Dialogues: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series

Thank you Samuel.

I am not advocating the end of globalization. It is here with us. It is very unlikely go away any time soon. My concern is that its losers are much too weak and its winners are much too powerful. What is needed it seems to me, is a critical rethink of globalization- not its conceptualization but its practice given its deleterious effects on the weak in the poorer countries of the world. Globalization should be more about people than it is at the moment and less about capital to.

Ephraim Levi, a businessman, was reported in the movie "Hello Dolly" to have said something like: what use is money if it is not spread around to help things grow? Not only for the owners of capital I might add. Why are more business people not thinking like Ephraim? Like capitalism, globalization seems to be more about capital and profit than it is about people and a better life for more of them. Fewer people would leave their home countries to find work abroad if they found better paying work at home. The opposite is true is it not? Workers follow wages. Capital follows profit which is why investment goes abroad.

Does globalization seem to want to keep the poor and the weak countries and people of the world not much better than they are to keep labor costs low and profits high? Many critics of globalization think it does. What about higher wages for the many who are poor and less excessive profits for the few who are already rich? That is neither communism nor socialism. That is common sense. It is also good economics and politics.

Is globalization in danger of becoming yet another unacceptable face of capitalism? Only time will tell.

From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samuel Zalanga
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:21 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Today's Quote

OA,

These are great thoughts. All the concerns you raised I will argue have been addressed in Professor Joseph Stiglitz's books, especially the following:

a) Globalization and Its Discontents

b) Making Globalization Work.

As one commentator described him, Stiglitz is an intellectual insurgent. He is one good authority that had been part of the system (World Bank and Council of Economic Advisers for the U.S. under President Clinton), but publicly and with gusto explains the great potentials, but also serious limitations of globalization. For instance he argues that economic globalization is progressing at a faster pace than political globalization or the emergence of global institutions that will effectively manage the new world order. This is not surprising because an American scholar called William Ogburn, long ago developed what he called "culture lag" theory, where material culture changes faster than non-material culture, thereby causing disruptions i.e., non-material culture lags in change compared to material culture.

One statement that Stiglitiz uses, which in my view summarizes his view on globalization is: Globalization cannot be reversed because there are many winners, but it can also not be kept the way it is because there are many losers. Implication: we have to change it. But market fundamentalists and market populists will not want to do that.

Some see neoliberalism as the intellectual platform or justification for what became globalization. Before globalization took off especially in the 1990s, there was what some scholars call "A Battle of Ideas" represented by the debate between Keynes and Hayek. A book that summarizes this debate is "Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics" by Nicholas Waposhott.

A good six hour documentary film that is available free online that explains the relationship between neoiberalism as an ideology and globalization as the application of that vision of the world is: COMMANDING HEIGHTS by y Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw.

As for the distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism / globalization, there is a chapter in this book that makes a clear and concise distinction between the two: "Introduction to International Political Economy" by Dvaid N. Balaam and Bradford Dillman. 6th Edition. A quick highlight of the distinction is that classical liberalism is a theory of political power, while neoliberalism is a theory of money making, economics or wealth. Neoliberalism properly understood, like rational choice theory, is a theory whose logic can be applied to any area of human endeavor that economists decide to, including marriage, fertility, religion, etc.

One interesting idea they introduced in their book, i.e., "introduction to international political economy" is a new kind of imperialism known as "Liberal Imperialism." The idea is that becasue the collapse of states or dysfunctional states create global security problems like in Somalia and Afghanistan, it is legitimate to invade them in order to institute liberal or properly understood neoliberal states that will promote free market capitalism and liberal democracy, which at one point Francis Fukuyama said mark "The End of History." He has since revised his position somewhat after 9/11. For more on the concept of liberal imperialism, here is a link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/07/1

Whatever the case, the impact of neoliberal economic policies under the regime of globalization has been mediated by among other things, domestic policies and efficacy of institutions and the commitment and discipline of leaders. A book that documents how this kind of reasoning is important in terms of explaining variation in development performance among countries is: "Asian Tigers, African Lions: Comparing Development Performance of Southeast Asia and Africa" by Bernard Berendsen et al Editor. Brill is the publisher.

So while there are certain problems with neoliberal moral and economic philosophy and globalization policies, we need to be cautious because some countries have performed relatively better than others even though they have been under the same global influence of neoliberalism and globalization. My own work compares Malaysia and Nigeria and this much is true. Sometimes countries with the same level of economic growth have divergent levels of human development, indicating the mediating role of institutions, leadership, social capital, and other contextual and historical factors.

