Globalizmi dhe Antiglobalizmi

[Enri]

Nga Enri Hide*


Egzistojne shume arsye per tju kundervene ideve aktuale neoliberale ne te cilat bazohet zhvillimi ekonomik, politik dhe social i shoqerive te sotme ne stadin e globalizimit.
Arsyeja kryesore eshte qe te gjitha format me te cilat shfaqet globalizimi shoqerohen nga nje tendence, ne dukje e papermbajtshme, per te transformuar gjithcka – cdo veprimtari njerezore dhe cdo marrdhenie midis individeve – ne mall me nje vlere te caktuar ekonomike. Por te gjitha keto arsye s’jane aspak homogjene dhe koesive midis tyre. Nese pluraliteti i tyre perben pasuri, heterogjeniteti midis tyre perben nje pengese ne krijimin dhe gjetjen e zgjidhjeve te pranueshme, me baze dhe me jetegjatesi.
Pra nevojitet qe gjithsecili prej nesh te pyese veten: Cila eshte ajo gje, brenda ne kontestimin qe i behet procesit te globalizmit, qe nxjerr njekohesisht ne pah dhe nje utopizem relativ per nje bote sic do te donim te ishte, sic do te ishte e drejte te ishte… Dhe, nga ana tjeter, cilat do te ishin kushtet paraprake ne baze te te cilave mund te perqendrohej dhe te fitohej mbeshtetja e pjeses me te madhe te njerezimit, te cilat mund te arkitektonin – esencialisht dhe jo vetem duke dale neper protesta masive rruge – konfiguracionin e nje bote tjeter, e nje bote ndryshe.
Ajo qe e ben teper te veshtire pershkrimin e nje “Globalizmi ndryshe” eshte fakti qe ai proces presupozon nje sere masash specifike, si ne nivel lokal ashtu dhe ne nivel global, masa te cilat jane teper te komplikuara si nga ana e perpunimit teorik te tyre, ashtu dhe nga ana e realizimit praktik.
Paralelisht globalizmi, i cili sic e dime lindi nga nje nevoje e neoliberalizmit fiktiv per nje shtrirje globale te tregjeve, karakterizohet nga thjeshtesia e mesazhit qe percon: “shnderroni te gjithe marrdheniet njerezore ne marrdhenie ekonomiko-tregtare dhe cdo gje do te shkoje me se miri nepermjet funksionimit te lirshem te ekonomise se tregut”. Nje teori kjo, te cilen duket se e kane perqafuar fuqishem disa prej demokracive me te perparuara perendimore, me qeverite e tyre neoliberale.
Procedurat e Globalizmit, sic verejne dhe disa prej studiuesve me ne ze, kryesisht te shkolles franceze dhe gjermane te marrdhenieve nderkombetare, kane arritur ne piken e moskthimit mbrapa (The point of no return – Alen Kafe, Toni Negri, Zaki Laidi, etj). Sistemi politik, i cili u lind dhe u rrit ne gjirin e kesaj idelogjie te globalizimit ekonomik pa vlera te shtuara sociale dhe pa ndjesira per shumellojshmerine e qyteterimeve, traditave, etj, ka pervetesuar nje fuqi gjithnje ne rritje. Ne te njejten kohe do te perbente nje gabim esencial ti jepnim Globalizimit ngjyrat e nje Globalizimi Politik dhe kjo per arsyen e thjeshte qe, pas renies se Bllokut Lindor dhe kristalizimit ne arenen ndekombetare te nje Superfuqi te vetme, perballemi me nje supremaci llogjike te menyres perendimore te organizmit shoqeror, ekonomik dhe politik. Ne kete kuptim, dhe duke patur parasysh qe humnera e zhvilllimit dhe prosperitetit midis vendeve te zhvilluara dhe atyre qe jane ne zhvillim eshte rritur disa here me teper se c’ishte ne dhjetevjecaret 1970 – ’80, duhet te pranojme qe ne vend te Globalizimit te vlerave, te qyteterimit humanist paqedashes, jemi duke u perballur me Globalizimin e ekonomise se tregut mentaliteti i te cilit eshte ai qe krijon de facto mbizoterimin e neokolonializmit ne formen e kontrollit te plote ekonomik te te zhvilluarve ndaj vendeve te Botes se Trete.
Kryesorja eshte gjetja e menyrave efektive te reagimit te organizuar te shteteve qe ndodhen ne nje pozicion teper delikat persa i perket zhvillimit te tyre ekonomik, proceseve demokratike e sociale te institucioneve tyre nga njera ane dhe te shoqerise se tyre nga ana tjeter, ne menyre qe tu pergjigjen sfides se zhvillimit ne agim te shekullit te 21te, duke pasur parasysh sferitetin e procesit te zhvillimit te nje shoqerie, i cili s’mund dhe s’duhet te bazohet vetem ne persiatjen e rritjes ekonomike, qe perben vete njerin prej parametrave te zhvillimit.
Instucionalizimi i veprimtarise se vendeve ne zhvillim e siper ne kuadrin e nje Globalizimi vertet global (ne kuptimin e perfshirjes se gjithe parametrave sociale ne kete proces) nepermjet organizmave nderkombetare globale (sic eshte Organizata Boterore e Tregtise, OKB-ja dhe organizmat qe rrjedhin prej saj), nepermjet modernizmit te procedurave te prodhimit dhe te industrializmit, nepermjet persuatjes te perfitimit te masave ligjore ne kuader te se Drejtes Nderkombetare me lehtesime te tregtise se vendeve te pazhvilluara, jane vetem disa prej rrugeve nepermjet te cilave duhet te kaloje procesi i Globalizmit, qe te mund te quhet i drejte dhe i barabarte ne kuptimin e mundesive qe duhet ti jepen te gjitha shteteve per nje zhvillim real dhe te gjithanshem te tyre.


