 2 forms-Formal (Government) and Informal
(Norms)
Similar to “hybrid culture”-neither one nor the other but both
simultaneously-is this the same as a new “third” Thing X?
New or “foreign” can impact both kinds of Governance
Fundamentalism: even of Governance (we have to get back to the
Constitution!)-is a reaction to the availability of new ideas
(AGAINST)
But also a Pillar I to Pillar III link-is it “Cultural Imperialism” to tell
Somalia to treat its women better? To reject Shari’ah law?
Women in the developing world MIGHT benefit if new ideas are
adopted/adapted by their home states
On the other hand, home states might repress even more as push-
back against “Western” ideas that don’t square with “tradition”
What is the relationship of Rules to Culture? Of Culture to Rules?
-Pillar II & Pillar III-Kelts-How did Incentive Structure within the changing
markets of the Developed World lead to cultural globalization?
The problem for Nation-states: Firms always move first to capture
new opportunities
If Nation-state is weak, it loses more control every time a new
opportunity emerges
The globalization of culture in the form of artifacts is a Developed
World past-time
Requires Surplus capital
Risk of exploitationwe like “natives” because of their exotic ways
Is it also possible that we want to keep “natives” native to satisfy
our own consumer desires? If so, would THAT be “cultural
imperialism”-what if natives want to be like John Frum?
FUNDAMENTALISMS
There exists a market for “fundamentalism”
Certain “fundamentalisms” (Muslim) are held to be a “threat”
WHY?
Working assumption: fundamentalism=rejection of some modern
and alien thing “X”
Why aren’t others (i.e. Christian fundamentalism, “capitalist
fundamentalism”)?
Threat isn’t actually to culture but to systems of governance that
free-ride on culture (“this is our way”)
Fundamentalisms try to protect something we value when it is
under attack
o When is it truly about protecting culture?
o When is it about rationalizing cultural practices?
o When is it about defending things legitimized by m?
Other fundamentalisms may promote n specifically to undermine m
o Secularists and the traditionalists
LECTURE 14: FUNDAMENTALISMS
-We look at culture as a system of control
-Conflict between fundamentalisms and governing norms
-Recall 2 definitions of governance
Formal:
Informal:
-Resistance is often said to be “protecting tradition”
Our way versus the new, foreign way
-Religion is both an agent of change in tradition and guardian of tradition
-Fundamentalisms are themselves artifacts of culture
-A “clash of civilizations”Prof thinks this is wrong, maybe we have a clash
of “ideas”
American exceptionalism: You cannot say that other people think
that their country is a rarity/special, cannot speak for them.
-A fight for identity/authenticity
A big fight is going on in Spain concerning the “mosque” cathedral,
Catholics want the “mosque” removed from the name (Muslim)
-Fundamentalisms ask “who are we?”
-We often see debates among fundamentalists over “authenticity”
Pocho poster: used to describe those were are not “pure” Mexican,
however this is silly because we are all a mix of cultures. It allows us
to set up “us versus them”
Spanish language in Mexico versus Spain
-“The West”
The system=governance
The idea = a fundamentalism
The term = a narrative (story) about a system (governance +
culture) that we are not supposed to challenge
“The spread of globalization is a threat to the West”-you are not
supposed to ask what the “west” means because it is a
FUNDAMENTALISM
-Religion can be conceptualized in many things
Def: system of ideas
We associate certain systems of ideas with certain parts of the
globe (this is important because these truths/ideas are held close to
governance systems)
PART OF “Who are we?”
o We define ourselves based on our conceptions of others
-The Catholic Church was an agent of cultural globalization
Why less “threatening” than spread of Islam?
o Catholism is US, follows Western ideals
o One theory: Catholicism=”sacerdotal” ideas about hierarchy
of priesthood translated into hierarchy of rulers
-The debate of the Islamic headscarf in France
People are going to get riled up about different things in different
countries
Helps us understand what the real issues are in France
-Pentecostalism=fastest-growing Christian belief system
Transcended from its origins in Los Angeles (1906)now
everywhere in the world, perfect example of globalization.
Compare to the “Firm” in Pillar II-vertical vs. horizontal
Literally an individual firm
No Vatican, Mecca or Salt Lake City of Pentecostalism
Spatially unboundedliterally everywhere and nowhere, very
characteristic of the thicker variance of global studies theory
Pentecostalism is the most “globish”
Faith without governing rules (other than belief in the Bible), VERY
decentralized
Lechner & Boli: Most faiths try to transform cultures; Pentecostalism
transformed by cultures
A model of HYBRIDIZATION (a new thing)
o Example: African + honey bee = killer bee (hybrid)
Oliver Roy (Chapter 44)-“deterritorialization”
o Separating a cultural artifact from its “home” territory
In USA, claim that the spreading of Islam beyond “Muslim” countries
is a threat
“Their ways” are not only different from “ours” but contrary to them
SO cannot have co-existence
They undermine our governance
“US” or “THEM”-the basic discourse of threat
-Globalization of faiths rooted in changes in norms of governance
-Emergent norm of basic human rights includes “right to freedom of
conscience”
-What happens when that norm collides with “traditional” systems of
governance?
Why is it important for Israel to be a Jewish state as opposed to a
Muslim state, or Christian, or whatever?
Oklahoma issue-look up & take notes
-2008 German Marshall Fund surveyed on immigration
-42% of Americans said immigrants should only come from “Christian”
countries
-46% of Americans and 53% of Europeans said Christianity and Muslim
cultures are fundamentally incompatible
So what do we do?
-You must construct borders but how do you do that in an era in which
borders are blurred?
In a sense, we’re all Fundamentalists
Do we reject/fear “cultural imperialism” in part because we are
afraid of being disconnected from “our” place?
The idea that there is a REAL and AUTHENTIC thing…globalization
weakens the assumption/significance of governance, etcwe are
literally without roots
This is important because they are mechanisms of
controlTRADITION
Social hierarchies
o Prefer your sports team to be higher in ranking/win games
o Racial (apartheid, Jim Crow, Chinese exluded…)
Last Lecture-Overview 10/15/10 2:16 PM
Tuesday November 30, 2010:
A Globalization Story…
-Pillar 1: climate change means that governments must
cooperate/coordinate
-Pillar II: result of global economic activity
-Pillar III: disrupts social lifeaffect global economic activity (II)affect
governments (making them less able to cooperate/coordinate)
Example: Sub Sahara Africa
Final: Do NOT describe but rather EXPLAIN & ANALYZE
Do not employ “shotgun method” but SHOW & ASSESS how each
pillar affects one another
A Different Globalization story…
-A strong state-a state with “capacity”-can change its laws to attract Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) (Pillar I)state reacts to opportunities
-FDI can lead to job creation and capital accumulation (Pillar II)-Capital accumulation helps make civil society stronger (key element in
economic development) (III)
-Stronger civil society (III) leads to more stability, so government legitimacy
(P I) is now dependent on markets (P II)-strong state is now strictly weaker so
must employ government policies to make capital happier (Ohmae &
Strange)
Where we have been…
-We are interested in process, relationships and interactions (of the three
pillars)
-How do the interactions of…
people and states or markets, and markets and states
…change those relationships as the process of globalization moves through
time?
