WARWICK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY · 2009-05-14 · Resume of Prof. Jan Aart Scholte’s speech by...

Warwick Global Development Society all rights reserved 2003

Desp i te t he fac t t ha tundergraduates were now enjoying theirsummer holidays in Ibiza or somewhereelse worshipping the sun, postgraduatestudents remained intellectually active(with one or two drinks breaks!) on aquieter campus and came along eagerlyto attend what were to be the two finalevents of the year for the Warwick GlobalDevelopment Society : Your Country andGlobalisation and Defining Globalisation :Yet Again!. The two events were a brillantopportunity to further discuss a popularsubject but conceptuality difficult andcontroversial. The talks intended to coverdifferent aspects of globalisation anddevelopment. Our speakers brought in adiverse range of opinions and expertiseespecially for the talk D e f i n i n gGlobalisation : Yet Again! where speakerscame f rom di f ferent academicbackgrounds and from the private sector.We were particularly honoured to have MrUnderhill from Basic Needs based inLeamington who shared insights from hiswork in the NGO sector. The societywould like to thank everyone who helpedto make the events possible, especially

Going and Going …

News Letter

July – August 2003

Issue 2

the organisers; Joerg Wiegratz, MartinFranche, Elizabeth Fortin, Dr. Shirin Raiand Chris Okeke. But most of all, wewould like to express our deepestappreciation to the speakers withoutwhom the talks would not have beenpossible and, of course, the participants.

Unfortunately, this is the lastissue of the year as most students areleaving to begin a career or to continuetheir studies at the Phd level. However,do not worry, other issues will comenext September when other motivatedstudents will take over the running of thesociety. On that matter, students whowish to continue the society’s work aremore then welcome and should makecontact with us or Dr. Shirin Rai([email protected]) for all thenecessary information.

Finally, we are infinitely gratefulto Dr. Shirin Rai for her support and helpsince the creation of the society.

This issue is a long one, butthere is something for everyone. Enjoy!

Martin Franche (The Editor)

WARWICK GLOBALDEVELOPMENT SOCIETY

IN THIS ISSUE

Your Country and Globalisation- Introduction by Philip Balkerp. 2- China by Yuen Li p. 3- Nigeria by chris Okeke p. 4- Pakistan by Joudat Ayaz p.5- Egypt (comments) by ManalKhalil p. 7- Germany by Joerg Wiegratzp. 8

Defining Globalisation – YetAgain!- Introduction by JoergWiegratz p. 11- What is globalisation? Thedefinitional issueResume of Prof. Jan AartScholte’s speech by Martin Franche p. 12- Globalisation and food Resumeof Dr Rebecca Earle’s speech byNia Williams p. 14- Production, socialreproduction and globalisationby Dr. Shirin Rai p. 15- Mental illness anddevelopment by Chris Underhillp. 16- Comments by Nidal Mahmoudand Sam Dallyn p. 18

International financial crises.What follows the WashingtonConsensus? by GianlucaGrimalda p. 20

HIV/AIDS and security byMarian Fawaz p. 22

Re-thinking developmentstudies : an interview of RichardHiggott by Joerg Wiegratz p. 23

Globalisation, governance andDevelopment in practice byStephen Grey p. 27

“IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SOUTH YOU CAN’T KEEP QUIET ABOUT

THE NORTH” - NELSON MANDELA


Pag

e 2

of

28

Your Country and Globalisation

Globalisation has

been a hot topic in

the contemporary

era. Compression

of time and space

has greatly affected

the relationship

between states and

among

communities.

Technological

advancement and

expanding

multinationals’

operation across

the globe have

altered the

conditions for living,

for doing business

and for mediating

politics.

The value of working within a trulyinternational academic environment wasdemonstrated by the Global DevelopmentSociety event, "Your Country andGlobalisation." In an event hosted in theLakeside common room on the 14th ofJuly, speakers were invited to give apersonal perspective on the challengesand opportunities Globalisation representsfor their country. Both the developing anddeveloped world, small countries andlarge, were represented in the wide-ranging, and frequently vibrant,discussion. Though certain well-wornthemes dominated the event, like thecontinued misunderstandings anddiscourse surrounding the termglobalisation, it was impossible not tolearn something new. Such insights rangefrom a breakdown of domestic investmentmanagement in Nigeria to how beercommercials apparently define Canadiancultural identity. Though each country hadits own particular concerns certaincommon issues, like the growth of regionaltrading blocks and the effects on domesticbusinesses of tailoring products to theworld market, could be discerned.

Perhaps the most revealing exchangestook place between students of classicaleconomics and those who had taken theglobalisation classes. It was like a publicpolicy environment in microcosm withcertain economists trotting out thestandard line on topics like internationaltrade and the rational behind IMF/WTOled liberalisation. In addition, theseeconomists displayed an understandable,though disturbing and gross, ignorance ofthe effects globalisation is having oninternational politics. For students whohad studied globalisation it wasinteresting, and perhaps a little self-gratifying, to have the viewpoints they haddeconstructed all year advanced withoutirony. Though in the end a consensuswas still a long way away thesediscussions ranked amongst the highpoints of the event, at least in terms ofvolume.

The event concluded with aBarbecue and plenty of sangria enjoyedon the sunny shores of the Lakeside, well,lake. Though the majority of participantsremained of the same opinion that theybegan with, there had been reasoned andentertaining discourse, which, after all,was the point!

The following articles are shortresumes from the students’ opinion whowere invited to give a personal perspectiveon the impact of Globalisation on theircountry. Only one article from thedeveloped countries, Germany by JoergWiegratz, was included. Not that theresumes of Martin Franche and StephenGrey that spoke on Canada and the UKrespectively. were not interesting, butbecause the main objective of the societyis to increase the awareness on issuesconcerning development and developingcountries.

An Introduction byPhilip Baker (MA in IR)

Joudat and a general view of the participants


Pag

e 3 of 28

Among the different dimensions ofglobalisation, « Economic globalisation »is the most influential dimension in thecase of China. Under the influence ofeconomic integration and the rise of worldproduction, China has been regarded asone of the fast-growing economies owingto its massive resources: cheap labour,low land rent and other natural materials.Nowadays, many production houses ofclothing, electronics and other daily goodsare located in China. It is shown in thestatistics that China has roughlyaccounted 40% of the total foreign directinvestment (FDI) flow to developingcountries. Benefited from with theeconomic gain and technologicalimprovement, there is an increase in theliving standards. In terms of educationand health, the government is nowinvesting more resources, for example,promotion of the Internet is one of maindirections for building up a knowledgeeconomy in China. However, under theeconomic impacts, there is also anincreasing income gap between classes,the rich and the poor, the powerful andpowerless, and geographically betweenthe coastal cities and the inner continentalcities owing to different degree of accessto resources and information, coupled withuneven distribution of foreign investmentresult ing in dif ferent levels ofdevelopment. In political sense, theCommunist Party in China has recognisedthe need for integrating itself into the worldeconomy, for example, becoming amember of the Word Trade Organisation,reforming state-owned enterprises andoffering preferential terms to foreigninvestors. Yet, having an absolute powerin the public domain, the Communist party

is still playing an important role in policymaking and administration, thus theeconomic and social policies are stillrather conservative and strategic. Also,public participation is not widelyencouraged. In conclusion, the state ismore willing to respond globalisation interms of economic reform but notnecessarily in terms of political reform.

In the case of Hong Kong,emergence of world market and worldproduction chain, has changed the ex-bristish colony in a number of ways,economically, socially and politically. Firstof all, owing to its historical background asa British colony for more than a hundredyears, Hong Kong has been developed asa regional business centre in Asia.Chinese resumption of its sovereignty inthe year 1997 did not change itsfavourable commercial environmentfollowing the rationale of ‘one country, twosystems’. The exploration of global tradeand expansion of multinational’sinvestment have advanced Hong Kong’sachievement in import and export plusservices industries such as accounting,legal services and managementconsultation. Currently, Hong Kong isregarded as the world's freest economy,the world's busiest container port, apopular venue for hosting regionalheadquarters, the second largest sourceof FDI in Asia as well as the secondlargest FDI recipient in Asia. However,facing with a keen competition from otheropening-up economies in Asia, notablyChina and other East Asia countries, HongKong is losing its competitiveness in termsof manufacturing and production due tohigh wages and high land rent. Therefore,many factories have now been shifted tothe Mainland China to lower theproduction cost. In the social dimension,similar to the case in China, there is agrowing gap between the rice and thepoor, the entrepreneurs are the ones whocan manipulate the opportunities given byglobalisation. From the culturalperspective, there is a fusion

CHINABy Yuen Li (MA in GDG)


Pag

e 4

of

28

From the cultural

perspective, there is

a fusion of culture:

symbols of Western

consumerism, from

daily goods to

luxurious items,

brands like Coca-

cola, Levis and Gucci

are easily found in

Hong Kong.

of culture: symbols of Westernconsumerism, from daily goods toluxurious items, brands like Coca-cola,Levis and Gucci are easily found in HongKong. Hollyhood movies and foreignmusic are common entertainments for theyoung generations. On the other hand,Hong Kong Kung-fu movies have alsoopened new markets in the North. Moviesof Jacky Chan, a local Hong Kong actionactor, are becoming more and morepopular in overseas markets. In addition,the recent health crisis, the SARSoutbreak in Hong Kong is also a goodexample to illustrate the global transfer ofdisease and global response forcombating the disease via multilateralinstitution, the World Health Organisationand inter-governmental cooperationcreated in the global era. Politicallyspeaking, globalisation has increased thevulnerability of the economy as well as theregional financial system. For example, inl998, HK government injected HK$15

billion into the stock market to defendstock market and the HK dollar fromattacks by international funds. Under theadvance in communication, satellite andthe Internet, diffusion of democratic normshas encouraged political participation inHK. Social movement has now becomemore active. For instance, the recent anti-subvention law protest in HK has broughtup the attention of overseas media,progress of which was being reported bythe BBC, the CNN and the foreignnewspapers.