* Autori ka mbaruar studimet universitare ne degen e Marrdhenieve Nderkombetare dhe te Organizmave Nderkombetare dhe vazhdon studimet mbasuniversitare per MASTER ne Universitetin Pandeio te Athines ne fushen e “Marrdhenieve te BE-se me Vendet neZhvillim”.

[Albo]

Globalizimi nuk eshte i mire, por nuk eshte as i keq. Te gjithe ata qe vendosin veten ne llogoret Pro apo Kunder globalizimit, i shohin zhvillimet vetem ne kontekstin e interesave personale apo kombetare, jo ne interesin global.

Eshte e vertete qe interesat ekonomike fitojne nje prioritet mbi interesat principore dhe cdo vlere shoqerore barazohet me nje vlere financiare. A eshte kjo e keqe? Para se ti jap pergjigje kesaj pyetje, dua tua vendos efektet e globalizimit ne nje kendveshtrim qe shikon me larg dhe me thelle:

"Ne bote nuk do te kete ndonjehere paqe per aq kohe sa ka uri" - ka thene Simon Perez, ish-kryeministri dhe ministri i jashte izraelit. A i interesojne vlerat dhe principet nje njeriu te uritur ne Kine, Indi, apo Afrike? I gjithe debati qe ne ne Perendim bejme mbi kete problem eshte i ngritur mbi kendveshtrimet dhe interesat tona, por a i kemi marre parasysh edhe urine e krijuar nga varferia dhe mbipopullimi ne keto pjese te globit? Sigurisht qe jo.

Nje nga prej ekefteve teper pozitive te globalizimit ka qene zgjerimi i tregjeve lokale ne nje treg te perbashket boteror. Kjo ka bere qe korporatat e medha perendimore te levizin biznesin e tyre ne vende si India dhe Kina qe ofrojne punetore ne mase dhe kosto shume te ulet pune krahasuar me koston ne vendet e tyre. Kjo shikohet si nje kercenim nga punetoret amerikane apo gjermane, apo britanike qe humbin vendet e tyre te punes, por ne te njejten kohe eshte nje avantazh per te shuar urine dhe krijuar nje shtrese te mesme edhe ne vendet me te populluara te botes si India dhe Kina qe se bashku kane 1/2 te popullsise se botes.

A do te mund te shikonim kete lulezim maredheniesh me Kinen komunister, nese nuk do te kishim politikat e globalizimit te ekonomise midis SHBA dhe Kines? A do te mund te mbijetonte stabiliteti politik e shoqeror ne Kine, nese miliona kineze nuk do ta gjenin veten ne pune e jo ne rruge pa asnje te ardhur? A do te mund te flisnim sot per nje transformim te brendshem politik te Kines, ku edhe Kina hapet me boten dhe perqafon lirite dhe te drejtat demokratike te shtetasve? A do te mundte konsumatori amerikan te blinte ato mallra qe blen ne Walmart me ato cmime aq te uleta nese keto mallra nuk do te prodhoheshin ne Kine?

E solla shembullin me Kinen per te provuar qe zhvillimi ekonomik i shpejte i saj, i ka hapur udhen krijimit te nje shtrese te mesme dhe nje shtrese te pasur biznesmenesh, qe jane investimi me i madh i bere per nje Kine demokratike neser. Kuptohet qe nje vend si Kina nuk mund te ndryshoje ne nje dite apo ne nje dekade, ndryshimi do te jete gradual dhe i ngadalshem pa cenuar stabilitetin politik dhe shoqeror te vendit.

Globalizimi ka bere te mundur qe ekonomia amerikane te dyfishoje e trefishoje GDP e vete pasi ajo i ka rritur mushkerite e saj me tregjet e reja te krijuara ne vende si Kine, Indi, Filipine, Meksike. Kjo nuk do te thote qe prosperiteti amerikan ndahet nga pjesa tjeter e botes, por ne te njejten kohe hapja e tregjeve te reja ne bote ka krijuar zhvillimin e ketyre tregjeve dhe rritjen e mireqenies ne to.

Problemi i vetem i globalizimit, ajo qe i ben emer te keq atij, eshte ndryshimi i shpejte dhe i pakontrolluar i ekonomive, tregjeve dhe mentaliteteve te njerezve. Nje trasnformim i pakontrolluar do te thote nje renie drastike e mireqenies ne vendet e industrializuara, dhe nje ngritje drastike ne vendet ne zhvillim. Ky sistem eshte ende jo-perfekt dhe ka lene vend per shume abuzime, por nese keto abuzime adresohen dhe korrigjohen, globalizimi mund te jete nje force e paimagjinueshme e nje ndryshimi per mire ne jeten e njerezve ne bote. Jo te gjithe do te njohin prosperitetin e amerikaneve, por shumica nuk do te jetojne me ne varferi e uri pa nje fije shprese per me mire.

Albo

[Larsus]

"THE ECONOMIST"
US IMMIGRATION
Mar 4th 2004

Despite new arguments to the contrary, the relentless Latino influx is
still good for America

IN 1993 Samuel Huntington caused consternation by arguing that
globalisation would produce not harmonious growth, but a clash of
civilisations. He was particularly criticised for talking about Islam's
"bloody borders". Now the Harvard professor has decided to gore another
sacred cow--the idea that mass Latino immigration is an unqualified
blessing for America. For Mr Huntington the truth is the opposite.
Hispanic immigration is in danger of dividing America into "two
peoples, two cultures and two languages": another "clash of
civilisations", in effect.

Mr Huntington's new book, "Who We Are: Challenges to American National
Identity", is not out until May. But an article based on the book in
FOREIGN POLICY magazine (a magazine, incidentally, which Mr Huntington
co-founded but which is now run by a Latino editor and a Latino
managing editor) has already caused a sensation. One commentator in
Miami has even called for mass protests against Mr Huntington's
employer, Harvard University, and his publisher, Simon & Schuster.