REVIEW:
-On Day 1 our goal was:
To understand the dynamic relationship between the three pillars
This will change everyday because the process is constantly
changing
Globalization is a process defined by movement towards greater integration
and interdependence (works both within countries and within the system)
-Transforms the way things are organization of markets, governments, and
people
Spatial organization: all human life is tied into space
Globalization changes the meaning of space and distancechanges
the way we are organized
The “relevant” world expandschallenges all three pillars
The rules are no longer applicable to this new global landscape
1) Governance
Strong state theories (sovereign)
Primacy of “national interest”provides overarching explanation
Social expectationsembedded within national interest
o Story of Westphalia order, horizontalvertical integration
o To keep this new unit functioning, we came up with the idea
of citizenship (owed your loyalty to the state, uphill flow)
o NOW, there is a downwards flow because peoples
expectations are changing.
Complex interdependence
o Interdependence of states as economic units was about
capturing financial gainsproduced a different set of social
expectations
Role of institutionscoordination, collective action
o Change the incentive structures of states
Integration (i.e., EU)
o Unlikely because nation-states are still very efficient in
organizing people
Globalization complicates definition of “national interest”
Governance=Rules, (Culture is a form of governance and vice
versa)
o Formal & Informal rules
International politics is rule bound
o Anarchy is a source of rules
Sovereignty may be getting weaker because it is LESS FUNCTIONAL
o Made the developed world secure but war is no longer on our
minds so we don’t need this protection
o Power seeking
o Importance of conflict
Norm of separation, autonomy is challenged by integration
Governance is NOT LIMITED to governments
NGOs are a form of governance
o Informal rules (abolition movement during African slave trade)
o Embody these emerging norms that are challenging the way
we look at sovereignty
o Changes social expectations
“Legitimacy”-?
o Old: used to be about formal authority (rules, kings), not
about constitutional authority anymore
o New:
2) Markets
Oldest globalization
Interacts with governance, interested in effects NOT internal logic
Global markets made governance possible (i.e. empires)
The emergence of a global consumer marketplace challenge
governance
o Keep Kelts in mind here (read!)
o Consumer is a key part in this equation
Changes in markets (i.e. firm, driven by internal logic) weaken
states’ ability to control markets
o Example: Sarah Palin tweet
Globalization reacts to changes in;
o Technology
o Capital
o Consumer preference
Logic of trademust cooperate
o Ex: Marketing the new Coca Cola
o Downstream effects!
o In I.R. you cooperated because it was in your national interest
(American companies, commodities)
o But cooperation produces dependency (the greater your
power, the less you wanted dependence)
Logic of the marketpunishes those who avoid
interdependencethere are always winners and losers
o Chinese dominance of Afghanistan Burqa markets
o Looks to government to cushion the blow (legitimacy)
o National Conservative Union: everything is more expensive
when market is exposed to global forces so government must
shield citizens from these forces…however, this cannot be
done anymore.
3) Culture
-Defined broadly as information or ways of knowing
Links to markets (Kelts), governance (climate change)
Demand-side and supply-side—“cultural imperialism” misses the
demand side (resistance movement side)
o Citizens can benefit from trade and globalization
o Example: John Frum cult
BIG QUESTION: What is the relationship of culture to nation-hood?
Is there a relationship between the artifices of culture and who
people really are?
OTHER BIG QUESTION: How goes global market for culture affect
culture?
o Globish-a threat to the French?
3 positions:
o 1) “Cultural Imperialism”-homogenization of world of Western
(American) standard (Prof. disagrees)
o 2)”Skeptical”-“global” culture not as embedded as individual
national culture
o 3) “Hybridization”-globalization transforms
cultureintermingling
Adaptation
Cross-fertilization
Creation and destruction
DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO CULTURE
“Hybridization” can define globalization in all three pillars
Job is to analyze the process by which this hybridization occurs
RESISTANCE:
Governance:
Not all rules or systems of rule are equal
Markets:
Distributional effects
Culture:
Fundamentalism
Is global culture coercive? How do we assess choice?
EXAM DAY: Readings matter because you need examples! Use terms that
have been used A LOT.
Blank blue book & Scantron (write essay in pen)
-Study key terms (in red), concepts (integration, interdependence), MOST OF
ALL THE PROCESS
Understand all FIVE globalization stories and why they function the way
they do
GS Readings-PART II 10/15/10 2:16 PM
PART 2 READINGS:PILLAR II: MARKETS:
Who said Free Markets Were Fair Markets?
LB Chapter 2: “How to Judge Globalism”
-Comparing globalization with Westernization is a-historical and distracts
from the many potential benefits of global integration.
Globalization is a historical process that has offered an abundance of
opportunities and rewards in the past and continues to do so today.
Counterargument/negatives of globalization aren’t about globalization
itself or the use of markets as institutions but the INEQUILY in the overall
balance of institutional arrangementsproduces UNEQUAL SHARING of
globalization BENEFITS.
Globalization should not be ABOLISHED but rather REFORMED.
ARGUES that globalization is NOT WESTERN and that it is not REASONABLE
to withhold advantages of globalization (such as technology) but that we
need to rather figure out how to MAKE GOOD USE of the benefits of
economic intercourse and technology that pays attention to the UNDERDOG.
REAL ISSUE is the DISTRIBUTION of GLOBALIZATION’S BENEFITS.
Chapter 20: Incensed About Inequality (Wolf)
-Globalization has not increased poverty but rather has REDUCED it.
Global inequality is falling because of GROWTH…”rapid economic
growth in poor countries has powerful effects on inequality among
INDIVIDUALS and WORLD POVERTY”
Successful countries are all moving toward a MARKET ECONOMY,
one in which property rights, free enterprise and competition are
increasingly taking the place of state ownership, planning and
PROTECTION. CHOOSE ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION AND
INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION (globalization).