So far, HK has been quitesuccessful in responding to the challengesimposed by globalisation, however,challenges are more than what we haveexpected, the recent SARS outbreak andadministrative crisis of the HK governmenthave showed that there are still lots ofrooms for improvement.

The first thing to note aboutNigeria- ‘the giant… with clayish feet’ is itscultural and ethnic diversity. The countryis made up of more than 250 ethnicgroups but its political, social andeconomic life have been dominated by thethree major ethic groups: Hausa, Yorubaand Ibo. Also, its diversity extends to thereligious sphere; of its 120 million peopleabout 40% are Muslims, 40% Christiansand 10% African Traditional Religion.These factors play an important role in theway Nigeria is being integrated into the“global village”.

Globalisation is synonym withintegration and can be used explain the

spread of liberal political and economicvalues and the consequent social andwelfare implications. Like mosdeveloping countries, globalisation hascontributed to the alienation andmarginalization of social groups. In thecase of Nigeria, this process has madepossible for dominant groups to assertheir dominance while subjugating theminority groups.

In the past four decades, the mosvisible signs of globalisation in Nigeria arethe growth of multinational oil firms andrecently, democracy. Democracy hasushered in same elite (and dominangroups) that oppressed and neglectedminority groups. The only differencebetween the present politicians andprevious military regimes is the militaryuniform. The indifferent attitude of thepoliticians to the plight of minority groupswas demonstrated by the Nigerian army’s‘invasion’ of oil rich village of Odi in 1999Many lives were lost and an entire villagewas razed by troops that were ordered bypoliticians.

NIGERIABy Chris Okeke (MA in IR)


Pag

e 5 of 28

Like the Ogoni case in 1995, the invasionwas to ensure the smooth operation of oilcorporations in the area. In both cases,the culprits responsible for the violation ofhuman rights in these oil rich communitieswere never brought to justice. Thissuggests a possible collusion between thepolitical elite and oil corporations

The activities of oil corporations inthe Niger Delta (oil producing area) inNigeria have adverse effects on theindigenous culture, livelihood and health.

Due to the various forms of oil generatedenvironmental pollution in the localcommunities, farming and fishing havebecome almost impossible. Consequently,local people deprived of their livelihoodhave migrated to crowded urban areas insearch of jobs. In the pas two years, over300 people in oil producing areas havedied from explosions from poorlymaintained gas and oil pipelines.

The presence of multinational oilcorporations in the Niger Delta region ofNigeria has no positive impact on thecommunities. The region is one of thepoorest communities in the world despitethe fact that they produce one fifth of theoil consumed in the world. Clearly, themain beneficiaries of oil exploration in theregion are political elite and oilcorporations. The spread of liberaleconomic and political values in the caseof Nigeria have ensured that minoritygroups have been sidelined from thebenefits of globalisation.

It might amaze some of you presenthere, but most of the people in Pakistan(including myself) initially welcomed theforces of globalization. It came with apromise for a better future for our childrenand our children’s children. It is only aftera period of about ten years that itsdetrimental affects are now being felt bythe policy makers and the generalpopulation alike.

For the policy makers, the process ofglobalization has taken away much of theird i sc re t i on and i ndependence .Globalization now carries with it a new

development philosophy which greatlyrestricts the role of the state in economicand social activity and imposes a standard'one size fit all' adjustment policy devisedby the IMF/World Bank. The primaryemphasis of this policy is to achievemacro-economic stability by reducinggovernment spending, raising utilitycharges and eliminating all subsidies. Thepolicy makers have to now work within thedictates of IMF and the World Bank. Forthe common man, globalization isincreasing the income disparities betweenthe haves and have-nots. Between thosewho are on the right side of globalizationand between those who are not!

Globalization has been accompaniedby an accentuation of income disparitieswith obvious negative implications for thewelfare of large segments of thepopulation. Pakistan had more equitabledistribution of wealth in 1960, ascompared to the year 2000 although the

PAKISTANBy Joudat Ayaz (MA in IPE)

Sam and Cecilia leaning new things


Pag

e 6

of

28

Pag

e 6

of

28

The decade of 1990s

has produced

income inequalities

in Pakistan which

were never heard of

before in the

country’s history.

Whether it is direct

effect of

Globalization, I am

frankly not sure. But

one thing that is

certain is that the rich

have become richer

and the poor have

become poorer, and

this trend pretty

much continues even

today!

country has had a GDP growth rate ofover 6 % in the decades of 60s and thenagain in 80s. Proving thereby thatglobalization has in fact increased incomedisparities between the general populace.The decade of 1990s has producedincome inequalities in Pakistan whichwere never heard of before in thecountry’s history. Whether it is directeffect of Globalization, I am frankly notsure. But one thing that is certain is thatthe rich have become richer and the poorhave become poorer, and this trend prettymuch continues even today!

The market forces unleashed byglobalization have not helped my countryin its efforts for integration into the worldeconomy. Integration into global marketshas exacted a very heavy cost, especiallysince there are no adequate "safety nets"for countries faced with economicdifficulties.

In an era of growing globalization,financial integration and technologicalrevolution of the 1990s, Pakistan has notbenefited very much. While the worldexports were growing at 5 per centannually during the last five years,Pakistan's exports have remainedstagnant. Foreign direct investment flowsto Pakistan have remained modest inrelation to the size of its economy, despiteliberalization of the economy over 10years ago, and spurt in informationtechnology has by passed the shores ofPakistan so far. On the other hand,external debt burden has expanded to alevel where it takes up a major chunk ofthe budget.

In the decade of 1990s, significanttrade liberalization was accompanied by asteady decline in the GDP growth rate,from 6.1% in the 1980s to 4.5% in the1990s. Similarly, wide-ranging policychanges and incentives to encourageforeign investment did not lead to anysignificant increase in investment, apartfrom larger investment in the privatepower sector in the mid-1990s which wasprimarily in response to a very attractiveincentive package.

In fact, overall investmendeclined from about 19% of the GDP in1989-90 to only 15% in 1999-2000. Evenon the export front, the trade performancehas not been satisfactory. Despitesubstantial reduction in tariff ratesremoval of virtually all non-tariff barriersand successive devaluations of thecurrency (leading to an annuadepreciation of about 10% in theexchange rate), the growth ! in exports inthe 90s was only 4.5% per annumcompared to 19% in the 70s.

A l l the components oglobalization do not move in the samedirection. While there is free flow oinformation and capital, but laboumovement is restricted. Even in tradehigh tech products are traded freely, busimple manufactures like textile andleather goods continue to be protectedand agricultural trade is heavily distortedby huge subsidies provided by the USEurope and Japan ($390 billion in the yea2000). In such an uneven playing fieldcountries like Pakistan, which are primarilydependent on agricultural or textileexports, cannot benefit much fromglobalization. In fact, successivedevaluations have! led to progressivedepreciation in export prices and the neresult has been lower exports.

Another outcome of globalizationhas been a huge increase in salaries osenior managers, accountants, lawyersand public-relations personnel working foMNCs or their local competitors. From apersonal experience, my friends who areworking for MNCs in Pakistan earn five tosix times more than I do working for thegovernment. For the IT-literate, jobopportunities have been plentiful, andthere are also opportunities to live andearn abroad. For the English-speakingupper middle-class, this has come as aboon. With greater access to disposableincome, the seduction of consumerismbecomes hard to resist, and the demandfor unrestricted globalization inevitablyfollows the attraction for new and evemore advanced consumer goods.


Pag

e 7 of 28

One of the effects of globalization inPakistan is the development of selectgeographical areas and the neglect ofindustrially unpopular areas. Industry isbooming in big cities like Karachi, Lahoreand Faisalabad but rural hinterland ispretty much neglected as far as newinvestment is concerned. This hasresulted in rural to urban migration andhas put further pres! sure on civic facilitiesin bigger cities.