This being so, it is hard to resist the temptation to pile in on Mr
Huntington's side. He surely deserves to be commended for his
intellectual bravery. Business people don't want to discuss the
downside of immigration because they regard immigrants as a wonderful
source of cheap labour. And Democratic activists don't want to discuss
the downside because they regard Latinos as a wonderful source of
Democratic votes.

Mr Huntington also has some serious points on his side. America may be
a land of immigrants, but the current wave of Latino immigration is
unlike anything that has gone before in at least two respects. One is
the proximity of the immigrants to their homelands. The millions of
Europeans who crossed the Atlantic before the first world war purchased
one-way tickets. Today's Latino immigrants are forever hopping back
over the border to visit their relatives, or even to vote. The sheer
scale and relentlessness of their immigration is new, too. In 1998
"Jose" replaced "Michael" as the most popular name for newborn boys in
both California and Texas.

So the current wave of Latino immigration clearly poses peculiar
problems. But are these problems enough to justify Mr Huntington's
apocalyptic vision of two Americas? The biggest problem with his
argument lies in his view of "assimilation". For Mr Huntington, this
means adapting to America's "core Anglo-Protestant culture", which has
given America its respect for law, hard work and human rights.
Assimilation has worked in the past because immigrants have been
willing to adapt in this way: look at the way the Kennedys transformed
themselves into Boston Brahmins. The Latinos, he thinks, are too
immersed in their own cultures to make this transition.

A LONG TIME SINCE THE MAYFLOWER
But is "assimilation" merely a matter of adapting to America's
"Anglo-Protestant core"? The notion of America's core identity has
surely broadened since the Puritans first colonised Massachusetts.
Historically, assimilation is a two-way street: immigrant groups adapt
themselves to America's mainstream, but they also redefine and enrich
that mainstream by contributing something of their own.

Mr Huntington's view of Latino identity is similarly simple-minded. He
ignores the fact that it is bound to change over time, just as
Italian-American identity, Jewish-American identity and Irish-American
identity have done. Talk to the parents of Latinos growing up in Los
Angeles and Houston, and all you hear are complaints that their
children are abandoning their old culture. Mr Huntington also ignores
the fact that immigrants are quite capable of embracing more than one
culture--of being Mexican at home and Anglo at work.

Latinos, in fact, are remarkably keen on assimilation. Mr Huntington
produces anecdotes about Latinos booing the American side when the
United States played Mexico at soccer in Los Angeles in 1998. But much
systematic evidence points in the opposite direction. Latinos are not
only making slow but steady progress in terms of home-ownership,
business formation and education. They are at least as enthusiastic
about American institutions as non-Latinos.

A large opinion poll co-ordinated in 2000 by the WASHINGTON POST found
that 90% of new arrivals from Latin America believe that it is
important for them to change in order to fit in with their adopted
country. Only one in ten of second-generation Latinos relies mainly on
speaking Spanish. Latinos do not see themselves as a monolithic ethnic
group. Nor do they necessarily agree with the politics of their
countrymen back home. The New America Foundation's Gregory Rodriguez
points out that a significant proportion of the American troops being
killed in Iraq are Latinos--and that the commander of the allied
liberation forces there, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, grew up in
a Texan county that is 98% Mexican-American.

Mr Huntington is right to point out that absorbing large numbers of
people from a next-door country poses unusual problems. The United
States needs to heed George Bush's call to bring immigrants out of the
shadow economy where millions of them now work. It needs to scrap the
failed experiment with bilingual education which has left so many
immigrants unable to speak English. And it needs to stop pandering to
ethnic demagogues with special programmes for ethnic minorities.

But the cost of closing the borders would be far bigger than keeping
them open, by starving the economy of some of its most energetic
workers. Throughout its history America's great strength has been its
ability to absorb new people--and the new ideas and tastes that they
bring with them. There is no reason to think that this will change just
because the new people come across the Rio Grande rather than across
the Atlantic.

[Laerta]