Bottom line: Countries who pursue globalization and development are
proving to be successful in lowering overall poverty, child moralities, hunger,
etc.
Examples: China & India
o India: abandoned policies of Stalinist “control raj” in favor of
individual enterprise and the market….green revolution &
liberalizing revolution.
World Bank study shows us that the notion that the richer get richer
and the poorer get poorer (disparity increases) is FALSE. Individuals
are becoming more successful!
Gaps in the Global Market:
Chapter 11: “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural
Economy” (Appadurai)
-Before the present day, cultural transactions were restricted (commodities
were the only transactions)…the two main forces for sustained cultural
transactions in the past were;
1) Warfare (large scale political systems generated by it)
2) Religions of conversion (Islam)
Intimate small scale communication was favored over large scale
ecumenes.
-“Print capitalism”: new power unleashed in the world of mass literacy and
large scale production that is free of face-to-face communication. TECHNICAL
EXPLOSIONmedia creates communities with “no sense of place”.
-The CENTRAL PROBLEM with today’s global interactions is the tension
between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization.
Homogenization: either an argument about Americanization or
commodization (closely linked)new forces become rapidly
“indigenized”.
Bottom line: The new global economy has to be seen as a complex order that
cannot be any longer understood by core-periphery models, push-pull
models (migration theory), surplus-deficits (traditional market theory), or
consumers-producers (Neo-Marxist).
ADVOCATES “SCAPES” to explain the irregular fluidity of cultural
landscapes, deeply perspective constructs inflected by historical, linguistics,
etc of different actors. Individual actor is LAST in line, larger focus is needed.
-“SCAPES” are building blocks for “imagined world”worlds situated by
historically situated imaginations of individuals around the globe.
ORGANIZAING THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE: INTERSECTION OF
PILLAR 1 & 2
Chapter 18: “Nike…” (Korzeniewicz)
-Production and distribution of goods take place in complex global networks
that tie together groups, organizations, and regionsGlobal Commodity
Chains concept is helpful to mapping new forms of capitalist organization.
GCC nodes of DESIGN, DISTRIBUTION, and MARKETING are
underappreciated but CRUCIAL.
-Use Nike as an example/way to explore how commodity chains are
embedded in cultural trends…
Athletic industry has been characterized by phenomenal growth;
Nike is segmented by consumer age groups & price.
Growth data shows that a limited number of large firms
compete within the athletic footwear market in the US but
also that the organization of the market provides
considerable permeability for successful entry and
competition by new enterprises.
GROWTH has happened by increased control over material
production of shoes AND the CREATION of the market (marketing
symbols, ideas, etc)
-Nike corporation development of twin strategies of overseas
subcontracting and domestic marketing corresponds to three
distinct periods;
1962-75: emphasized control over the import and distribution nodes
of its commodity chain.
1976-84: enhanced its relative competitive position by extending
control to marketing and redesigning subcontracting strategy to
take advantage of Southeast Asia
1990sextended control to product design and
advertising/marketing.
NIKE SUSTAINED COMPETITIVE EDGE THROUGH IMPLEMATION OF
FREQUENT INNOVATIONS IN GCC.
Nike has been successful due to;
Cultural trends that have made fitness more popular
Strategy of responding to this trend by accumulating expertise and
control over; import, distribution, marketing and advertising.
Korea and Chinese produce actual shoe, Nike promotes symbolic
nature and gets more money from sales.
Kelts, Chapter 3: “The Business of Anime”:
Chapter 19: Global Economy: Organization, Governance &
Development (Gereffi)
The three NEW ASPECTS of modern world trade are;
1) Rise of intraindustry and intraproduct trade in intermediate
inputs
2) Ability of producers to “slice up the value chain” by breaking a
production process into many geographically separated steps
3) emergence of a global production networks framework that
highlights how these shifts have altered gov. structures and
distribution of gains.
-Global Commodity Chains: tied together concept of value-added chain to
global organization of industries (based on importance of global buyers),
drew attention to the variety of actors who could now exercise power.
Supply chains: generic label for input-output structure of value-
adding activities, beginning with raw materialsfinished product.
International production networks: focus on international
production networks in which TNCs act as “global network
flagships”
Global Commodity Chains: emphasis on internal governance
structure of supply chains and on role of diverse lead firms in
setting up global production and sourcing networks.
Industrial upgrading: process by which economic actors move
from low-value to high-value activities in global production
networks.
RESISTING ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION
Chapter 24: “Globalism’s Discontents” (Stiglitz)
-Different meanings of globalization: has both brought great benefit
to the many and hurt the majority…why?
Globalization means different things in different places!
-The countries that have managed globalization on their own (East Asia)
have ensured that they reaped huge benefits and that those benefits were
equally shared.
-Countries that have had globalization managed by International Monetary
Fund and other int. institutions have done POORLY. PROBLEM IS WITH
GLOBALIZATION MANAGEMENT.
Beneficial globalization:
East Asia: growth is based on exports-by taking advantage of the
global market for exports and closing technology gap.
EACH OF THE SUCCESSFUL GLOBALIZING COUNTRIES determined
its own pace of change; each made sure that as it grew the benefits
were shared equitably and each rejected the basic “Washington
Consenus” which argued for a minimalist role for government and
rapid privatization and liberalization.
Negative globalization:
Adverse effects have risen from the liberalization of financial and
capital marketsposed risks to developing countries without
commensurate rewards.
o Huge amounts of money pouring in (booms) and then
suddenly removed (leaving economic devastation)
IMF IS WEAK, “structural adjustment programs” do NOT provide
jobs, lacks democratic accountability.
Chapters 52 & 53
Chapter 52:
Chapter 53:
PILLAR III: CULTURETHREE YAWNS FOR CULTURAL IMPERIALISM:
Chapter 38: “Cultural Imperialism”
The American show Dallas is shown in 90 countries world wide and is seen
as American imperialism as it projects images of “dazzling skyscrapers,
expensive clothes and automobiles, lavish settings, the celebration in the
narrative of power and wealth”
But empirical studies show that “audiences are more active and critical, their
responses more complex and reflective, and their cultural values more
resistant to manipulation and “invasion” than many critical media theorists
have assumed..”
Hamelink then draws the conclusion that: “the impressive variety of the
worlds cultural systems is waning due to a process of “cultural
synchronization” that is without historic precedent.”