Another aspect of globalization is thata few select sectors - namely consumergoods, automobiles, and energy have

attracted most of the foreign investment.There has been very little investment inthe production of advanced electronics,computer or telecom hardware, advancedindustrial materials, and capital goods.These are the areas where Pakistan iscompletely dependent on imports and islikely to fall further behind.

The process of globalization isasymmetric, with some winners but manylosers. What is needed is a level playingfield for all so that the asymmetry in theequation can be corrected.

On the theoret ical levelglobalization could lead to democratisationif globalization manages to reduce theeconomic gap between the rich and thepoor in one country or another. However,on the practical level this theoreticalstatement does not work. In undemocraticregimes the globalization process hasdeepened violations to political and civilrights.

Egypt is one of these examples,the Egyptian government started sincelate 1980s until now a process to liberatethe economy, structural adjustment, andreducing the governmental subsidiaries tothe poor and middle class. Along with thisprocess the government deepen its controlon the political sphere. Workers, who werefired from their work due to privatisation,were not allowed to protest for their rights.In the 1980s, the government used to useviolence against the workers, hold theirleaders in prisons, and deny them freetrail. In the 1990s, the government tookover the workers syndicate and

established another one controlled by thegovernment and headed by an official inthe government. Now we have noindependent syndicate for the workerswho can protest for their rights withoutpermission from the government. In thelast ten years, workers in Egypt did not getany permission from the government toprotest. Along with this many NGOs thatused to defend workers rights had beenclosed down and banned as aconsequence to a new law in Egypt thatgave the government the right to overseehe operation of the different NGOs .

Finally, it does not seem from theEgyptian experience that globalization hasreduced the gap between the rich and thepoor. In the last ten years the conditions ofthe Egyptian middle class became worsethan ever. Due to this the rate of thechildren dropping out from schools isincredibly scaring. In fact the gap betweenthe poor and the rich is increasing everyday.

Some comments for EGYPTBy Manal Khalil


Pag

e 8

of

28

My main thesis is that a specifictriangle of capitalism, social welfare andliberal democracy in the Western world,which has allowed some decent economicdevelopment in the post-war decades, is –for years now - in an obvious crisis inseveral countries, one of which isGermany. With respect to my country thishas led to the interesting socio-politicalconstellation that the failure/crisis of bothgrand systems (central planning andmarket economy) have had apsychological effect on the respective partof the (now unified) population. In presenttimes, this is an unparalleled situation forthe governance of a national territoryworldwide, in my opinion, regarding thecombination of narrative and beliefstructures (ideological aspects), theresulting effects for the political cultureand the like. One could therefore say thatmost forms and means of economic andsocial governance which were in practicein the whole of Germany (East and West)over the last five decades have somehowbeen discredited in the eyes of significant

parts of the population: be it either the‘socialist idea/reality’ due to the system’sbreakdown, or the pattern of the Germansocial-democratic/neo-liberal welfare statedue to, for instance, the current financialcrisis of the social net and the high rate ofunemployment. In this context it isfurthermore worth noticing that in thecurrent global era, our politicians and theirconstituencies can indeed turn their headsand look for seemingly better policysolutions elsewhere on the globe; and yetthey seemingly find nothing. Or at the veryleast, after having looked around for solong (and doing nothing fundamental), therespective ‘success stories’ abroad havealready entered into a crisis stage as well,e.g. the famous Dutch ‘compromise-model’ or the US model (IT) of the 1990s.Hence, even the ‘success stories’ loosetheir attractiveness for ‘bench-marking’and further attempts at matching thoseexamples. Germans, ultimately, are leftwith awkward and unresolved questions inthe ‘new’ world of policymaking.

Current policy dilemmas and theefforts to deal with them in politicalpractice, through daily back-and-forth-policy making (e.g., tax policy) fromgenerally seemingly ‘helpless’ politicians,further undermine the thrust and belief ofthe governed in the sustainability andfundamental pillars of the chosen model.All this, I would suggest, has led to a crisisof political mentality in the public (politicalcommunication, definition and self-understanding of the public body) as wellas in the private sphere. The currentcondition seems to be a widespreadconfusion (or public denial) regarding thereasons of certain crises phenomena (andtheir possible resolution) and an insecurityregarding, for instance, the individual andcollective future. Consequently, weobserve a perceived as well as real crisisof governance and expertise whereintraditional means of economic/socialgovernance are deemed ineffective.Finally, I would suggest that globalisation(ignoring the positive aspects of it for the

…most forms and

means of economic

and social

governance which

were in practice in

the whole of

Germany (East and

West) over the last

five decades have

somehow been

discredited in the

eyes of significant

parts of the

population

GERMANYBy Joerg Wiegratz (MA in IPE)

Nidal trying to make a point at the BBQ


Pag

e 9 of 28

the sake of a clear argument in this article)and its consequences for industrialcountries like Germany contradicts withand undermines the main pillars of theGerman narrative (i.e. fundamentalassumptions of both the respective partiesand their constituencies, e.g. the Rheincapitalism/corporatist model).

I can only shortly describe the‘German Dream’: whereas in the US, thestate has just to ensure the structurethrough which everybody can (or has to)pursue his/her happiness, the ‘GermanDream’ traditionally means that the statehas to make sure that everybody actuallyfinds his/her happiness. This has deepconsequences for the conduct of policy(which I cannot analyze thoroughly here).Obviously though, this concept does comeunder threat from some of the effects ofglobalisation. Other related aspects of theGerman narrative currently under threatinclude: the constitutional policy goal ofthe equality of life standards in the federalstates, the notion of ‘wealth for everybody’which was a slogan invented in and for thepost-war era but is still an important(hidden) pillar of the rhetoric, socialresponsibility of corporations, the notion ofa social market economy, and the idea ofsolidarity and a spirit of shared interestsas a national family (corporatism).

The point I am attempting to makehere is that with globalisation (the newstage of the international division oflabour), the gap between the (static,traditional) national narrative, and the( d y n a m i c ) r e a l c o n d i t i o n s(outcomes/results) seems to beincreasing. In the last decade or so wehave already witnessed a significantfragmentation of individual chances in theworking place (e.g. unskilled workersasymmetrically disadvantaged/FourthWorld in the First World, new socialexclusions/new social geography ofglobalisation [see Robinson 2002]). Assuch, we have observed widespreaddisappointment and disillusion, new social

(policy) experiments, a crisis of the unionmodel, and finally a change of the notionof social justice (big traditional companiesoften don’t pay taxes anymore etc.). Anillustrative example for this rift was thecurrent discussion to allow people, whoillegally brought their money abroad in thepast (to avoid tax payment), to legallytransfer their money back to Germany andjust pay some taxes (without further legalconsequences). The heavily indebtedstate has hoped to gain tax revenues andto increase the amount of available privatemoney for new investment in Germany.However, the rhetoric (the policy idea: todefeat legal/moral issues with theeconomic argument) had, I believe,fundamental negative moral effects for thenarrative structure of the generalpopulation as I described it above. Thereseem to be many paradoxes (of the social-democratic/neo-liberal model) like this incurrent times. To give another example:on the one hand there is the notion of thestrive for individual success, not only butespecially for the educational elites, whichcontains to motivate people to go abroadfor study or for work (‘use your resourcesin the best way!’); on the other handGermany suffers from exactly this braindrain of their young elites. The result is aparadoxical discourse of pursuing theelites (e.g. German researchers in the US)to come back (‘serve your country!’).Globalisation reveals such inherent flawsof the orthodox rhetoric.


Pag

e 10

of

28

Regarding the restructuring project in theEast one can conclude, that (in aglobalising world) even huge amounts ofmoney (in the first ten years after thereunification public investment and statesubsidies for business and the likeamounted to around half a trillion Euro)does not ensure that long-term (industrial)development can be accomplished (e.g. inthe heartland of the North). Today, theaverage unemployment rate in the East isabout 20 percent (hundreds of thousandswork in West Germany) and resignation aswell as a psychological escapism arewidespread in certain areas. Furthermore,according to public polls, democracy andmarkets as concepts have surprisinglylittle acceptance among East-Germans. Afurther point worth mention is that eventhe icons of industrial development (notonly) in the East (like the modernisedshipbuilding industry in the north-easternregion where I come from) symbolise bothat the same time the success of thepresent as well as the possibility for futureeconomic crisis and instability in theregion. In a globalising and fast changinginternational economy, communities /regions can enjoy their economic success(investment attraction) only temporarilywhile having to deal with the very notion ofthreat and insecurity (due to thecompetition with the cheaper shipbuildingindustry of South Korea in my example)almost simultaneously as they celebratethe recent fruits of (expensive)modernisation and restructuring.

I would further like to mention thephenomena of a divided public awareness

of global market competition which mightbe a common feature in countries similarto Germany which have very large publicand export sectors. Whereas blue- andwhite-collar workers in the exportindustries are very familiar with globalforces, those who work for the state (withtheir often life-long employment contracts)are rather resistant to acknowledge thechanging parameters. It seems to me thatthis creates very different mentalitiesamong the population when it comes todiscussions about reforms and the like.This certainly increases the complexity ofmentality strata with which policy analystsand politicians are confronted when theypursue their majorities.