Samuel

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Anunoby, Ogugua <AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu> wrote:

Is globalization a liberal construct ? I am not sure. If it is, it is mostly in its conceptualization but not in its practice. All one has to do is think of the numbers of globalization's winners and losers, and who they tend to be. Why is it okay for businesses, money, products, and services to move across countries but not people? Why advocate for the free movement of money, goods, and services but not of people? If businesses may be free to make money anywhere in the world, why may people not be free to live and work anywhere in the world? One hears about free trade- movement of investments, goods, and services but seldom free movement of people.

Businesses like people, seek self-advantage. Is globalization the new, potent tool of the strong, exploiting the weak? Is globalization as it is currently practiced, the new face of subjugation? I sometimes wonder.

From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:45 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Today's Quote

samuel
there is an interesting link between "market fundamentalism" and "identity politics." am reading geschiere's recent book The Perils of Belonging. much of it concerns the rise of autochthony, that is expressed as belonging or local politics: who's in, who's out; who belongs, who moved in and poses a threat to the autochthones, in their view anyway. that's the space that identity politics tries to draw around itself.
what prompted the rise in identity politics after the 1980s? neoliberal economic forces that pushed imf and world bank policies, which resulted in a massive shift away from the emphasis on national citizenship, national identity, national political parties, especially in one party states, to recruiting supporters at the local level, and reinforcing local entities or communities. i think the rising insecurities, the shrinking of the state in a world of neoliberal globalization, had this impact in the rise of the local, defined often as the space of the autochthone.

to state, my unit of analysis is the human race might be a nice-sounding humanist principle--kwame appiah comes to mind,here, the cosmopolitanist--but the reality of such a global vision translates, ironically, into greater particularism.

(i want to conclude my reaction to samuel's posting by saying that i always enjoy what you have to say, samuel; it always makes me think, and i'm impressed by your approach and framing of arguments)
ken

On 10/20/15 6:23 AM, Samuel Zalanga wrote:

I can sense lamentation. Sorry about that. Some of us have moved forward becasue our unit of analysis is the human race. Surely Kwame Nkrumah's vision of a United States of Africa makes him way ahead of his time. Furthermore, it looks like Heidegger is right that modern people face serious problem of void and meaning.

Unfortunately, in the 21st century, the embarrassing fact and reality is that humans are going to have more voice as consumers with effective purchasing power, wherever they are, than as citizens because of market fundamentalism, which I think is a more serious threat to humanity than identity politics. And as Jim Clifton argues in "The Coming Jobs War" based a global Gallup research, the cities and places that will prosper in the future are those that have the ability to attract diverse and cosmopolitan people with talent, and not necessarily those operating on exclusionary vision of society. It amazing how the British and trying to have a diplomatic romantic relationship with China. The China that was inscrutable to Marx that he had to classify it as Asiatic Mode of Production.

In the future, the issue is not where you live but how you are plugged into the global economy depending on your skill set and human capital. What does one has to offer. In what way he or she is a value addition? I wish Nigerians focus on that. "Libido Dominandi" is a human problem. It anthropologically exists among all ethnic groups and nationalities. I always enjoy reading the "Melian Dialogue" in Justice and Power by Thucydides. There are certain problems that are part and parcel of the "human condition."

And given all that we now know about the human mind, it is not necessarily and automatically a serene, calm and safe place as it initially appears. It could be a battle field and a crucible that in terms of the trajectory of human evolution remain open-ended and the worse battles are fought there but humans often ignore that fact.
Samuel

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Chidi Anthony Opara <chidi.opara@gmail.com> wrote:
Nations become realities first in the minds of the would be citizens, Biafra is a reality in our minds.
CAO.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Samuel Zalanga
Department of Anthropology, Sociology & Reconciliation Studies
Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive #24
Saint Paul, MN 55112.
Office Phone: 651-638-6023
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

kenneth w. harrow

faculty excellence advocate

professor of english

michigan state university

department of english

619 red cedar road

room C-614 wells hall

east lansing, mi 48824

ph. 517 803 8839

harrow@msu.edu

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Samuel Zalanga
Department of Anthropology, Sociology & Reconciliation Studies
Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive #24
Saint Paul, MN 55112.
Office Phone: 651-638-6023

Dialogues

Monday, October 26, 2015

RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Today's Quote

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me