• Less of a two way cultural exchange and more of a one way,
domination of western cultural norms
Cultural syncronization is a threat to cultural autonomy
• The survival of cultural autonomy is dependent on the freedom
from the process of global synchronization
• “the failure of a culture to ‘survive’ in an ‘original’ form may be
taken itself as a process of adaptation to a new ‘environment’—
that of capitalist industrial modernity
IE capitalist industrial modernity is changing the world environment
Chapter 40: “Why Hollywood Rules the World…”
Hollywood is the epicenter of the cinema industry today.
Europe cannot compete
US is successful because it produces films that will be successful on
a global scale
So as a result the films are entertaining, highly visible, have broad
global appeal
Also the global use of English helps
As the US specializes in producing films and theatre and TV, clustering
occurs in Hollywood
Brainwork of movies in Hollywood even when outsourced elsewhere for
production because its cheaper
**With US films accounting by far for the majority of the global cinema
industry, they naturally export American ethos behind the films, BUT the
American films are also affected by the global culture as they are trying to
appeal to as large of an audience as possible.
Two way street as holly affects global culture while global culture
and a striving for universal success affects Hollywood
“Hollywood strives to present the universal to global audiences. As
Hollywood markets its films to more non-english speakers, those
films become more general”
Critics allege that American culture is driving the world, but in
reality the two are determined simultaneously, and by the same set
of forces.
The American and national component to Hollywood moviemaking also
cannot be ignored. Hollywood has always drawn on the national ethos of the
US for cinematic inspiration.
American values of heroism, individualism and romantic self-
fulfillment are well suited for the large screen and for global
audiences.
** For this reason, dominant cultures, such as the US, have an advantage in
exporting their values and shaping the preferences of other nations.
Similarly, McDonalds shapes its product to meet global demands,
but builds on the American roots of the core concept.
Hybrid of global demands and American core values
Hollywood’s universality has in part become a central part of American
national culture. Commercial forces have led America to adopt “that which
can be globally sold” as part of its national culture
In doing so, Americans have, to some extent, traded away
particular strands of their culture for success in global markets.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
Means that in order to be competitive in the cinematic industry, and
other industries, a nation cannot be globally successful without
appealing to global ideals.
Excessive insulation from competitive pressures can virtually
guarantee an unfavorable result, whether economically or
aesthetically.
Fundamentalism As Resistance:
Chapter 36: Global Information Revolution (Price)
-The government wishes to keep control over what information the public
has access to, “state is interested in maintaining control of information flows
through their boundaries…”
-National boundaries are increasingly irrelevant and new technology
traverses boundaries very effectively, breaks down divides between
countries and cultures
-Market is now so powerful and technology so ubiquitous, is there still room
for old-fashioned law & policy making?
-For many centuries, control over participation in the market was a condition
of political stability…what differs in today’s market is the RANGE of
participants, the SCOPE of its BOUNDARIES, and the NATURE of regulatory
bodies capable of establishing and enforcing rules for participation/exclusion.
National identity=the set of political views and cultural attitudes
that help maintain the existing power structure
Incentive to change media law occurs when governance can no
longer maintain its position of civil dominance.
Media globalization creates a crisis when barriers of entry are loweredin
response a government can either redefine the cartel and accommodate
new entrants or raise the barriers for entry.
Chapter 41: “Global Fundamentalism”-Lechner
Fundamentalism is a reaction against modernity; an effort to preserve or
achieve a certain cultural authenticity in the face of a greedy, universalizing
global culture.
• A global culture is the target of the fundamentalist groups.
• Anti-modernism
But at the same time, fundamentalism is one of the crucial features of the
modern global condition and represents a form of sociological realism rather
than Western wishful thinking.
• Essentially, fundamentalism is contaminated by the culture it
opposes as in the modern world system, no fundamentalist can
simply re-appropriate the sacred and live by its divine lights.
• Fundamentalism is not in an iron cage of otherness, it is a full
participant of common discourse, a common society.
Societies are now inherently oriented toward each other ; they are involved
in processes that encompass all; even the object of the comparison, namely
the propensity to engage in fundamentalism, is no longer an indigenously
arising phenomenon.
**Fundamentalism is a mere facet of modernity which gives it a problematic
future as hybridization is now becoming a normal feature of globalization
• if the point of fundamentalism is to restore authentic sacred
tradition, this means that fundamentalism must fail.****
As the global society becomes more structurally differentiated, religion loses
social significance.
**The liberal-modern view of social order thus far has prevailed against
challenges issued by various kinds of anti-modern movements and regimes.
Fundamentalism has its origins in real discontents experienced by real
people; the tensions inherent in the globalization process cannot be resolved
in any permanent fashion; in modern global culture, fundamentalism has
found a place as part of a movement repertoire, to be activated when
conditions are right
• Cannot make clear cut predictions, but it does enable us to say,
more modestly that fundamentalism has a future—albeit one less
bright than that of liberal modernity.
Fundamentalism as Trans-cultural Political Activism
Chapter 47: “Pentecostalism..”
-Pentecostalism culture is created from the bottom up by millions of the
“culturally despised,” who walked out of established churches to join
independent, locally administered churches, usually led by authoritative
male pastors.
Has no dominant center but maintains many transnational
connections, is a sphere of multiple, ever-evolving networks that
increasingly strive to evangelize and bear global witness, offers a
model of GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.
Make use of the biblical text but also rely heavily on believer’s
physical involvement, culture is embodied in the way people move.
Spread through transnational networks but enacted by independent
groups of believers, faith and practice are eminently “translate-
able” from place to place.
Succeeds because of it’s always LOCAL nature, “find need and meet
need,” does well in periods of societal crisis.
Attracts women through the “feminine” work of the Spirit and a
“feminized” Jesus.
Pentecostalism grew without hierarchical direction or central
sponsorship, is highly varied.
It’s capacity for indigenization gives it an edge in global diffusion.
Chapter 48: “Globalizing Catholicism…”
Globalization has opened the way fro a realignment in the relations between
religious and worldly regimes.
The pope and the Vatican today have taken a strong stance on religious
freedom across the planet and that it is the governments duty to protect this
sacred human right.
• This could transform the pope from being the father of all Catholics
to becoming the common father of God’s children
Catholic church is working towards the establishment of automuous civil
societies and toward the constitution of one free global civil society
• Church at the forefront of a new worldwide democratic revolution
***the catholic church has become such an important transnational
organization in the emerging world system that no state can afford to ignore
it.
In the last decades there has been a remarkable increase in transnational
Catholic networks and exchanges of all kinds that criss-cross nations and
world regions, often bypassing Rome.