During the first half of twentieth century the international economic system had experienced trade liberalizations, which meant the marginal role of governments to regulate markets and international trade, according to the traditional school of though of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, based on the principle of absolute and comparative advantage. Ricardo’s doctrine on comparative advantage is based on very narrow assumptions such as: All individuals display same preferences of bundles of economic goods-commodities, have full information in price distortions, input prices as well commodities’ prices, such as wages, rents, and commodity price indexes known as CPI. There is only one factor of production, such as either capital, labour or technology, capital is immobile across boarders, constant technological growths, abundance of a country in a strategic trading commodity, marginal state interventions in production capacities. Once the two countries are engaged in trade, each country benefits from trade and is a win-win game. The niche competition as described by Ricardo as a win-win game is transformed to a win-lose game, which underlines monopolies of microelectronics, biotechnologies, robotics, auto industry and the most villain of all, finance. Present global order is established under the architecture of the neo-liberal agenda, which relies on market capabilities without any state interferences and regulations.
This paper will argue that a true global economy exists in the rationale of a global marketplace, when there is an international division of labour and market exchange of goods and services produced and traded in different places, participation of all global actors, including the underdeveloped/developing countries and disciplined by true international governmental bodies or organization that are fully democratic, work towards the common goal of global development, global social cohesion, environmental sustainability, promotion of world peace and human rights. This paper will explore any divergences or convergences towards this statement analyzing political, social and economic issues arising from the transformation of the social order. To make it a truly global social order all economic agents should partake in the process. There should be no room for exclusion or marginalization, but rather a higher participation of the underdeveloped or the developing countries in this process. In order to increase their participation, they need to achieve more power, choices, and help in shaping up economical standards, and social lives.
Taking into consideration trade theories, there is a gap that self-explains the myth of market being self-regulated, underling the very aspect of investment axiom based on absolute profitability in the short and long run, and since technological fostering and commercialization is expensive, markets cannot sustain a large number of players and therefore global markets tend to be monopolistic or oligopolistic, rendering obsolete the very notion of efficient competitive markets. “The resulting growth in super-normal profits that global players generate maximizing prices based on marginal revenues rather than marginal costs, will create incentives for state interventions, leading to a further undermining of international regimes that were established under the Keynessian embedded liberalism”(Hart, Prakrash, pg.12)
The real flaws of the market self-regulated prophecy came evident in specific time periods. Inner and post war crises portrayed in Europe, American economic recession in the 70’s and 80’s, and the crises of the East Asian economies. The mass destruction of international capital in the post war periods in Europe created massive unemployment and social instability. The social crises reflected the rapid mobilization of social grouping against liberalism. There was a need for state intervention to bring the economy up from a depressed demand, new formulation and discipline of the market; the rise of embedded liberalism or the welfare state. The state intervention was necessary to regulate business cycle, maintain a social safety net, and manage demand, control supply and macroeconomic figures through fiscal conduct, brought through legislation. These events encouraged the role of legitimizing the state as an agent to provide economic management and initiator of the reorganization of trade agreements in the international prism. Through the willingness of the state to regulate and transform international trade regimes came the formation of world institutions such as GATT, later the WTO, WB, IMF etc.
Gauging high oil prices and interest rates in the States in the 70,’s and 80’s reflected high economic instability and speculations. US manufacturing sector stagnated, which in real terms meant that the productivity in the manufacturing sector fell significantly, because of external competition and reduction in investors’ profitability in the manufacturing sector. Offshore operations and job outsourcing were the new strategies practised by corporations. International trade by then integrated in new dimensions on the basis of absolute profitability.
The East Asian Miracle came to decline after intervention and adoption of market friendly financial policies practices by the IMF, associated with the liberalized capital controls, which destroyed the financial situation of major leading countries like Thailand. Strangely enough there was sufficient evidence that the crises where initiated and amalgamated and badly-managed by the actions of the IMF, as Joseph Stigliz referrers to in his writing. “All the IMF did was make the recessions deeper, longer, and harder. Indeed, Thailand which followed the IMF’s prescriptions the most closely has performed worst than Malaysia and South Korea, which followed more independent courses”. (Stiglitz, pg 4)
Private forms of power and authority in a capitalistic society are only fully stabilized when questions of economic rule are removed from politics (from democracy). Stephen Gill thinks that Friedman, Smith and other libertarians saw democracy not as an end in itself, rather as a negative and in instrumental terms useful for the preservation of the individual liberty from stasis interference. What was being attempted at a world scale was the creation of a political economy and social order public policy premised upon the dominance of the investors, and the reinstatement of corporations’ property rights.
“The mobile investor becomes the sovereign political subject. Formal democracy is needed to mitigate different interests in the society. Hence the need for institutionalization is more than ever in world scale these times than ever before in the era of Smith and Friedman. What is needed in order for this system to sustain is a form of regulation or something else that gives the lead to the neo-liberalism to operate silently and not confront any political backlashes. It needs constitutional dimensions to protect itself and the sole protector and the issuer of the security is done through institutionalization of the rights of these agents whom prompt neo-liberalism. The engine of liberalism is the market or better the rule of law is market, especially capital market to discipline the economic agents to behave in certain ways and it premised in the fact that investors constitute their rights to operate freely and maintain investment confidence, excludes constituencies; thus governments are tempted to create favourable economic environment for investors”. (Gill, pg. 4).
Market itself cannot insure reproduction of capital and generating wealth and social stability by itself. It needs agents and institution to support such behaviour. States apparatuses need to facilitate and operate within the context of market values and disciplines and also need the incorporation of investor’s rights and property rights to be reinforced and controlled through international institutions.

Positive Analysis:

