|
March 7, 2004
I'm due to catch a plane in an hour or so. So I'll make a note here and try to come back to it sometime tomorrow. The text I want to introduce is by Stephen Granville from the Lowy Institute for International Policy. It is called 'Globalism: an unfinished business' and it was published in the Review section of the Australian Financial Review (subscription required, 5 March 04, p. 9).
Granville's article (see link on right side of webpage ) responds to the John Ralston Saul article, 'The end of globalism'.
What we can infer from the Saul article is the imbalance between global market forces and the capacity of national governments to control them. Granville targets what he claims is Saul's nostalgia for the nation-state.
A lot of the article is devoted to an argument that states Saul is confuses globalism (a neo-liberal ideology) with globalization (the process of integration): he makes a category mistake that is very common in the debates over and around globalization.
I will try to find the time to explore the Granville article in more depth tomorrow.
Update
I'm too busy to probe the Granville article. It has been long hours of work in Canberra. I've been contracted to do a job in the theatre of democratic political life. It's a 7am to 11pm day with little time for play.
Some days latter
I've finally found a spare moment.
Granville basically clears away the exaggerated conceptions of globalization (ie., different forms of globalism) of th starry eyed globalisers to uncover the core of the globalization process. The core is described thus: technology links nations; the efficiency gains from technology; poverty comes from disconnection from the global economy; individual national culture is the outcome of people's choices.
That core indicates that we should reject the option of turning away from globalization and concentrated on analysing the deficiencies of globalization and making a concerted effort to address them. He then gives some indication of what this would mean: more international rules to regulate the global economy; addressing the democratic deficit in global institutions; and recognizing the imperfection of the free market and restraining it's international flows.
All of that is perfectly acceptable.
Granville then argues that Saul confuses a process --globalization as increasing international integration--with an ideology. That is claimed rather than argued for. Granville quickly moves on to target Saul's focus on the rebalanciing of the binding rules for both the public good and self interest with the nation-state.
Why? It should be done from with the global world and no the narrow confines of nation state.
Why the preference for cosmopolitianism?
We Australians should step forward eagerly to embrace the global world, turn benefits to our advantage and get into the global rule making business. That implies working within citizenship of a nation state is turning ones back on the global world. It's an either or that Granville presents.
What hogwash. There is a lot of middle ground inside the duality. Granville's text is an illustration of what Don Watson has been saying about the decay of public language.
|
Really good series you have going on here, Gary! And, yes, Granville is talking hogwash - the same hogwash that's always been distorting the 'globalisation' 'debate' - framing it all as approving-experts-in-globalisation-as-purely-technical-phenomenon versus 'anti-globalisation' 'demonstrators'. Never has any room been allowed where it's needed, eh?