The political mobilization of Catholicism had been oriented toward the state,
its aim being either to resist disestablishment or to counteract state-oriented
secularist movements and parties.
• Permitted the church to play a key role in recent transitions to
democracy throughout the catholic world.
****Traditional position and attitude of the catholic church toward modern
political regimes had been that of neutrality toward all “forms of
government.”
• The recognition that modern democracy is not only a form of
government but a type of polity based on normatively on the
universalist principles of individual freedom and individual rights.
• As national churches transfer the defense of their particularistic
privileges to the human person, Catholicism becomes mobilized
again, this time to defend the institutionalization of modern
universal rights and the very right of a democratic civil society to
exist.
SETTING RULES: CULTURE AS GOVERNANCE, GOVERNANCE AS
CULTURE
Chapter 45: “Women and Fundamentalism in Iran & Pakistan”
Ongoing dialectical relationship between Islamic secular reformers of the
1950s and 1960s, and Islamic fundamentalists of the late 1970s and 1980s
in Iran and Pakistan
After centuries of resistance to changing Islamic family law, the muslim
reformers of the 1950s and 1960s adopted elements of Western Law and
applied them within an Islamic framework.
• Many perceived such reforms as a form of capitulation to the West…
an all too eager attempt to find an “Islamic justification” for an
essentially Western approach to the issue of interpersonal relations
The theoretical concepts underpinning the argument are those of obedience
and autonomy, both of whihch are enextricably associated with the
reciprocal rights of the spouses and derived from the contractual form of
marriage in Islam.
Obedience is a cornerstone of the Islamic vision of a just social order.
• Women are expected to be obedient to their husbands as they are
essentially their husbands property
Similarities between a contract of marriage and a contract of sale.
• Exchange of goods and services
o When a woman agrees to marry she relinquishes all voluntary
control and autonomy she may ever have over her legal and
social persona.
o **objectifies and commodifies women
o Men view women as objects to be owned and jealously
controlled; as objects of desire to seclude, to veil, and to
discard; and, at the same time, as objects of indispensable
value to men’s sense of power and virility
“a permanent wife” argued ayatollah Khomeini, “must not leave the house
without her husbands permission, and must submit herself for whatever
pleasure he wants…If she does not obey him she is a sinner and has no right
to clothing, housing, or sleeping.”
Virtually no female rights or autonomy
****1970s was a period of dramatic change and restlessness in Iran and
Pakistan.
• An overwhelming majority or Iranians took a collective plunge into
an idealized past, hoping to retrieve what they thought they could
agree on, namely, an Islamic identity
o Unambiguous call for Islamic identity
• While there was a law earlier that prohibited women from wearing
veils, Khomeini repealed it and made it so women had to wear
veils.
Iranian revolution found a place for women and as a result it formed tension
between the Islamic regime and women.
• Women criticize and scold the regime for not allowing women to
develop to their full potential in a just and equitable Islamic state.
“the fundamentalists dilemna has been how to deal with this “new woman”
without themselves being dislodged from their traditional position of power
and privilege, yet without appearing to undermine their own revolutionary
Islamic rhetoric.”
Chapter 46: “The Christian Revolution”
It was expected that as Christianity spread from the western world that it
would take a more liberal stance, but it has done the opposite.
• The Christian church is growing most strongly in the south: Africa
and Latin America and such populations are taking a very
conservative, literal stance and understanding on the new
testament.
• This is because much of the strife of living that the new testement
talks about is real life to them—they can relate to ideas of
martyrism and death as they are surrounded by it much more than
the western world
The dominant churches of the future could have much in common with those
of medieval or early modern European times.
“new Christian-dom” evokes medieval European age of faith, of passionate
spirituality and a pervasive Christian culture.
This causes regionalization and the tendency to bear with ones religion more
than ones nation-state.
• As a result it leads to a weakening of the nation state in the face of
globalization.
To a Christian living in a third world dictatorship, the image of the
government as Antichrist is not a bizarre religious fantasy, but a convincing
piece of political analysis.
Christianity is flourishing wonderfully among the poor and persecuted, while
it atrophies among the rich and secure.
Chapter 13: “How Sushi Went Global” (Bestor)
Japan’s emergence on the global economic scene in the 1970s
coupled with a rejection of hearty red meat American cuisine in
favor of healthy food & appeal of Japanese aesthetics and
designprepared sushi for takeover & American preference for
sushi grew.
Ramifications of sushi globalization:
o Fishing communities changed from close knit
communitiesfishers all talking/interacting with each other,
conflicts with customers, governments, environmentalists,
etc.
o Restaurants are being converted from ChineseJapanese,
owners take great pains to create Japanese culture within
ambiance.
-Globalization doesn’t necessarily homogenize cultural differences nor erase
salience of cultural labels but rather GROWS the FRANCHISE.
-Ability of fishers today to visualize Japanese culture and the place of tuna
within its culinary traditions is constantly RESHAPED by the flow of cultural
images that travel around the globe continuously. Japan is the CORE now.
Chapter 14: “McDonald’s in Hong Kong”
Important questions to remember:
-Does the roaring success of McDonald’s and its rivals in the fast food
industry mean that Hong Kong’s local culture is under siege? Are food chains
helping to create a homogeneous, “global” culture better suited to the needs
of a capitalist world order?
People of Hong Kong have embraced American style fast foods but
have not been stripped on their cultural traditions in any but the
most SUPERFICIAL of ways.
Hong Kong shows that the transnational IS the LOCAL.
The chain has become a local institution that has blended into the
urban landscapeare packed with all ages/types of consumers.
McDonald’s popularized the “snack” and made cleanliness
important to consumers (provided a clean restroom/place to clean
up for consumers)
Selling Identity: Cultures as Markets, Markets for Cultures
READING: KELTS -- Chapters 1-2, 5 DO THIS READING
Culture as Information: Can Information Cultures Be a Threat?
Chapter 36: LOOK ABOVE
Chapter 12: “The Global Ecumene” (Ulf)
-Core and periphery is a negotiated culture…
Is military presence in a country a form of imperialism?
Military presence changes the culture because soldiers buy things
from the venders, etc., bring home local commodities (or a wife)
-Study the degree of cultural influence in the periphery and core
McDonald’s changed local cultures by teaching population to wait in
line, carry a tray, use clean bathrooms, etc.
Sushi (commodity) had to change the business of sushi.