According to Ruggie “the formation and transformation of international regimes may be said to represent a concrete manifestation of the internationalization of political authorities”. (Ruggie, pg. 7) International economic order will sustain as long as there is a convergence of the nation states to adopt the neo-liberal agenda. The strength of such regime will depend on the willingness of a few controlling powers (hegemonic powers), to maintain strong international political powers as well as to provide a link between sate and social structures, as Ruggie calls it “the fusion of power with the legitimate social purpose”. Such regime intends to keep a balance between the domestic and international policy objectives of governments on international bases. It requires the cooperation of world nation-states to adopt and abide to the standards of neo-liberalism, hegemonic powers to protect the system form declining, keep strong relations between core and periphery, and provide adequate paths to development process.
Shift in economic system occur on the bases of powerful international agents or a ruling class’ interests. The regime is changed if the conditions and the interests of the ruling class are not met, i.e. decrease in corporate’ profitability. The meaning of a power group (hegemony) is to be understood as the reflection of the interests of the domestic ruling class, sustained by the role of the state to project their power and protect the interests of the ruling class at an international level. Neo-liberalism promotes maximization of profits of the ruling class at an international level, by exploiting the resources at the international level by practicing the legitimized liberal policies. This is the reason why the ruling class identifies with globalization and the neo-liberal agenda. The legitimacy of this regime is constituted in the formation of the international institutions that diligently foster the interests of powerful agents. These institutions are disguised as international social planner to promote sheer global prospects and development, but intrinsically they work toward the common goals of the ruling class. States centre perspective is condensed in the interest of the ruling class. Somehow governmental intervention doesn’t justify the purpose of democratically representing its constituencies.
A time-space framework defines Globalization. Space or territory defines any political, economical, social and cultural formation, and time itself defines the transformation values of a social system. As Hoogvelt points out, “The organization of space defines relationships, not only between activities, things and concepts, but by extension, between people. Organization of space defines social relations.” (Hoogvelt, p.21) In a globalize economy the movement of capital thought territories in the pursuit of high yield of interest returns defies the modes of productions. Capital (financial) mobility is the ultimate feature of globalization and makes international investments volatile according to the axiom of absolute profitability, using any possible medium. Through technological innovations, especially computer networking, financial capital is made very volatile and able to cross borders freely and at very low transaction costs, at relatively the speed of light. As Hogvel writes “The annihilation of space through time by electronic means enables the money capital to scan the entire planet for investment opportunities and to move from one location to another in a matter of seconds”. (Hoogvelt, p.22) Organization of territory for capital investment is a key element in decision making that serves and underlines the purpose of social relations, controlled by few economic, political, global agents (transnational corporations) reflecting their own interests. Migration and displacement of labour throughout territories is then a crucial element that will determine division of labour accordingly. Time on the other hand postulates any activity and social relations. Time is the common denominator of key economic indexes, rates of formation and transformation of the capital, liquidity, and technological progresses, political and economical lags.
Initially the objective of the globalization was the imperialism of the capital system with global dimensions. The facilitator of such transformation and dynamics is technological progress, mass communication, changes in cultural perspectives, convergence to single similar entities or unions, eradicating diversity and increasing inequality among social groups. People can have social relations in a global territory facilitated by mass communication. As there is a convergence towards a global community, the role of the nation-state on a territorially bounded community disintegrates and the organization of economic production on a cross-border basis soars.
Modes of production will be directly affected by the decision making of specific agents that have enough power to change and make changes in capital movements, “while we still have local physical lives, we also know experience phenomenal worlds that are truly global” “Segments of the economic structures, countries, regions and populations are linked, and they are linked to their particular positions in the international division of labour, whether other sectors, agents and local groups that do not partake in the division of labour and the interest of the global society, are disconnected and marginalized”. (Hoogvelt, p.36). Their position in a global society is defined and valued by their function. A North American that works for Ford might be judged and given special privileges when compared to an African that works the land for subsistence. “Thus global economy is highly dynamic, exclusionary, and highly unstable in its boundaries. It is characterized by a variable geometry that dissolves historical, economic geography. Such a global economy creates premises for exclusion and inequality in participating in the arena of the global economy”. (Hoogvelt, p38)
There is polity among industrial economic individuals that have same or similar interests and they organize themselves that try to horizontally and vertically integrate profit making at any costs. These entities lobby politicians usually to protect their own interests, rather than interests of the whole community. They can have enough power to undermine economic and social development to the extent that their interests are met. Most often, international institutions protect their property right and undermine, social instability brought by unacceptable activities by such corporations. These world-scale institutions defend corporate rights and are highly undemocratic. They totally exclude citizen participation in the writing of these international trade sanctions.
When the state adopts liberalized trade policies, on the agenda there is also privatization. The state opens the tenders not only to domestic investors but also to foreigners, as part of WTO agreement, under the closure of Most Favouring Nations, not to discriminate against domestic or foreign investors. The effects of the privatization on the social strata are problematic. Citizens are going to be subjected to high-deregulated prices in health care and other public social services.
Food production, for export- large scale processing, packaging and transportation associated with large use of energy and increase in the consumption of fossil fuels. The massive use of energy ultimately contributes towards global warming. Under/developing countries try to compete with low commodity prices. These exporters are small-scale producers, highly inefficient and lack the use of technology. These exporters might not participate in world markets. The only ways these exporters could compete is through the state providing agricultural subsidies, import quotas and tariffs. However unstable currency fluctuations can make tariffs meaningless. As a result small producers might abandon their land and sell it to large commercial groups that displace farmers and farm labour with pesticides, energy based fertilizers, heavy machinery and biotechnology. These procedures result in rural displacement and environmental degradation. Usually women that worked in farms before the establishment of a corporation in the existing property are forces to migrate from rural to urban areas and find new jobs. These women have little education and do not meet prerequisites of the bureaucratic professions. If before they had food, from working in the farm, now they face starvation. In order to raise children they have to seek degrading positions as prostitutes, to make enough money to feed the children. There are spill over effects, beside poverty, such as starvation, degradation, illiteracy and illnesses. This is the fate of many women who live in underdeveloped regions. “Government programmes cannot help these members of society, because they are forced to decrease public spending for education and job training, funding for research, tax relief, financial support for subsidies, which are limited under WTO agreements, that have nothing to do with trade per se, but everything to do with the capacity of government to regulate domestic social stability”. (Shrybman, p47)