Some final points to conclude.Germany is – as in some other aspects ofour history – a latecomer when it concernsa mature discussion about globalisation.Until 1989 the Cold War-discourse wasdominant – this was followed by theunification-discourse. Only around 1998with the election of the social-democratGerhard Schroeder as chancellor and thefollowing Blair-Schroeder paper (ThirdWay) did Germany start to recognizablyparticipate in the globalisation discourseon the international stage. Yet, genuine(so-called anti-) globalisation movementsonly emerged with the spread of Attacwhich just recently tried to combine itsforces with traditional single issue socialmovements (Greens, anti-atom, Peace).And yet, while the country furtherglobal ises internal ly (bi-nat ionalmarriages, migration) there is still a longway to go for the nation until a truly newidentity which entails a conceptualconsideration of globalisation and itseffects (or migration/openness) begins toemerge. For the moment, there is a ratherunder-theorised consent among theleading parties about how to respond tothe globalisation challenge. Sustainablepolicy concepts¸ if at all, only arise slowly.Economically and socially costly andpainful ‘trial and error moves’ as well as apathological learning seems to be thechosen way (strategy), even in aseemingly sophisticated policy communitysuch as Germany.

The participants at the BBQ


Pag

e 11 of 28

One of the core intentions for thissymposium was to o f fer aninterdisciplinary programme and thereforeto enjoy once again the intellectualrichness of the University of Warwick andits neighbour communities. We believe,as many others before us, that thisinterdisciplinary experiment is a promisingapproach, especially for social sciencestudents. Some parts of the promise hadbeen delivered by the talk of both theaudience and the speakers, others hadnot.

Yet, I think, the symposium wasan opportunity, at least, to train our cross-thinking and cross-acknowledgingcapacities. Furthermore, every studenthad the chance to truly experience thedifficulties, or to be more positive here: thepre-conditions, for such cross-borderexchange and learning. In this respect thelesson from the exercise has beenobvious from my point of view. To makethe most of it, students have to show andfurther develop a great(er) skill of empathyand sensitivity for each speaker, or to bemore precise, for the main analyticalapproaches, language preferences andprinciple concerns of the respectivedepartmental view. We have to be ableto grasp the core analytical tools and thevery core interest of each presentation.Moreover, students ideally should be ableto generalise from the respective themewhat they can transfer to the main agendaof their own studies. Every speaker, forexample, can give us insights regardingdifferent and new elements of analysisand therefore expand the « pool » fromwhich we can generate future researchquestions. For all this, it matters cruciallythat we have the capability to transfer andtranslate knowledge. To be able to dothis, we have to be aware first of all of themodels, flaws, holes and open questionsof our own study field. Moreover, we have

to be willing to commit ourselves to theextra effort of cross-disciplinary thinkingand to sacrifice our « comfort zones ».What is necessary here is that we cangeneralise our own view so that weprepare our knowledge to go over thebridge, or at least to meet halfway. If ourcommunicative partner would do thesame, we could truly merge and combinethe insights and results from therespective « river side ». This would help,I believe, to overcome an overspecialisedway of thinking, which unfortunatelyexcludes the rich toolbox of the veryneighbour department.

Defining Globalisation�: Yet Again! – The SymposiumAN INTRODUCTIONBy Joerg Wiegratz (MA in IPE)


Pag

e 12

of

28

Eventually, interdisciplinary experimentshave the positive effect to put our owncore assumptions and insights, which webelieve are so well-founded, into broaderperspectives, and hence, necessarily, torelativise them: It’s not just the politicsstudents who work on globalisation. Withour own research, in the best case, wemost of the times just add a little piece to abetter understanding of a phenomena likeglobalisation.

To conclude, I can just politely ask thescholars to try to prepare their languagefor such interdisciplinary experiments andto address and signal more clearly whatthey think is worth discussing/consideringat this broader table (e.i. what theysuggest should be taken intoconsideration on the intellectual « fire-camps » on the other river-side). Thisincludes a well-founded critique, I wouldbelieve, of the holes of the paradigms andviews of the others. For example, whatdisturbs political scientists when they readeconomics paper? What would they

suggest is a feasible way for economiststo start putting more P[olitics] into theirstudies? The result of such an exercisecan be mind-provoking for all of us.Actually, it can and should be mind-shocking, with all of its consequences. Atleast, the latter was my own experiencewhen I listened, as an undergradeconomist student some years ago, for thefirst time to a lecture given by a sociologyprofessor. For me, the cross-boarderexchange and learning seems worth theeffort, for both students and academics.

However, I’m also aware of the (short- andlong-run) impediments, arising from thesociology and politics of academia, for anykind of interdisciplinary invitational effort.Yet, if I would be around next year I wouldvery much like to see different departmentrepresentat ives discussing theirunderstanding of for instance: principles ofa just economy, the understanding ofmarkets, or, conceptualising of society.That could be promising! Let’s give it a tryat least!.

What disturbs

political scientists

when they read

economics paper?

What would they

suggest is a feasible

way for economists

to start putting more

P[olitics] into their

studies?

WHAT IS GLOBALISATION? THE DEFINITIONAL ISSUEProf. Jan Aart Scholte (CSRG)Resume by Martin Franche (MA in IPE)

The most common returning pattern inthe globalisation debate is thedisagreement over the nature andsignificance of the phenomenon, itsdefinition. What is globalisation? Like anyother concept in social science, like powerand state, globalisation is highly contestedamong scholars even with the simplestelements. The debate is intense andpersistent. The multiplication of definitionsand the missleading use of the word caneasily be a source of extreme confusionfor unexperience students and the generalpublic. One should not be surprise to read

in the relavant literature that globalisationdoes not exist. Unfortunately, there is noway to avoid the definitional impasse, toexplain what globalisation does you needto say what it is.

Prof. Jan Aart Scholte has addresseda unique definition at the symposium thatis clearly presented in his working paperWhat is Globalisation? The DefinitionalIssue – Again. He defines globalisation as“ the transplanetary connections betweenpeople”.


Pag

e 13 of 28

Globalisation represents for Scholte isdistinct social space were people allaround the world engage with each other.It is a single place, “a special unit itself”with its “own right”. In is own words, “talkof the global indicates that people may livetogether not only in local, provincial,national and regional realms, as well asbuilt environments, but also intransplanetary spaces where the world isa single place”. Than, the globalisationprocess is the spread of social relations inthis distinct social space. “Spaciality” or“social space” where social life occurs isthe key element of Scholte’s definition andconceptualisation. Scholte explains thatg lobal isat ion as “ t ransplanetaryconnections between people” avoid thecommon analytical dead end of otherdefini t ions l ike global isat ion asinternat ional isat ion, l iberal isat ion,universalisation and westernisation.

However, using Scholte’s definition,what is actually different from otherperiods of globalisation in history? We allfeel that there is something novel, a newera, a process affecting the lives of humanbeings across the entire planet, embracingtransformative processes at every level ofsociety. Scholte makes the distinction thatthe new globalisation era is bettercharacterised by “supraterritoriality” socialrelations, i.e. that “transcend territorialgeography”. Social relations are nowmore de-linked from traditional territorial

boundaries. They now take place moresimultaneity and instantaneity to territorialspace. Put in other words, thecontemporary globalisation implies a time-space compression process whichinvolves social relations beyond territorialspace.

Considering the massive literature onthe subject, should we considered Prof.Scholte’s definition a way forward orsimply another definition among others?Students who had the occasion to seat onDr Shirin Rai ‘s GDG seminars know morethan well that the answer is quitedebatable. The comments of Sam Dallynin his article below is an example.However, it is clear that Scholte’sdefinition is a satisfactory attempt to makesense out of this globalisation mess. Notmany authors have taken the time the todeveloped a definition that avoids themultiplication of social dimensions, i.e. adefinition that uses globalisation to explaineverything phenomenon on the planet.Scholte clearly cuts the reality andprecisely points the subject that needs tobe observed.

We are now told to “Think BIG”, tothink globally. As Scholte suggests, a newmethodology should be constructed toface the challenge. This methodologyshould not be based on tradtional onesbut on a vast multidisciplinary experienceand new ideas

Prof. Jan Aart Scholte.


Pag

e 14

of

28

It was with great pleasure that thesociety welcomed Dr Rebecca Earle fromthe history department, to present a paperon Globalisation and Food.

We are all of us familiar with thecontemporary aspects of the globalisationand food debate. We have deliberated thepros and cons of crop specialisation,criticised the pressure on developingcountries to sell foodstuffs for export,despite domestic scarcity, and scrutinisedthe structures of power that underlie globalcorporations such as McDonalds. It wastherefore refreshing to focus on thehistorical question of what made possiblethe advent of global foods. It was positedthat a process referred to as theColombian Exchange constituted arevolution in global eating habits.