Democratic countries should listen to the culture
Religion affects governance
Restriction of a technology or commodity increases the culture’s
desire for it
-France & women’s headscarves
-The process of cultural meaning and how it changes the relationship
between the core and the periphery
How do certain things become American, Japanese, etc?
Are we going toward homogenization or hybridization?
Hybrid identitynot only heritage but also environment based
(living in rural areas as opposed to living in LA)
Asymmetry between culture, economy, politics, and military
o Sides do not look the same/influence is not equal, multi-
directional influence
o Example: gay marriage (culture heavily influences
government in this regard), grassroots efforts
o Language lacks political salience
A System of States, A Society of States, or a System of Societies?
Chapter 9: “World Society and the Nation-State”
Chapter 9: World Society & the Nation-State (Meyer, Boli)
-Worldwide models define and legitimate agendas for local action, shaping
the structures and policies of nation-states and other national/local actors in
all domains of rationalized social life (business, education, medicine, science,
family and religion).
Trying to account for the fact that all nation-states are structurally similar
and change in unexpectedly similar ways.
Hypothetical example: Island society
o Government would form modern state, economy, citizenship,
discrimination, and institutions.
o Despite all possible options for economic, political and cultural
processes, it would promptly take on the standardized form of
classic nation-state.
All this would happen more rapidly, and with greater importance to
daily life, in the present day than at any earlier time because
WORLD MODELS applicable to the island society are more highly
codified and highly publicized than ever before.
AND world-society organizations can spread facts faster & easier.
-Nation-states are enactments of a world cultural order.
-Most see nation-states are collective actors (products of their own histories
and internal forces)Meyer, etc. presents view that nation-states are
constructed entities (individuals are enactors of scripts rather than self-
directed actors)
-RESISTANCE to world models is difficult because nation-states are formally
committed, as a matter of identity, to certain self-evident goals like
socioeconomic development, citizen rights, etcnation-state choices and
world pressures derive from same over-arching institutions.
Counterarguments by realists explain markets and governance but fail to
explain autonomous nation-state actors.
Counterargument by micro-culturalists explain for diversity and resistance to
homogenization but can’t explain why most nation-states are similar.
Chapter 57: “Ecological Balance in an Era of Globalization”
World affairs have grown increasingly dictated by trade and commerce.
Commitment to sustainability and justice was replaced by the rule of trade
and the elevation of exploitation, greed, and profit maximization as the
organizing principles of the market, the state, and society.
The state and the community are increasingly becoming mere instruments of
global capital.
Food provisioning, health care, education, and social security are all being
transformed into corporate projects under the code words of
“competitiveness” and “efficiency.”
Property of the powerful corporations that is being protected by the state in
every part of the world under the new free trade regimes, while the property
of the ordinary citizen has no protection.
**Globalization has in a deep sense been a globalization of apartheid..
especially glaring in the context of the environment. Globalization is
restructuring the control over resources in such a way that the natural
resources of the poor are systemically taken over by the rich and the
pollution of the rich is systematically dumped on the poor.***
• Globalization is thus leading to an environmental apartheid
• Liberalization of markets as well
**North attempts to maintain their lifestyle of the rich by exporting the
environmental costs to the third world
Former chief economist of the World Bank supported the migration of dirty
industries to the less developed countries.
We are creating growth by destroying the environment and local, sustainable
livelihoods.
US is leading waste-exporting country in the world.
• Exporting to India, being used as a dumping ground
Many of the importing units do not possess the technology or the expertise
to process the chemicals they are importing therefore, they inadvertently
cause more harm to the environment and their communities because of their
ignorance concerning the chemicals that they are dealing with.
***Dumping on the developing world becomes justified on the grounds of
economic efficiency***
**Economic liberalization is threatening to sever this link by treating
biodiversity as a raw material for exploitation of life forms as property and of
peoples livelihoods as an inevitable sacrifice for national economic growth
and development.
• Also eroding the level of governing control that people have over
their lives.
Globalization and their associated violence are posing some of the most
sever challenges to ordinary people in India and throughout the world.
Readings 1 10/15/10 2:16 PM
Sept 28 Foundations: A 60-Minute Guide to I.R. Theory
Chapter 5-Clash of Civilizations (Huntington):
What is new about world politics today, according to Huntington? Does this
image of a world embroiled in clashes of civilization contradict the
conventional view that globalization is a process that creates new bonds
across cultural boundaries? Does Huntington demonstrate that civilizations
are now the primary forms of identity and organization in world society?
Claim: The great divisions among human-kind and the dominating source of
conflict will be culturalnation states will remain as actors but major
conflicts will occur among civilizations.
History:
Conflicts of Western world were among empires/princescreated
nation-statesFrench Revolution: conflicts with nations rather than
princesRussian Rev lead to conflict between ideologies
(Communism, Facism-Nazism & liberal democracy)-Cold War
The peoples of Non-Western civilizations will now be movers &
shakers of the world
Why Civilizations will Clash:
1) Differences between civilizations are not only real; they are basic.
o Beliefs in religion, history, language and culture will not be
easily changed (much more important than political
ideology)generates the worst conflict
2) World is becoming a smaller place.
o Increasing interactions due to technology intensify civilization
consciousness & awareness of differences
o Example: US most resistant to Japanese investment because
they are very different than us
3) The processes of economic modernization and social change
throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local
identities.
o Weaken nation state as source of identity
o Revival of fundamentalist religion groups provides
commitment that transcends nation-state boundaries
4) The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual
role of the West.
o Peak of power West confront return-to-the-roots West
5) Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and
hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and
economic ones.
o Can change from Republican to Democrat, rich to poor but
CAN’T change your cultural identity (i.e. ethnicity/religious
preference)
6) Economic regionalism is increasing
o Ex) Japan is a culture unique to itself and so may have trouble
relating in trade to Europe/US. Contrast, common culture is
quickly facilitating trade between China and Taiwan.
“As people define their identity by religion, etc, they are more likely to see
an “us” versus “them” situation.”
2 Levels:
Micro-level: adjacent groups along the fault lines will struggle over control of
territory and each other.
Macro-level: states from different civilizations compete for military and
economic power, control of international institutions and in politics/religion.
Velvet Curtain of ideology now divides Western Christianity from Orthodox
Christianity & Islam.
The West and the Rest
West is unparalleled in terms of military, economics, and
international relations
Responses of non-Western civilizations to West:
o 1) Extreme: non-Western states, like Burma and North Korea,
can attempt to pursue a course of isolation-insulate their
societies from Western influence.