Normative Analysis

Evidence shows that the trajectory of development propagated by International institutions is such that there are unequal flows of capital distribution from core to periphery. As much as liberalism fostered economic –social-political solutions to the core, it also restricted peripheral capabilities to build up economic capacities, made governments vulnerable to conduct fiscal and monetary policies, discouraged participation in trade networks, advocated social displacements and environmental degradation.
The understanding of today’s world economy is such that the production investment decisions are made on global basis, under the flexibility and mobility of financial capital, based on the values of Utilitarianism.
“Today, many businesses and, especially, corporations have adopted this ethical language of utilitarianism to justify their activities. In terms of more classical forms of ethics, some of these business activities might appear somewhat suspect. For example, in some parts of Central America today, large corporations employ vendors who freely use child labour and flaunt human rights. In South Africa, American corporations worked with companies that treated blacks as second-class citizens. Even in America, the managers and wealthiest shareholders of large corporations make huge profits, sometimes by cutting jobs that have a serious impact on people’s lives.” (Lecture, UTILITARIANISM AND DEONTOLOGY )
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that corporations use to justify free market behaviours, maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The values of such a system rely on the pursuit of the individual self-interests. Neo-liberalism speaks a language of individualization and schism. It treats individuals as rational economic agents that disregard sometime their civic duty, to improve the standards of living by the fruits of their work, not just for themselves, but also rather for the whole community. In fact it does not speak for the “greatest happiness for the greatest number” but the greatest happiness for the smallest number It gives the individual the freedom to pursuit their own interest, even if it means the destruction of communal values. It also does not promote integrity, holism, judgment, excellence and role identity. When values and foundations of a society are eliminated, the façade of such system will collapse.
The new ideology of profit making has submitted itself into almost a religious cult. As the virtues of such system are quickly adapted in a longitudinal fashion, cultural barrier are dissolved, diversity is reduced, and the language of economic profitability has replaced the ancient language communal integrity. If Globalization promotes the notion of communal integration must practice the rationale of virtue and discourse ethics. “Different communities at different times and in different places will develop different definitions of ethics because they will have different needs”. (Lecture, Introduction to Ethics) It is reasonable to say that different societies pursue different interests, leading in possible communal conflicts.
However “The instrumental use of language, i.e. to control objects, came later in its development and it only has utility in a functional sense. It doesn’t define who we are or how we should act. Its use is pragmatic or based on effectiveness. But it can’t deal with the really big issues of what makes us human or social or moral. Nor should instrumental language intrude upon the sphere of communicative language or there will be serious problems in the building of a genuinely human society. Instrumental language can never decide what a human community should be; what it provides us with in knowledge about how to achieve our human goals. When instrumental language, like market economics or political science, tries to impose the most efficient society upon us, it usurps power that it should never be allowed to have. ” (Lecture, Discourse ethics)
Instrumental language and discourse should be used to mitigate possible conflicts is a global society and not to separate individuals or nations on the basis of their fractional monetary happiness. However the invisible hand of the market and the world-scale International Institutions, protecting market interests of corporations and not nation states’ interests, has now become an iron fist and forces government to abide to the rules of global supraconstitutional laws, written behind closed doors and civil society totally excluded from such decision-making. The power of discourse is rendered obsolete.
Governments are driven to set minimum wage reduction in labour and environmental standards to attract FDI and hence target high rate of national growth, undermining social cohesion. There are important regulatory fiscal tools that government can use to promote national development, such as education and job training, funding for research, tax relieves, financial support in the form of subsidies for the agricultural sector, which are constrained under the GATT or now WTO agreements, that have nothing to do with trade per se but everything to do with the building capacities of governments to regulate domestic economic activity. However, economic growth in terms of GNP per capita is not the major index in determining real growth. Other indexes such as mortality rates, birth rates, school enrolment, technological enhancements, political plurality, protection of human rights, environmental sustainability, and investment in infrastructure, administration and human capital are part of social development.