The Colombian Exchange was aterm used to connote the two-way flow ofliving things developed in the wake ofColumbus’ arrival in the Americas. It was aprocess of diffusion of disease, plants,animals and peoples that had beenimpossible until these two isolated worldsmet. Earle argued that in terms of ediblefoodstuff, the exchange revolutionisedworld diets. The example of chicken tikkamasala and a side of Bombay potatoes,now a staple British dish, was given inorder to illustrate this point. Without thevital ingredients of tomatoes, chile andpotatoes, all of which originate from Meso-America this everyday dish and manyothers, would not be part of our diet.Moreover once in Europe these foodsquickly travelled to India, amongst otherplaces, where they have also becomeincorporated into local cuisine.

More importantly perhaps is howstaples such as the potato, sweet corn,manioc and sweet potato led to a growthin world population. Pursuing this pointfurther it could be argued that better dietshad a direct impact on peoples capacity towork. This may have facil itated

manufacturing and production during theindustrial revolution, leading to theexpansion of Europe, then to colonialism,and as Earle argues, ultimately to theprocess of globalisation as we recogniseit.

The histor ical perspect ivepresented by Dr Earle was refreshing andthought-provoking. As politics students it isoften all to easy to overlook events anddebates occurring outside the discipline,but this talk, although not immediatelyconnected with our class discussions ofglobalisation, posed some interestingquestions. For instance Dr Earle’sperspective seem to conflict with thedefinition of globalisation presented byProfessor Scholte. In tracing the historicaltrajectory of globalisation it appears thatfor Earle the phenomenon is nothing new,rather it is a process of change that hasbeen underway for centuries. Thisappears in direct opposition to Scholte’sdefinition of globalisation as supra-territoriality. In defining globalisation, yetagain, we are left with the feeling thatsuch a process def ies simplecategorisation. Nevertheless, the pastyear has hopefully allowed us to hone ourparticular understanding of what willremain an essentially contested concept.

GLOBALISATION AND FOODDr. Rebecca Earle (History Department)Resume by Nia Williams (MA in GDG)

Dr. Rebecca Earle


Pag

e 15 of 28

Globalisation is a distinctiveexpansion of capitalist relations ofproduction, which requires a restructuringof the role of the national state, and ofinternational relations, political vocabulary,institutions of governance as well as theidea of the community. Capitalism is notsimply an economic framework, butfundamentally a set of social relations,which is reflected in and structures theway we produce and exchange goods andservices as well ideas and ideologies. Isuggest that gender relations areconstituted by and are constitutive of theglobal political economy.

Feminist scholars figure hardly atall in the traditional international relationsand IPE accounts of globalisation - otherthan at time as objects of policy outcomes,or victims of such outcomes. Underglobalisation, women are a fundamentalpart of the way in which capital is seekingto lower the costs of production throughwhat is called the new internationaldivision of labour, where manufacturing,especially in labour intensive sectors, isbeing now concentrated in the South.

They are also a fundamental part of therestructuring of the role of the state that isgoing hand in hand with this – throughstructural adjustment policies in the Southand a 'reassessment' of the state's role asa guarantor of welfare in the North.Women are picking up the tab for highermale unemployment on the one hand, andlower levels of state provision on theother. Feminist economists are worriedthat this increasing burden will have adetrimental effect on gender relations andon the lives of women and men.Gendered political economy (GPE) callsfor a paradigmatic shift to include genderin conceptualising the reconfiguration ofthe 'new geography of power'. It suggeststhat the current transformation of theglobal economy corresponds to importantchanges in the governance frameworks ofproduction and social reproduction on aglobal scale. It insists that IPE mustinclude an analysis of the contribution ofsocial reproduction which refers to theongoing reproduction of labour power andthe social processes and human relationsassociated with creating and maintainingthe social order.

PRODUCTION, SOCIAL REPRODUCTION AND GLOBALISATIONDr. Shirin Rai (PAIS)

Dr. Shirin Rai


Pag

e 16

of

28

Describing the Need

Mental illnesses are a disorder ofthe mental process that often results in adiminished capacity for coping with theordinary demands of life. These disordersare treatable. Research shows mentaldisorders affect around 15% of the world'spopulation - rising to 40% when stress-related disorders are included.

The scale of the global challengeposed by mental illness has becomeincreasingly clear in recent years(Desjarlais R, Eisenberg L, Good B,Kleinman A. 1995). Mental illness nowaccounts for about 12.3% of the globalburden of disease (WHO), and this willrise to 15% by the year 2020 (Murray CJL,Lopez AD,1996), by which time“depression will disable more people thanAIDS, heart disease, traffic accidents andwars combined” (Bill Wilkersen). Theeconomic impact of mental ill health isphenomenal, as it is on the lives of hugenumbers of individuals, their families andcommunities. While this enormous healthburden is increasingly being recognised,so too is the inadequacy of our globalresponse.

The WHO has just published thefirst global profile of mental health servicesand it clearly shows that mental illness, inmost countries of the world, is simply nottaken seriously. Forty per cent ofcountries have no mental health policiesand 25% have no legislation in the field ofmental health. As one might expect,services also show huge internationalvariations with one third of people (33countries with a combined population oftwo billion) living in nations that invest lessthan 1% of their total health budget inmental health (WHO). In general, lowerincome countries invest proportionatelyless in mental health, and this is especially

the case in Africa and South Asia.Community care facilities have yet to bedeveloped in about half of the countries inthe African and South Asia Regions. Theavailability of mental health professionalsin large areas of the world is extremelypoor. More than 680 million people, themajority of whom are in Africa and SouthAsia, have access to less than onepsychiatrist per million of population.

BasicNeeds’ conf irms thisresearch through its growing programmeexperience, notably the tremendouslimitations in trained personnel andfacilities. In Northern Ghana, LanceMontia, Programme Manager, noted in hispre-baseline study that there were 9retired and 6 practising psychiatrists inGhana, none of whom were in theBasicNeeds programme area of NorthernGhana. Our Associate Representative inTanzania, Mary Ann Coates, reports thatthis country spends 4.8% of GDP onhealth but notes that the percentageallocated to mental health is undeclared(WHO). There are currently only 11qualified psychiatrists in Tanzania. Noneare based in the Southern Zone, theproposed site of our work.

MENTAL ILLNESS AND DEVELOPMENTChris Underhill, Director of BasicNeeds(NGO in Lemington Spa)

Mr. Chris Underhill


Pag

e 17 of 28

A very striking aspect of globalmental health is the extent to which thestate is often the only player in theinstitutional landscape. In countries wherethe voluntary sector has a proud andplentiful tradition, such as India, with a fewnotable exceptions the presence of non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) isreally quite extraordinarily slight.Significantly, in talking to mentally illpeople in our current programmes wehave found that they were almost neverpart of community based rehabilitationschemes, development programmes orincome generation projects

A model for mental health and development

1. Community Mental Health: Mechanisms developed for easy access of mental healthservices by the mentally ill people in the community.

2. Capacity building: Supporting mentally ill people and their carers to actively participatein consultation workshops and self-help groups; institutional strengthening of communitybased partner organisations on a range of aspects that are required for thesustainability of the programme.

3. Promoting sustainable livelihoods: Skill development and linking support services(finance & business development services) to help mentally ill people and their carers inimproving family income. Here the programme identifies the capabilities of individualsand those around them who want to be associated with the project, along with suitabletrades within the community that can be merged into a micro enterprise.

4. Research & advocacy: With the involvement of all the stakeholders, understanding thecontext within which the programme operates, so as to build an information base torepresent the “voice of mentally ill people”. In order to place the voice of the mentally illperson at the centre of the narrative , a series of life stories as told by the peoplethemselves, have been developed. They will contribute to the collective body ofknowledge and will be published with consent at appropriate times. The datagenerated by our research creates the basis for ‘user-led and evidence-based’advocacy at local, national and international levels.

5. Programme management and administration: Administering the programme with theactive participation of the partner organisations, covering planning, implementation andmonitoring aspects.

For information on this topic contact Chris UnderhillTel: 00 44 (0) 1926 330101Email: [email protected]: http://www.basicneeds.org.ukWeb: http://www.mentalhealthanddevelopment.org


Pag

e 18

of

28

Intending to showcase the bestfrom various fields of academia andpractical efforts under the common and'integrated' force of globalization, theSymposium unfortunately failed to deliverthe most basic denominator of what wasexpected.

The speakers, all accomplishedand respected professionals, appeared tohave lost touch with the spirit of thisinterdisciplinary discussion whereingenuine communication could have beenpossible if only because it resided underthe multidimensional umbrella that isglobalization. Yet, instead of some senseof synergy (though fleeting indirectcomments were made), each presenterchose to sell his/her research, at timesonly marginally related to the process, atother times completely irrelevant - anunnerving experience after two hours.