COSTS are HIGH
o 2) “Band-wagoning”-international relations theory, to attempt
to join the West and accept its values & institutions.
o 3) Balance the West by adopting political & military &
economic power while preserving indigenous values.
MODERNIZE NOT WESTERNIZE
Only Japan has succeeded in this.
West will have to gather a better understanding of
different cultures while maintaining the power
necessary to protect its interests
NO universal civilization but many coexisting with each
other
Chapters 8- Realism and Complex Interdependence (Keohane &
Nye):
How does “complex interdependence” constrain the behavior of states
interested in enhancing their power and security, according to Keohane and
Nye? What traditional assumptions about world politics does this new
situation call into question? How can international organizations transform
world politics?
-Absence of hierarchy among issues mean that military security does not always dominate the agendamilitary force is not by governments toward
other governments within the region/on issues, when complex independence
prevails.
No longer can all issues be subordinated to military power
Perceived safeness has increased-countries do not fear attack every
secondforce is NO LONGER an influence/can be held over lesser
countries as an instrument of policy
However, can still be used politically; superpowers use the threat of
force to deter attacks (especially US)
BUT (must remember):
1) drastic political/social change could cause force again to be very
important
2) Even when elites’ interests are complementary, country that uses military
force to protect another may have significant political influence over the
other country.
REALIST & COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE both exist, just in layers and
depending on the situation.
Ex) When an issue doesn’t call a lot of attention/little interest in itcomplex
interdependence, when an issue becomes a matter of life/death (oil)realist
assumptions are relevant
Role of International Organizations:
Existence of multiple channels=different role for int. organizations
Realist theory: War dominants everything, acting in self-interest
only, constant struggle for “power and peace”. Int. institutions have
a minor role in this portrayal.
C.I.: When war does not dominate, int. organizations have great
bargaining rights and help set int. agenda, act as catalysts for
coalition formation.
Also allow small and weak states to pursue linkage strategies.
Concepts: Systems, Societies, and Globalizations
Chapter 9-World Society and the Nation-State (Meyer):
What do Meyer and his colleagues mean when they say that nation-states
are not “collective actors”? What surprising similarities among nation-states
do they note, and how do they account for them? Do they identify a driving
force in globalization?
Many features of the contemporary nation-state derive from worldwide
models constructed and propagated through global cultural and associational
processes.
Hypothetical example: If a new island were to form, all institutions
of the island would form much faster in the present day than at any
earlier time because all world models are highly publicized/known.
o Unlikely to happen are theological disputes about moral order,
a rush to colonize the island, modest citizenship would NOT be
argued for.
Chapter 10-Globalization as a Problem (Robertson):
How does Robertson define globalization, and how does his “model of order”
capture its key features? What is the “take off period of modern
globalization”? How does globalization trigger debate about world order and
a “search for fundamentals”?
Globalization: as a concept refers to both the compression of the world and
the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. Empirical focus
is in line with the increasing acceleration in both concrete global
interdependence and 20th century consciousness.
Model of order: national societies, individuals (selves), relationships between
national societies/world system of societies, humankind.
-Purpose is to inject flexibility into “totality” of the world (our perception of it)
Model is an attempt to make analytical and interpretative sense of
how quotidian actors (collective or individual) go about the business
of conceiving the world.
Complexity is a moral issue in its own right.
To understand globalization realistically, one must understand the
four features and how they are constantly constrained by each
other.
His approach is meant to explore the differences rather than the
traditional sociological view of culture as integrating.
Relativization: the ways in which, as globalization proceeds,
challenges are increasingly presented to the stability of particular
perspectives on the overall process.
-Fundamentalism as a reaction to, rather than an aspect of or a creation of,
globalization.
-Sum of argument: The search for fundamentals is both a contingent feature
of globalization and an aspect of global culture. “Fundamentalism within
limits” is what makes globalization work.
Globalization is linked to social awareness
Does Globalization Undermine the State or Simply Ignore It?
Boli-Lechner; Chapter 3-From the Great Transformation to the
Global Free Market
19th century England/Great Transformation:
-Far-reaching experiment in social engineering
-Objective was to free economic life from social and political control
-Did this by creating a new free market (new type of economy in which
the prices of all goods and services, changed without regard to their effects
on society)
-Goal was to demolish social markets replace them with deregulated
markets that operated independently of social needs.
Concept A: All great thinkers of the time believed that there was going to be
a switch from separate cultures creation of a single worldwide civilization
(new, universal community founded on reason)
Example: United States, believe in the need to impose free markets onto the
economic life of societies throughout the world.
Cons: USA has the worst social breakdown of any developed country
(families weak, use jail as a way to control system)
-Huge levels of inequality
Concept B: A single global market is the Enlightenment’s project of a
universal civilization in what is likely to be its final form.
-Although it does not rival Communism yet in loss of lives, in time it may
come to inflict an equal amount of suffering
Ex: 100 million Chinese peasants becoming migrant workers, rule by
organized crime, exclusion from work/societies, and environmental
destruction.
Concept C: A global free market presupposes that economic modernization
means the same thing everywhere.
-Real history of our time shows this to be incorrect
Ex: Asian market economies diverge deeply from one another (none
are converging on any Western model)
Concept D: The emergence of a truly global economy doesn’t imply the
extension of western valuesmeans the end of the epoch of western
supremacy.
Concept E: A world economy doesn’t make a single regime-“democratic
capitalism”-universal, actually promotes new types of regimes as it spawns
new types of capitalism.
-Trigger a new competition between remaining social economies and free
markets.
Free markets: modeled policies on laissez-faire era (government claimed no
intervention)actuality: an economy in which markets are deregulated and
put beyond possibility of political/social control (CANNOT BE REINVENTED)
Cons: did not meet human needs, free market has encouraged new
inequalities in income, wealth, and access to work/quality of life.
-Will not last for very long (social costs are such that it cannot last long in
any society)
Economic globalization: worldwide spread of industrial production and
new technologies that is promoted by unrestricted mobility of capital and
freedom of trade-THREATENS the stability of the global market that is being
created by America.
Concept F: Central paradox of our time states that economic globalization
does not strengthen the current regime of global laissez-faire but rather
UNDERMINES it.
Concept G: Reinventing the free market has no chance of success unless one
understands that many of the changes produced are irreversible and grasps
the technological/economic transformations to harness.
Concept H: Technological advances have made the managed economics of
the post-war period unsustainable.
