lecture 2- Globalisation in Question

October 13, 2006 at 8:49 am · Filed under Uncategorized

This lecture does two things. It continues from lecture one to look at the arguments for capitalism and to examine the benefits of globalisation.

It also poses some questions around the political importance of globalisation. This political question is dealt with in relatively little depth, I suspect that there are other courses that treat it far more fully.

The key issue is whether globalisation matters politically (and therefore economically and culturally). Hyper globalists like Thomas Friedman, author of ‘The Lexus and the Olive Tree’ present the argument that globalisation has transformed the world. In a nutshell ‘strong’ or ‘hyper globalists’ argue that national states have little real power.

This is because global market forces determine policy rather the preferences of politicians. If a country embarks on policies of ‘excessive’ borrowing, high taxes or rigourous environmental protection, industry and money capital will move to countries with lower rates of taxation, etc.

Tony Blair has endorsed this perspective to argue that a political break with old Labour had to be made with the creation of a more economically ‘liberal’ New Labour.

We live, according to hyper-globalists, in one global market. Interestingly this is the thesis held by Negri and Hardt.

In contrast, social democratic thinkers who wish to maintain higher government spending, redistributive taxes, etc…represented by Hirst and Thompson have argued that the world economy used to be more globalised before 1914 and that globalisation is an excuse to introduce policies that politicians who want to shrink the state support.

In a sense the notion of globalisation put forward by hyper-globalists like Friedman challenges the concept of ‘political economy’. Economic decisions made by politicians should be constructed on the basis of what is objectively economically efficient. Political choices reject this objectivity and lead to lower levels of economic development.

It is interesting incidentally to examine how relative economic or political power may allow countries to ‘buck the market’ and ‘opt’ out of globalisation. In Venezuela huge oil reserves and high oil prices from 2003 to 2006 have allowed President Chavez’s government to experiment with strongly anti-neo-liberal policies.

In the USA economic power has perhaps enabled a version of military Keynesianism with the federal government running up large government and balance of payment deficits.

For a sceptical view from a Marxist perspective see

from Chris Harman, who argues that the essentials remain the same.

Seminar questions.

1. What is globalisation?

2. What are the political effects of globalisation?

3. Why do advocates believe globalisation is beneficial?

4. Do you agree that globalisation is limited?

5. Is globalisation primarily an economic process?

New-radical-political-economy