Strategic Analysis

In order to be competitive in the global markets, in high technological products, firms or industries must have adequate time parameters to access technological innovations and external financial support or access to credit leverage, most efficiently provided in the Third World not by the states but by private financial institutions, at high borrowing costs or interests. If states provided domestic credit, in terms of financial liquidities, states can provide relatively lower interest rates, compared to foreign financial institutions. This analogy becomes the basic argument in industrial policies, i.e. the state interventions in domestic economy to promote infant domestic industries, to become competitive in the world markets. Industrial policies differ from macroeconomic policies according to Hart and Prakrash, “in the sense that industrial policies, (such as tax subsidies, preferential loans, credit allocations, etc) target only a subset of domestic economy, whereas macroeconomic policies, (such as tax-rates interest rates, etc) generally do not discriminate among sectors of the economy” (Hart and Prakrash, pg 12).
Technological trajectory theories back up further the assumptions of industrial policies, arguing that technological flows across nations are imperfect, even when capital is highly mobile. State interventions is necessary to support domestic firms when they adopt high technologies, in order to increase productivity and hence become competitive, and make sure that the growth is sustained at the firm level. In order to sustain development at the industry level the role of the state is necessary to constrict FDI, promote join ventures, issues tariffs, and limit privatization on the public sector. In doing so, results in increasing import prices, which lowers the consumptions of imports and encourages the consumption of the domestic produced goods, which at the same time lowers both imports and exports. The trade balance is accounted on the relative size of the domestic markets, and the difference between import consumed and export produced goods. There were costs associated with any form of protectionism. These costs are interpreted through neo-classical models of demand and supply based on tariffs, quotas, subsidies which lead to high price distortions, reduction in consumer surpluses, increase in domestic production inefficiencies, decrease in export volumes, and mishandling of tariff revenues by the governments pumped efficiently back to the public sector.
Governments can also encourage growth and promote not only foreign investments, but also what they can do, through sound macroeconomic fiscal/ monetary policies, is increase domestic consumer spending, increasing demand (not only supply), so create an economic climate less dependent on external decisions. When governments are in need of external financing they are bound to provide transparency in economical or political data. This transparency can sometimes be harmful, in the sense that this transparency is not provided for domestic potential/investors, but only to the privileged foreigners, who force states to prove their credibility in order for the release of financial funds. What states can also do is impose capital controls in order to manipulate interest rates and exchange rates. However such actions contravene WTO regulations. Governments need to promote the growth of domestic industries.
The role of FDI (foreign direct investment) and the risk for capital flights plays a crucial role in generating political and economical domestic instabilities. The movement of financial decisions made by transnational corporations on the basis of absolute profitability present a threat to the dislocation of jobs or in other words changes in the international division of labour. Again capital controls are imperative in preventing such situations. Hence the role of capital controls in this case is seen as prominent way restricts crowding out and inflation, or in other words the devaluation of the currency. The need for capital controls also comes from the issue of the co modification of money in general. At these times financial capital is like ether and very volatile. Under the system of volatile exchange rates, technology allows economic agents to make use of it and to “buy low and sell high”, arbitrage, imperatives. Hence volatile exchange rates provoke the flight of domestic capital to that region of the world that provides a higher return on capital invested. This whole whirlpool contributes to global financial instabilities and makes predictions warp. Reinforcement of capital controls and sound macroeconomic management is crucial
According to Mendelhson and Wolfe, “Economic theories ask about trade and distribution of the gains from the exchange and about the effects of the policy on the exchange that will take place. Economists then reverse their theories to ask who in society will seek what sort of policy. The assumption is that free trade will be sought by the winners from openness, while “protection” will be sought by the losers. Political analyses confirm the assumption.” (Mendelhson and Wolfe, pg, 24)
In attempting to analyze the impact of liberalism on the national and international scale the composition of the social classes and state-social relation and structures are crucial. In order to be a fair race among each country to excel and fully integrate in the process, each of them should start from a unique departure point; I mean each country has to display same economical indexes. The case is that there is high dispersion and inequality among nations in this race. There are countries that are far more advanced from others. Even if this race was about quantitative reasons of economic equality, the nature of some states is such that some people would excel more than the others, even if they started from the same departure. It is somehow the structural behaviour of humanity to excel for domination and power among the subordinate one.
Also, according to Hart and Prakrash, ‘‘states vary in their willingness and the capability to engage in economic management. Willingness and the ability to intervene critically depend on the history of the state-social relationships as well the state’s place in the international system. In the industrial democratic societies with strong labour parties, states are likely to face considerable domestic oppositions to reduce demand side spending. In societies where organized labour is politically weak, the pressure to reduce-demand side spending is harder to resists.” (Hart, Prakrash, pg 17) The formation of labour unions will offset the unjustified imposed labour standards.
The composition of the state-social relationships will ultimately dominate the role of the state to enforce strategic trade theories on domestic industries and fully represent constituencies. According to Robert Gilpin, “The relative size of a powerful economic state, (hegemony), is a source of considerable power and it to create an international economic sphere of influence.” (Gilpin, pg 7) States will act as supreme figures to regulate domestic firm profitability and justify by the conventional treaties of the neo-liberal agenda, such as enabling domestic firms to take a more outward oriented strategy, allow them to shift financial capital to other locations, resulting in shifting jobs and crowding out investments. All these actions are justified as long as the firms’ interests are met. As a result there is a new notion of power relations among states and agencies. States do not represent the supreme power anymore, but rather they are rendered to compel the interest of the social strata versus the interests of the multinationals. States should fully represent their constituencies.
However during the last decades have been shifts in power relations from states, and constituencies to transnational corporations. Benjamin Barber in “Jihad Versus McWorld” states: “By many measures, corporations are today more central players in global affairs than nations. We call them Multinationals, but they are accurately understood as transnational or post-national, or antinational. For they abjure the very idea of nations or any other parochialism that that limits them in time and space. Their customers are not consumers defined by needs and wants that are ubiquitous, if not by nature then by cunning or advertising” (Shrybman, pg134) Economic power should be willingly passed to nations to design right paths to development process.
“This also involves inducing governments not only to adopt free market policies but also legal and political structures both to redefine and to internationally guarantees property rights and political stability. Hence there is some degree of coercion and not free will for domestic government to induce their own way of running and changing economical and political environments. Thus so far neo-liberalism and has forms of coercion and consensus to abide to laws of market. For example WB WTO IMF practice a hierarchical system of representing key economic and strategic areas of policy separated from democratic participation and accountability. The forces of industrialization and liberalisation operated in a historical dialectic to produce demands for greater democracy and for social protection… A way to offset such movement is making any wrongdoing lawful constitutionally institutionalized. International, regional, national policies thus lock neo-liberalism”. (Gill, pg 12)
The evidence in the Uruguay Round of the WTO in TRIMS and GATS reinforce legal guarantees of the property holders, adoption of such laws by others, creating a system of giant corporation control. Thus the state is seen as the crucial source to the reproduction of institutionalization and participation in global market order.
As global market span there is a necessity for the institutionalization of trade and agreements and discipline global markets. The power of nation states is limited to the sense that they cannot constrain originally domestic corporations that have integrated to offshore operations. Domestic laws are no more valid to control such corporation. Hence the need for the internationalization and institutionalization is necessary to control such corporations. WTO has come to solve such a problem. The nature of the present regime tries to encourage competition to attract foreign direct investment. States will not try to improve the efficiency of the domestic industries by providing lax industrial policies and protection against the foreign industries they would rather try to attract corporations to invest in the country by lowering environmental and labour standards, to solve the problem of domestic unemployment. As other factors of production are known to be very volatile, labour and technology are the only one, that are pretty inelastic due to political organization, immigration laws and patent property rights, incorporated under the TRIM agreement of WTO. Labour is not free to move and people do not have the freedom and the opportunity to move to regions that provide higher wages and technology is a source of power that nobody in position is willing to share. The written chapters of the WTO constitution are very problematic and imply heavy burdens on the sovereignty of a country. Intellectual property rights allow producers, investors and others to monopolize the fruits of their effort, by granting them the right of exclusive ownership. These property rights seem to be paradoxical in the context when on one side there is full trade liberalization and on the other side restricting it. US advocated and pushed WTO to include IPR agreement based on a US model, in well context of TRIPS. These agreements include copyright, trademark and patent protection applied to virtually to all technological innovations. These property right agreements ironically enough apply to goods and services that are consumed locally and are not trade related. Generic medicine is a good example.
Lately there is a concern about the piracy of genetic resources from the developing country without any compensation to traditional and indigenous knowledge. The use of many biopharmaceutical products is a good example. As well, the transfer of environmental sound technology is an important goal of sustainable development. (IPR) TRIP agreements increase the cost of adopting such technologies by issuing high licensing prices.
Foreign investors have no obligation of stewardship and hold no responsibility for environmental compensation when disasters occur. It is up to the local communities to stand up and defend their natural resources. Any governmental action to protect natural resources or impose regulations in investor’s activity, leads to a possible legal suit, to claim for damages in reduced profitability, according with the procedures established for resolving commercial disputes. There is a fundamental need to restructure international trade laws and International Institutions.