-Make full employment policies of the traditional sort unworkable
(many occupations are disappearing, are less secure)
Solution: A reform of the world economy is needed that accepts a diversity of
cultures, regimes and market economies as a permanent reality.
Conclusion: A global market does not work;
Does not meet the needs in a time in which western values are no longer
universally authoritative.
It does not allow the world’s manifold cultures to achieve modernizations
that are adapted to their histories, circumstances, and needs.
Works to set up sovereign states against one another in geopolitical
struggles for dwindling natural resources.
Doesn’t meet the human need for securitylaissez faire restricts
governments from protecting their people greater political instability
Global democratic capitalism is as unrealizable a condition as worldwide
communism.
Chapter 25-The End of the Nation State (Ohmae):
-Ohmae/Strange make the argument that states should not interfere with
economy YET economy CANNOT exist without governments.
Argue for the end of the state
-In economics as well as politics, the nation-state older patterns of linkage
have begun to lose their dominance.
Cumulative effect of fundamental changes in the currents of
economic activity around the globenation-states have already lost
their role as meaningful units of participation in the global economy.
o 1) These political units have much less to contribute.
Efforts to assert traditional forms of economic
sovereignty over regions is having the opposite effect.
Nation-states have become very vulnerable to decisions
made by people elsewhere that they have no control
over.
o 2) Nation-state is increasingly a nostalgic fiction
Can’t look at Russia as a single unit, each country is a
motley combination of territories with vastly different
needs and contributions
o 3) Goods and services can no longer be attached to a single
national label
Is a car really American when its compenents come
from/are assembled in different parts of the world?
Outsourcing provides people with better access to low-cost, high-
quality products when they are not produced “at home.”
Absence of vision and with panic rising, civilizations will be the
dividing lines but are they really a good way to understand
economic activity?
-Argues that Huntington’s argument leaves out historical contexthowever
different we are culturally, we all have the same sources of global
information, this connects us.
Whatever culture one is in, they get access to info about how other
cultures live (styles, preferences, traditions, etc)technology
connects the younger generations around the globe VERY much.
-The citizens of the world will not wait passively until nation-states or cultural prophets deliver tangible improvements in lifestylewant to build their own
future now!
Swing of the pendulum: nation-states were the key unit to manage economic
affairs (right grew out of military strength-now great burden, control of
natural resources-now drain on finances, control of land-now power can
spread without redefining boundaries) BUT NOW cycle of decay ruins it.
ONLY HOPE: reverse centralizing tendencies and let the economic
pendulum swing away from nations and back toward regions.
Chapter 26-The Declining Authority of States (Strange):
Strange argues that rapid technological change and the extensive resources
required for technological innovation force states to do the bidding of
transnational corporations. Give the logic of this argument, while also
showing how technological change can also work to the benefit of states.
Logic:
Markets are now the masters over the governments of states
Paradoxes: 1) Intervention of state authority is actually
increasingState still exits because there is still a need for political
authority of some kind (but many states are becoming deficient in
this regard).
2) Societies that want their own state are increasing in number but
once achieved, it does not seem to give them any control/real
power over their society.
o Desire for ethnic autonomy is universal, the political means to
satisfy that desire within an integrated world market is not.
3) The Asian state has achieved great economic success with very
strong government invention.
o A) All Asian states were very fortunate (geographically, etc)
o B) Were exempted from the pressure to conform to the norms
of the open liberal economy.
Were allowed to limit foreign imports yet given great
access to the market.
-Argument: Accelerating technological change, escalation in the capital cost
of most technological innovations while cost of labor has fallen.
Premises:
1) Politics is a common activity, not confined to politicians.
2) Power over outcomes is exercised impersonally by markets and
those who buy/sell in markets.
3) Authority over economic transactions and society is exercised by
agents other than states now.
Oct 7 The Politics of Globalism
Chapter 28-Has Globalization Gone too Far? (Rodrik):
Rodrick suggests that globalization may have gone too far. In your opinion,
should business and markets be totally free of government regulation and
oversight? How large a role should government play in managing the
economy and seeking solutions to social problems?
Chapter 29-Geoffrey Garrett, “Partisan Politics in the Global
Economy”:
Argument: The relationship between the political power of the left and
economic policies that reduce market-generated inequalities has not been
weakened by globalization; it has actually be strengthened.
1) Existing societies have significantly underestimated the effects of
domestic political conditions both on the way governments react to
globalization and on their impact on the national economythere remains a
leftist alternative to free market capitalism in the era of global markets
based on the classic “big government” and corporatist principles that is
viable both economically and politically.
Review Question #8:
Garrett challenges the claim that expanded governments interferes with
economic growth. What are some of the “positive externalities” of expanded
government that may help economic growth, despite the higher taxes and
lowered flexibility that government expansion often entails?
Counter point:
Rodrik’s argument: Cumulative consequence of globalization will be
solidifying a new set of class divisionsbetween those who prosper from the
economy and those who do not…
“Social disintegration is not a spectator sport-those on the sidelines get
splashed with mud from the field. Ultimately, the deepening of social fissures
can harm all.”
Primary: Globalization and national autonomy are NOT mutually exclusive.
The benefits of globalization can be reaped without undermining the
economic sovereignty of nations, and without reducing the ability of citizens
to choose how to distribute the benefits/costs of the market.
Types of positive externalities:
-Although it is easy to point to specific costs of discrete interventionist
policies, big governments seem to produce positive externalities that are
overlooked by critics.
1) Very specific and relates to new growth theorygovernment investments
in infrastructure (bridges, roads, research, development, education, etc)
2) More general and central to claims about social democratic
corporatismpolicies that redistribute market allocations of wealth and risk
are unlikely to provoke capital flight among asset holders.
Evidence: There are three basic propositions about the interrelationships
among globalization, partisan politics, and the economy…
Global. has generated new political constituencies for left-of-center
parties among the increasing ranks of the economically insecure
that offset the shrinking of the manufacturing working
classbalance of power b/w left and right remain.
Global. has increased political incentives for left-wing parties to
pursue economic policies that redistribute wealth and risk in favor
of those adversely affected by market dislocationsrelationship
between left-labor power and big government has not weakened
with market integration.
Global. has increased the importance of economic, political, and
social stability to the investment decisions of mobile asset holders.
Combo of powerful left-wing parties and labor market promote
stability in wage-setting processmacroeconomic performance
under social democratic corporatism has been as good than any
other time.
Governance from Below: Challenging the StateChapter 34:
Chapter 35:
Chapter 30 (Section):
Governance From Below-Challenging the State