I wish I could blame theorganizers for its under-performance, but Icannot. Such a lack of communication isunfortunately the norm amongstspecialists, where it is either a lack ofinterest or some form of fear which inhibitsthem from broadening the scope of theirarguments. Ladies and gentlemen,welcome to the era of globalization, where

the marvels of communication are blastedthrough countless channels, and yetbetween the learned and aware, it is eerilynon-existent.

All is not lost however, and thesimple exercise of sensitivity and furtherresearch for the participation in anyinterdisciplinary debate is easily feasible.History, politics, economics, as well aspsychology are all interdependent andpotentially communicable studies, it is ourduty to simply seek out those connectionsnot only because we technically can in thisknowledge-enhancing globalizing world,but because we owe it to the informationalprojects - always building, alwaysprogressing - of our past, this present, andtheir future.

Globalisation and the Social Sciences :A Lack of Communication!Comments By Nidal Mahmoud (MA in IPE)

Globalisation Defined (?)Comments by Sam Dallyn (MA in IPE)

In attempting to draw an interesttowards the discussion on the 16th July:Globalisation: The Definitional ProblemAgain, I brought up the subject amongstsome friends. The general response fromthem, who admittedly were largely from anactivist rather than an academic politicalbackground, was « globalisation isn’t thatone of those theoretical terms which isnow so widespread that it can apply toanything and is of no use anymore? » Tobe honest the response surprised me

slightly but as I reflected on it I have to sayI can see why the concept causes suchconfusion. I have to admit sniggeringslightly myself when I saw a reference in apaper to, wait for it… post-globalisation(Helleiner 1996). My reply incidentally, inthe protracted discussion that followed thequestion, was that although that hadhappened to other theoretical terms oncein fashion like post-modernism there wassome use to the concept of globalisation.


Pag

e 19 of 28

The parallels between the termspostmodernism and globalisation areactually quite interesting. Many people, ofcourse, characterise globalisation aspostmodern. I have to confess myself tobeing a member of the club that sees theterm « postmodern » to now be sowidespread as to be theoretically useless.Any term that can supposedly characteriseBlade Runner, Barnett Newmann, JeanBaudrillard, Big Brother and advancedWestern capitalism must of in some wayoutstayed its welcome. So I suppose Icame to the talk on Wednesday askingwhat prevents the concept of globalisationfrom befalling the same fate?

Its extremely difficult to explain allof the presentations involved in thediscussion about globalisation in an articlethis size. As a range of different subjectsand discourses, at times conflictingdiscourses were connected to thephenomenon of globalisation. Theseincluded the globalisation of food, of theliberalisation of Eastern Europeaneconomies, of feminism and of an NGOinvolved in mental health. In this contextthen I’ll focus simply on Scholte’spresentation because in a sense it servedas a summary for many of the discussionsthat followed in more specific fields. Hehas also assumed an important place indebates about globalisation in trying toprovide the concept with the necessarydefinitional clarity it requires, that wasnoted above. I find Scholte’s definitionuseful because it has the necessarymodesty to recognise the partiality of‘izations’ as constant processes ratherthan products, yet it also provides muchneeded definitional clarity.

Im sure your all aware of theScholte position in “Globalisation A CriticalIntroduction” and CSGR working papers inwhich very roughly globalisation refers to“supraterritoriality”, a change in theconfiguration of spatial relations and veryloosely, to some extent inaccurately, itrefers to a complex form ofdeterritorialisation. We must then ofcourse strike some of the cautionary notes

Scholte does, that globalisation exists withcounter tendencies of re-territorialisation,that it is not something which is by anymeans literally global. That globalisationonly applies for some sections of the worldpopulation given that the vast majoritydoes not have access to transnationalcommunications. From an activiststandpoint there is certainly a sense bothwithin the mainstream and the academicmargins of what is wrongly termed theanti-globalisation movement that peopleincreasingly do not see an emphasis uponglobality as something intrinsically good orbad. This is a feature of course of whatScholte argues. Look for example atglobal social movements or what aretermed high profile anti-globalisationthinkers like Monbiot and Klein do notcharacterise themselves as anti-globalisation theorists. My only concernwith the position Scholte presents, which Isee as extremely useful, is that the finalcautionary note he offers aboutglobalisation ought to be the primaryquestion of the new global order. Thataccess to the means of the phenomenonof g lobal i ty , l ike t ransnat ionalcommunications, are only available to atiny minority of the world’s population. Theglobally disenfranchised ought to assumethe central place in any analysis ofglobalisation and one can question in whatsense it is actually a reality for them.


Pag

e 20

of

28

The or ig ina l Washingtonconsensus agenda, which was outlined byJohn Williamson in 1989, was acomprehensive package of fiscal,structural, and monetary reforms that,according to the views held ‘inWashington’ , Latin American countrieswould have needed to embrace in order totackle the already daunting problem oftheir public debt. The three basic ideasstressed by Williamson were, simply put,macroeconomic discipline, marketeconomy, and openness to the world (atleast in respect of trade and FDI) . Theseideas became so popular, both in thepolitical agenda of policy-makers, and as atarget of the no-global discontents as thequintessential neoliberal view, that is wasinevitable that the Washington Consensuswas heavily questioned when the dramaticsequence of financial crises hit developingcountries during the 90s.

The 2003 Conference of theCentre for the Study of Globalisation andRegionalisation (CSGR) , which was heldat the University of Warwick in mid-July,focussed on these themes, attempting totake stock of recent experiences andsketching out the bases for a ‘Post-Washington Consensus’ view. The scarsof such episodes of Financial Crises werestill so vivid that it was inevitable thatmuch of the attention of the speakers wasdrawn to how to prevent and resolve suchcrises. However, as many commentatorsnoted, this pair of objectives, per se,already points to an intrinsic problem inthe nature of IMF interventions. In fact,prevention requires the IMF to stand by acountry and promise its liquidity to helpsolve the possible inefficiencies of capitalmarkets; in the words of Professor Portes(London Business School), the IMF shouldbe a ‘lender of first resort’, rather than oneof last resort. On the other hand,

resolution cannot systematically imply thebig rescue operations that were put inplace, for instance, in the case of Mexicoand, with quite an opposite result, forArgentina. Not only is this financiallyunfeasible for the IMF itself, but it willprompt ‘irresponsible’ and ‘risky’ behaviourin both policy-makers and creditors,something that is generally referred to asthe moral hazard problem. But once theIMF has accepted to endorse a scheme ofassistance to a country, i.e. it wants toprevent a crisis, its threat to withdraw fromsuch a scheme in order to avoid moralhazard may become non-credible in theimminence or occurrence of a crisis, thushampering the possibility of an orderlyresolution. In the words of ProfessorPowell (Universidad Torquato di Tella,Argentina), this may put the IMF in an‘impossible position’, which hinders theFinancial Architecture to be chronicallyincomplete.

This was only one of theinconsistencies that were highlightedabout the role of the IMF: ProfessorWoods (Oxford university) pointed out thetension between the IMF as an adaptingas opposed to a learning institution, whichoverlaps to that between its ‘bureaucratic’role as a board for technical analysis andits political role of advisor to countries.Professor Leech (Warwick University),relying on an innovative approach,showed how the actual power of a country

International Financial Crises: What Follows theWashington Consensus?

By Dr. Gianluca Grimalda (Research Fellow, Centrefor the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation)


Pag

e 21 of 28

within international institutions is actuallyrather different from that stated in its‘formal’ weighted system of voting. Forinstance, the US turn out to have an evenbigger power than the 17.11 share ofvotes it has in the IMF.

Such doubts on the role of theIMF were also apparent in the discussionover two of the major proposals on therestructuring of sovereign debt. The so-called statutory approach, proposed bythe IMF itself, likens sovereign debt tocorporate debt and makes it subject to theUS bankruptcy law procedures, with theIMF acting as the court. No wonder that areform that would assign even more powerto the IMF than what it currently has waslikely to be seen with suspicion by itsnumerous detractors. As a matter of fact,even the IMF decided not to push toomuch on this reform in the recent springmeeting. Hence, an alternative proposal,which was originally endorsed byProfessor Portes, is attracting more favouramong the commentators. This is calledcontractual as it encourages creditors tochange the terms of the bond by means ofagreements between themselves. Suchchanges require qualified majorities, whichare explicitly specified in the so-calledCollective Action Clauses, which can beenforced by Court Laws such as New Yorkand London.

However, even admitting that thesuccess of the contractual over thestatutory approach is now widelyaccepted, which prompted Professor Miller(Warwick University) to ‘crown’ ProfessorPortes as the ‘inventor’ of the contractualapproach, this seems after all only the firststep to a comprehensive reform of theglobal financial architecture. In the wordsof Kenneth Kletzer (University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz), the discussion onsovereign debt restructuring only seems todirect too much attention to building bettermorgues. And that some new thoughtmust be directed to these issues was alsoapparent in the concluding remarks of theIMF representative Matthew Fisher, whopointed out that as a result of the badmanagement of the Argentinian default, aserious lack of confidence is spreadingamong financial investors about lending todeveloping countries, as witnessed by therecent trend of decreasing capital flowsdirecting toward such markets. If theprocess of too fast a capital accountliberalisation had even got beyond themark of the original WashingtonConsensus agenda, this new, and slowlyspreading, contagion seems likely to callfor the setting of an entirely new agendafor the next years. The CSGR Conferencehas hopefully helped to move the firststeps into that direction.