Conclusion:

Globalization has restructured the architecture of the world order. As many people might envision globalization as the process of economic freedom and progress many others feel that globalization is the source of inequality, where social, political, economic, and power relations have been recast to serve the interest of the few. Globalization has perceived dual effects on the sense that has fragmented individuals and communities from participating in growth and prosperity and at the same time has cut across national and regional boundaries. Whether it looks that such a process is “unstoppable” and must encompass and need the participation of the global nation states on the same token the thrust of third world nations in the world market recklessly before they are even prepared to foster the changes required, has rendered their economical and social situations far worse than expected. If globalization meant the prosperity at an international scale, somehow does not deliver the purpose without the participation and the return of economic power to less economic developed countries.
Through the above analysis determines that many factors can contribute to such conclusion. The change in power relations among agent and agencies have defined the world order according to the interests of the most powerful global agents, being defined as multinationals. If full participation is required at a global level in trade, does not imply little democracy and participating in decision making behind the close doors of international institutions. The values of such organizations and the system itself depend on the individuals’ perspective; evaluating policies on the basis of individual welfare not aggregate national welfare, the very principles of utilitarianism, and pursuit of self-interests. They know the effects of policies changes in their incomes, but they ignore the aggregate effects on national welfare. Empowered by such consents they leave little room for discussion among other group interest. “Citizens usually blame the politicians and bureaucrats for any amalgamations. Their votes will depend on the strong confidence that they have towards politicians, regardless if they will benefit from the policies that they might introduce. Hence policies affect consumers not voters. Consumers and producers are connected with the outcomes, but citizens are concerned about how things happen, and how they are governed. To the extent that trade policies shift its focus from economic actions (e.g. measures at borders, like tariffs that affect prices) to social regulations, (e.g. food safety or environmental standards), then it engages individuals as citizens, and as citizens they often express views from their actions as consumers. Citizens’ values are not mere post hoc rationalizations for their economic interests; rather their culture, their culture identity norms and socialization helps them make sense of the world” (Mendelhson, Wolfe, pg 42). The individual becomes the divided self. The bottom line is that globalization propagates the values of consumerism and not citizenship.
As well Mendelsohn and Wolfe point out that after people have achieved economic comfort they “dot evaluate increased contact with the outside world through the lens of economic self-interest alone”. (Mendelhson, Wolfe, pg 47) This makes me think that only when the interests of citizens in the advanced economic countries are at risk they identify with the issues that surround developing countries. Globalization seems to spasm such issues, by reducing a middle class in the economically advanced countries, generating high poverty rates. These people would unite together, generating social movements, condemning institutions and governments to change and regulate the market again, for the benefits of the whole and not the some. These voices have to unite and be strong enough to be heard. Consumers become citizens. They ask for the unification of communities and distribution of power and equality that can make their own assessment and judgment regarding production and accumulation, the stolen sovereignty. They ask for increase in participation and more inside-oriented economies that benefits the whole community and the environment. A social transformation is unavoidable to happen in times to come unless the system menders itself from the amalgamations and finds antidotes to eradicate social calamities.
The above evidence accounts to counter approach the role of International Institutions to govern and manage trade affairs. In order to promote economic growth and strategy does not somehow just depend on the openness of the country, but also in the social and administrative reforms such as labour and market reforms, technological updates, hand-to-hand with political stability and economic management. There is a need for affirmative action, to encourage LDC and LLDC in the global economy. Global social stability has to be based on the criteria of the invaluable human asset, environmental sustainability, global diversity etc. Without these factors taken into consideration at a supranational level, we can say that there is no world anymore, but complete anarchy. This calls for a direct attack, in the form of counter-hegemony, not to globalization as process in itself, but the global predators that render the poor, poorer, the sick, sicker, the hungry, hungrier. How would this counter-hegemony would manifest itself, it totally relies on the actions of social movements and intellectuals around the globe, asking for the freedom of human dignity, harmony, a better world.


Bibliography

1. Hart, Jeffrey A; Prakrash, Aseem, The Decline of ‘Embedded Liberalism’ and the State Rearticulating of the Keynesian Welfare State, Journal of New political Economy”, March 97, volo.2 issue1
2. Hoogvelt, Ankie, Globalization and the Post-Colonial World: The New Political Economy of Development (2nd edition). Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1997.
3. Gill, Stephen, “New Constitutionalism, Democratization and the Global Political Economy”, Pacifica Review 10.1, February 1998
4. Gilpin, Robert, “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability”, Political Economy of International Relations , 1987, Princeton University, pp.72-80
5. Mendelsohn, Matthew; Wolfe, Robert, Values, Interests and Globalization: The continuing compromise of embedded liberalism, prepared for the workshop “Global Governance: Towards a New Grand Compromise”, Canadian political Science Association, University of Toronto, May, 29 2002 (both authors are professors of political science at Queen’s University

6. Ruggie, John.G.: “International Regimes, Transactions and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Post War Economic Order”. International Organization, Vol.36, Issue 2 1982, MIT Press.

7. Stiglitz, Joseph. “What I learned at the World Economic Crises”, The New Republic, 7 April 2000 Web: http://www.tnr.com/041700/stiglitz041700.html,%201-12 (chief economist of the World Bank)

Lecture Note References:

1. Introduction to Ethics
2. Utilitarianism and Deontology
3. Critical Theory and Discourse Ethics

[bebushe]

Do te ishte mire qe ato artikujt ti perkthenit do ishte me interesante dhe per ne tjeret per tju kuptuar
Tashi nji pytje kisha un :
A mendoni se globalzmi mund te sjelle nje dite krize ekonomike globale ? dhe pse
ose kush mund te ishin disa menyre zgjidhjesh...

[Laerta]

bebushe, Nuk i shikon manifestimin e krizave;

pergjigjen i ke brendave artikijve

[bebushe]

Laerta nuk di mire onlisht pranaj si me ja ba

[Laerta]

do perpiqem qe ta perkthej ne shqip dhe ta postoj