Pag

e 22

of

28

HIV / AIDS and Security

The HIV/AIDS pandemic is onethat is ravaging the continent of Africa as itdramatically reduces life expectancy. Itleaves its imprint on all regions of theworld, as at the end of 2000 36 millionpeople were HIV positive. However, it hasundoubtedly hit the hardest in sub-Saharan Africa in which 70% of thoseinfected with HIV/AIDS are situated. Theextent and magnitude of the epidemic isvery real as it is expected that by 2005100 million new infections will arise. It isnot the first time in human history that adisease has infiltrated societies to causelarge-scale misery as with the bubonicplague in the 1300s and the world wideinfluenza epidemic from 1918-19.However, none of these killers were on thesame scale of destruction as AIDS. Thelink between HIV/AIDS and security is onethat is increasingly being realised as thedisease weakens the basis of a state’sdefense capacity-that of the military.

What constitutes security?Security has traditionally been definedwithin the neo-realist orthodoxy in whichthe military is the focal point in preservingthe territorial sovereignty of a state fromexternal threats. As a result of this, themilitary pillar has taken precedence overwhat security entails right until the end ofthe Cold War. If one is to look at securitythrough the lens of the neo-realist traditionand its emphasis on the military, onewould see that the state which is thecoherent whole of this paradigm is beingundermined as the military has one of thehighest infection rates, varying from 50%in the Congo to 80% in Zimbabwe.

Why is the virus able to easilypenetrate into the military institution? As agroup, the army is in great peril as theyrecruit members from a high-risk group of15-24 year old’s. Furthermore, the post-Cold war era has brought along with it

many intra and interstate conflicts in whichthe army is increasingly called upon to bedeployed to restore stability. As they areaway from home for long periods of time,military personnel engage in ‘high risk’behaviour, for instance drugs, alcohol aswell as attracting sex workers, whichcommingled, put them at high risk. This isdetrimental to the military, as skilledmembers are lost to HIV/AIDS, whichhinders the militaries capacity to beeffective, prepared and readily deployed.Outside forces can use this weakness toinfiltrate states that are greatly affected byHIV/AIDS. Furthermore, once militariesare injected back into their societies theyspread the disease in low seroprevalencecommunities.

However, one argument that mustbe brought to attention is the debate as towhether HIV/AIDS is a traditional securityissue or a non-traditional security issuesuch as human security. What doeshuman security encapsulate? In contrastto traditional security, which takes thestate as the referent, human security takesthe individual as its central focus.Therefore, human securi ty canencompass economic, personal and the

Mariam (Mimi) Fawaz (MA in IR)


Pag

e 23 of 28

encompass economic, personal andpolitical security. Under the rubric ofhuman security non-traditional definitionsof security such as HIV/AIDS, which havebeen left on the periphery even thoughthey greatly undermine human survival ona massive scale, are brought to theforefront.

In addition to the threat HIV/AIDSposes to the military, it is being used inmany societies as a ‘new’ weapon of war.In these unstable societies, war is abreeding ground for HIV/AIDS as itenables it to flourish since the product ofwar is mass displacement of peoples andrefugees, which are identified as primevulnerable targets. This abuse has beendocumented in the widespread gangrapes of women in Sierra Leone,Democratic Republic of Congo andRwanda. Regardless of whether one looksat HIV/AIDS as undermining the pillar ofthe traditional definition of security orwhether it is a human security issue, thefact is that HIV/AIDS is a real threat to thesecurity of civil societies as well as to thenational security of developing countriesdue to their interaction with each other.The tide needs to be turned, as security

has for too long been defined in verylimited terms.

Rethinking security requires newquestions: Security for whom?’ Who setsthe boundaries of what is or should besecurity? For the majority of thedeveloping world, the Western definition ofsecurity is ill equipped to deal with thepressing needs of the post Cold War erasince for the developing world HIV/AIDSmay be a slow killer, but nevertheless realas it wipes out whole communities. Theway we perceive security is essential. Ifissues, such as HIV/AIDS, which havebeen previously regulated to the domainof low politics, are moved to the arena ofhigh politics, the world would open its eyesand see that due attention must be givento this urgent matter, for if not, it may for along time be left on the margins withoutdue attention. In short, as put forth bySinger it is a tragic irony that the military,which is relied upon to protect people, isthe very group that is putting them at evengreater risk. (Singer, ‘AIDS andInternational Security’, 44(1), 2002, p.155)

Re-thinking development studies: Interviewwith the Director of the CSGR

Professor Richard Higgott(Director of the CSGR, Professor of IPE)Interview by Joerg Wiegratz (MA in IPE)

Questions:

From your perspective, what were themain concerns and core features of theacademic development debate since theSecond World War? What, in this regard,were some of the failures of scholarsduring that period, in the sense that theirconcepts were stemmed from flawedparadigms or assumptions?

Prof. Higgott:

The nature of the developmentstudies in the post-WWII era wascondi t ioned pr inc ipal ly by thedeco lon isa t ion p rocess . Bas icunderstanding after WWII was that it wasreally not acceptable for major powers tohave colonies.

Prof. Richard Higgott


Pag

e 24

of

28

So, the question was, to what extent couldcolonies be granted their independency insuch a way that allowed them to befunctioning economic and political entities.The dominant paradigm, the earlyparadigm, was effectively what came to beknown as modernisation theory which wasbuild around an understanding that therewould be the diffusion of capital,technology and culture to developingcountries. Modernisation in so many wayswas a short-hand for westernisation, underwith the provision of these three things,capital, technology and culture, and thepossibility of developing countriesengaging in what Walt Rostow called take-off into self-sustained growth could beunderwritten. The thing which we alwaysneed to remember, however, is thepolitical context in which this took place.The determining structural factor, ofcourse, was the Cold War. Thedecolonisation of the British, French,Dutch empires was to be seen quitespecifically in the Cold War context, aswas the relationship with other non-traditional colonial but developingcountries, again in the wider Cold Warcontext. The basic problem was that themodel of modernisation, as this process oftake-off into self-sustained growth, wasflawed, for several reasons. One, becauseit took no account of the cultural andhistorical circumstances in which many ofthese western systems and institutionswere to be located. Two, it took noaccount really of levels of economicdevelopment or the existing structures ofthe global economic order whicheffectively made it very difficult fordeveloping countries actually to fit in tothis process in a way that the theoreticalperspectives suggested. At a politicallevel, the understanding of goodgovernance as some kind of Weberianrationalist, bureaucratic approach towardsadministration again was not culturallysensitive.

That was the early face. Whathappened following that was that therewas a period of intense pessimism as the

modernisation project went belly-up. Therewas a process of stagnation, politicalinstability, lots of military coups andinsurrections. Modernisation theory as theidea of the promotion of development andgrowth gave way to a much more order-centred theory of stability in thedeveloping world. And this prevailedthroughout the 1960s and 1970s. Theother important thing that happened tomake us rethink an during that time of the1960s and 1970s: alternative more radicaldevelopment strategies became attractive,particularly dependency theory, ideas thatimport subst i tut ion should takeprecedence over export-oriented growth,the notion of some kind of aggregatedThird World demanding a newinternational economic order.

All these were fashionablemovements at that time. By the end of the1970s of course we begun to realize it wasnecessary to disaggregate the ThirdWorld. It was no longer appropriate tothink of Latin American, African and Asiancountries all simply being of a type. It wasquite clear that those states of developingEast-Asia that had undergone processesof industrial expansion and outward-oriented industrialisation had actuallyundergone processes of quite dramaticgrowth. It’s true, much of this growth wasbrutal, lopsided and exploitative. Butnevertheless, it was growth all the same.So, you got that strange kind ofconvergence of ideas from Marxists on theleft and some more orthodox neo-classicaleconomists on the right basicallyadvocating the same kind of policyprescriptions: radical, export-orientedindustrialisation strategies. That gave riseto that kind of process of the newlyindustrialised economies in the 1980s andthrough the 1990s. It also very much tightin with the whole kind of liberalisation andde-regulation agenda that occurred in thelate 1970s: The arrival of MargaretThatcher, Ronald Reagan and the NewNeo-liberal, pushing the global economy.


Pag

e 25 of 28That give rise to the believe that there was

some kind of consensus that had beenachieved in development studies. Thisprevailed quite strongly throughout the1980s and the early parts of the 1990suntil, I think, we saw a dramatic realisationthat there were as many problemsassociated with this as there werepossibilities and potentials. Things like theincreasing poverty and stagnation inAfrica, the Asian financial crisis, thespread of these crises to Latin Americaand the post-Cold War Central andEastern Europe demonstrated thelimitations of the neo-liberal model.

Question:

If we do not want to get into thetheoretical and analytical traps again inthe future, what then are the lessonswhich we have to learn from the processor evolution of development studies asyou have just described it?

Prof. Higgott:

I think, that the obvious lesson isthat we don’t assume the existence of oneuniformed pattern. There is more than oneway to ‘skin a cat’ and there is certainlymore than one route towards developmentstrategies. And, it’s quite clear as we arein the early stage of the 21st century thereis a growing recognition that some of theagenda items of the major internationalinstitutions for example, what we might

call those elements of the post-Washington consensus, rub up againstalternative demands for accountability,representation and greater democraticimport from developing countries. We dohave, I think, in the early 21st century, abit of a institutional stalemate. There is abigger crisis of legitimacy in theinternational institutions now more than atany time in the previous couples ofdecades.

Question:

You said before, that there was aconvergence of policy prescriptionsbetween Marxist scholars and neo-classical economists in the 1980s. Canyou explain that in more detail?

Prof. Higgott:

Well, they had a differentnormative agenda. But if you were aMarxist for example, you felt that it wasactually necessary to go through what wemight call a capitalist stage ofdevelopment. You got that seminal workby Bill Warren in the mid-1970s where hetalked about the need for capitalistdevelopment in the Third World before youcan achieve some kind of socialistalternative. The policy prescriptions ofcourse were the introduction of capitalistforms of economic organisation. In manyways not dissimilar to those kinds of formsof economic organisation that a neo-liberaleconomist would advocate.

Question:

What happened to that very phenomenaof convergence?

Prof. Higgott:

Basically, the kind of Marxist position justkind of fell away. The popularity of Marxistanalysis in the late 1970s and early 1980sdisappeared almost under the kind of theonslaught of that kind of neo-liberalagenda of the 1980s and the 1990s.


Pag

e 26

of

28

Questions:

Considering the growing field ofglobalisation studies, is the study ofdevelopment still relevant from your pointof view? If so, what could be future issuesfor students of development? Where doyou see their specific future contribution tothe broader social science field?

Prof. Higgott:

One of the problems with developmentstudies is that it always had a kind of a‘ghetto-mentality’. Globalisation studies isa catch-all. It is very difficult to decidewhat is not legitimate for a study under therubric of globalisation. Alternatively,development was too tightly focused.What we need is a balance between arecognition of those particular issues andactivit ies that are quite clearlydevelopment-centred, basically aboutpoverty eradication and supportingdeveloping countries, but the degree towhich they are part of the wider structuralenvironment that we call contemporaryglobalisation: a liberal trading system, aderegulated financial system, a systemthat attempts to minimize state regulationand involvement in these kinds of process.So, globalisation questions anddevelopment questions are very similar.The important thing is that from theperspective of development studies, if youlike, resistance from below as opposed toimposition from the top, many of thesolutions look to be not attainable. Manydeveloping countries see themselves inthe global economic order as rule-takersrather than rule-makers. They seethemselves as having no serious importinto the institutional reform of the majorbodies like the IMF, the World Bank, andthe WTO. Of course, this means thatthese bodies lack legitimacy. This is insome ways a bigger problem for thedeveloped countries as it is for thedeveloping countries.

Questions:

Again, what could be a specificcontribution of students of development to

the broader social science field? Whatkind of perspective, or main insights, couldthey offer in the future?

Prof. Higgott:

I think, we need to resist the question. It’snot a question of who gives what, or whotakes what. It’s a question of how weanalyse contemporary events and whatkinds of tools that we bring to this mode ofanalysis and subsequent kind of policyprescriptions. I think, to try and identify adevelopment studies perspective doesharm to the complexity of thecontemporary era.

Questions :

The last question we would like to askyou: What do you think is missing in mostcurricula of development programmes inour universities, especially in GreatBritain? And, if we would like to be moreinterdisciplinary, what would be apromising mix of scientific fields in thisrespect?

Prof. Higgott:

I can’t honestly tell you, because I don’tteach development studies. I don’t knowwhat people’s syllabus look like. But ifsomeone said to me you got to teachdevelopment studies next year, there arethree or four things that I would want tohave involved in a curriculum. One wouldbe a good course in basic economictheory, and by that I do not mean dramaticexercises in modelling but understandingthe importance of markets. Secondly, Iwould want a good dose of institutionaltheory that looks at the relationshipbetween markets and states. Thirdly, Iwould want a strong ethical input into this,that dealt with questions about the natureof ethicality under conditions ofglobalisation. And fourthly, I think it’simportant that you got some good, richempirical case work across the spectrumof the developing world that allows you tosee the degree to which various elementsof economic, social and political theory fitor don’t fit in developing countries.


Pag

e 27 of 28Globalisation, Governance and Development

in Practice

As I started my MA inGlobalisation and Development back inSeptember, I had many questions in mymind. How would I find going back intoeducation after a year out? How would Ienjoy the course? How would thetransition from a Humanities BA to aSocial Sciences MA work out? Suffice tosay these were questions I quickly foundpositive answers to as I found myselfenjoying the both the course and thepeople at Warwick. Yet, the one questionthat I found asking myself more than anyother was, how will the skills andknowledge I will learn on the coursetransfer to what is happening out in the“real world”?

As it happened, the academicyear 2002-2003 was one in which awealth of events occurred that allowed meto put the debates and theories intopractice. Of the major events that haveoccurred among others, we have seen thecollapse of the Argentinian economy, oneof the perceived strongest economies inSouth America. Was this due toglobalisation and the failure of IMFimposed structural adjustment policies orthe fact the country did not liberaliseenough? We have seen the outbreak ofthe SAR’s virus that has had globalimplications on how to stop it spreadingand whether national responses could becoordinated to stop it. We have seenmany companies in the developed worldmove production to the developing worldand have again seen anti-globalisationdemonstrations at the G8 meetings asmany countries suffer from theliberalisation of their markets andeconomy whilst others gain. Does thisprove that big business and the privatesector is exploitative of developingcountries or are they in fact legitimate andefficient drivers of development? Is thereany alternative and can states exerciseany control over global economics and bigbusiness? Does this prove that that the

South has become even more dependenton the North or will these changes lead toindividual countries eventual prosperitywithin the global community? How dosuch production structure changes affectboth the developed and developing worldand how does gender fit into the largerpicture?

Yet of the events this year thathave occurred, the one that has asked themost questions and illustrated the coursehas been the Iraq war. We have seenvicious horse trading for votes in thesecurity council by both the pro and antiwar countries based on increasedeconomic aid to the smaller countries.What does such tactics mean for thecurrent development paradigm ifinternational decisions can be influencedby economics? On the streets, fromLondon to San Francisco to Jakarta, wehave seen the rise of global socialmovements as people have been broughttogether through traditional and throughmultimedia organisation, to gather a globalmovement into action. Have such actionsgot a long-term future and can they beeffective and provoke change? Does thewar prove that globalisation is anAmerican led imperialist project,steamrollering through their needs andwants as the contracts for reconstructionand oil are drawn up? Or does it provethat the world was unable to respond tothe genuine global security concerns ofthe world’s super power that has nowevoked change for the better and theliberation of a people now free to followtheir own political, economic and socialbetterment? Now Saddam has gone, howwill this effect social and economic changewithin the country? Will the manydevelopment issues the course hasinformed us of be addressed and a courseof action suitable implemented? Aboveall, will the ordinary Iraqi be better off forthese actions?

As I ponder these questions, Iwonder what events lay around the cornerto next put the course into practice?

By Stephen Grey (MA in GDG)


Warwick GlobalDevelopment

Society

For Further Information about theNews Letter or submission ofarticles please contact :

Martin [email protected]

For a better future…

We’re on the Web!

See us at:http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/socs/su338

General Info :

Shahida. A. Hamid (President)

Nia Williams(Secretary)

General Email :

[email protected]

To become a Member of the Society

Simply go register at the Union North at the Secretariat

The WGDS has been establishedprimarily as a forum for debate anddiscourse for anyone with an interest inthe Development field. We hope to furtherunderstanding and awareness ofdevelopment theory and practice througha programme of talks and events. Ourprogramme intends to cover a variety oftopics from global governance, to the roleof trans-national corporations in today'sworld, to the oft unexplored gendered

dimensions of development. We hopeto provide a critique of the dominanmodels of development and to conceiveof alternate paths for the future. Inaddition to inviting academics andpractitioners to host lectures we want toknow what YOU think, therefore eachmeeting will be an opportunity to voiceyour concerns or personal perspectiveon the development process.

Our Mission Statement

Next Issue in September.

To all the readers, good vacation and forstudents who are writings a dissertation,Good luck!

Date post:	15-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

WARWICK GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY · 2009-05-14 · Resume of Prof. Jan Aart Scholte’s speech by...

Documents