As I read the selection titled Strong States, Strong Teachers?, by Bruce Fuller, I am again reminded of the time I have spent in Trinidad, W.I., a small developing country of the Caribbean. Fuller observed differences in classrooms in Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world, located in southeastern Africa.
I believe what Fuller is describing based on his observations is how the country's attempt to become modern involves a formal education. However, these teachers, with their limited educational resources, struggle to instruct the students in a useful and interesting manner.
As countries become more developed, and the state's recognize the importance of a formal education in our integrated world economy, the quality of education slowly improves. I was able to observe some of these changes that globalization is bringing to developing countries when I traveled to Trinidad this past summer. Much like the schools that Fuller describes in Malawi, the classrooms in Trinidad were terribly small yet seated a large number of students. Teachers were also on short demand, therefore several grade levels were combined.
In a school with approximated 70 students in 7 different grade levels there were a total of 2 teachers and 1 principal. Between the 3 teachers the 7 grades were divided up. The classrooms were all located in a single room in the school, without any dividing walls.
The government is finally helping the village to build a new school that contains multiple classrooms. We were also able to contribute to the school's educational resources by donating microscopes and other instruments used in science labs (Story here). It becomes clear that without standardization and globalization, these small schools in developing countries would never be able to provide any kind of opportunity (relating to education) to their children.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
National Responsibility
Laura brings up an excelllent point... If the developed economies of the West are so powerful, influencing the economic progress and involvement of thousands of those "peripheral" nations, why can't Western economies use that influence to solve cultural and societal issues of those same nations? The genocide in Sudan will undoubtedly haunt Western governments in the years to come, as the shocking details reveal themselves, but why are our governments lacking the initiative to help citizens of these countries we continually use for production and natural resources?
Quite simply, I believe our governments have failed to realize that globalization is much more than an economic movement. By ignoring the societal and cultural affects of globalization, we do not claim responsibility for the economic policies from which we profit. As we become this "homogeneous global theme park" (Barber 29) we cannot ignore those who do not prosper from globalization. Robertson comments on the issues surrounding globalization in his article Globalization as a Problem. He emphasizes that globalization entails the "often problematic conjunction of different forms of life" (95). As opposed to simple economic policy, Robertson uses an interesting phrase, "forms of life." While it may not be evident now, as the core nations semi-periphery, and periphery nations become increasingly economically dependent upon one another, the ties will progress into the political and social spheres.
In this same way, the Western connection with China, a growing economic super power, troubles most as a result of the intense human rights violations that occur there daily. As Western nations court China for its trade and economic ties, the Chinese people suffer a multitude of restrictive, violent political policies. Amensty International and other other human rights organizations have identified China as a country in need of serious humanitarian reform. The Chinese (over) use of the death penalty, corrupt legal system, non-existant freedoms of speech and religious expression, and failed labor policies are just a few of the countless flaws.
Is it neccessary to ignore social atrocities to develop economic ties? Can a country truly only relate to another nation via economic policy, without acknowledging its social and political situation? Globalization is clearly not restricted to economic endeavors. The effects are felt throughout the nation's institutions, but what level of national responsibility lies between these two interconnected countries?
ps-- I also find it amazingly hypocritical that one can begin an entire war to improve a politically unstable, yet oil producing, nation, but chooses to ignore the human rights violations and genocides occuring in other, less profitable regions.
Quite simply, I believe our governments have failed to realize that globalization is much more than an economic movement. By ignoring the societal and cultural affects of globalization, we do not claim responsibility for the economic policies from which we profit. As we become this "homogeneous global theme park" (Barber 29) we cannot ignore those who do not prosper from globalization. Robertson comments on the issues surrounding globalization in his article Globalization as a Problem. He emphasizes that globalization entails the "often problematic conjunction of different forms of life" (95). As opposed to simple economic policy, Robertson uses an interesting phrase, "forms of life." While it may not be evident now, as the core nations semi-periphery, and periphery nations become increasingly economically dependent upon one another, the ties will progress into the political and social spheres.
In this same way, the Western connection with China, a growing economic super power, troubles most as a result of the intense human rights violations that occur there daily. As Western nations court China for its trade and economic ties, the Chinese people suffer a multitude of restrictive, violent political policies. Amensty International and other other human rights organizations have identified China as a country in need of serious humanitarian reform. The Chinese (over) use of the death penalty, corrupt legal system, non-existant freedoms of speech and religious expression, and failed labor policies are just a few of the countless flaws.
Is it neccessary to ignore social atrocities to develop economic ties? Can a country truly only relate to another nation via economic policy, without acknowledging its social and political situation? Globalization is clearly not restricted to economic endeavors. The effects are felt throughout the nation's institutions, but what level of national responsibility lies between these two interconnected countries?
ps-- I also find it amazingly hypocritical that one can begin an entire war to improve a politically unstable, yet oil producing, nation, but chooses to ignore the human rights violations and genocides occuring in other, less profitable regions.
Connected...but Responsible?
www.amnestyusa.orgHistory of the Conflict in Darfur
The largest region in Sudan, Darfur is home to some 36 ethnic tribes, composed of two major blocks – Arabs and non-Arabs – the latter known as “blacks”. The Fur and the Masalit ethnic groups, who dominate the African population in Darfur, have a long history of clashes over land with Arab camel- and cattle-herding tribes. Initially, such hostilities were monitored through negotiation between community leaders. In the 1970s, however, competition over fertile land and dwindling resources intensified dramatically due to the desertification of the region and the lack of good governance. Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms were soon replaced with bloody and politicized clashes and ethnicity soon became a major mobilizing factor.
Rivals began identifying themselves as “Arabs” and “non-Arabs” for the first time during the 1987-1989 Fur-Arab conflict, when nomads of Arab origin and Fur clashed over grazing lands and water resources. During this time, some 27 Arab tribes grouped themselves under the previously unknown Arab Gathering. Reports at that time already refer to the nomad militia Janjawid (armed men on horses), which was known for attacking Fur as well as other non-Arab tribes. An estimated 2,500 Fur lost their lives and 400 villages were burned, causing tens of thousands to flee their land in search for safety.
A 1994 administrative reorganization by the government of President Omar El Bashir equipped members of the Arab tribes with new power, and was perceived by the African Masalit, Fur and Zaghawa as an attempt to debilitate their traditional leadership role and authority in the region. The decision lead to the resurgence of fighting, culminating in the 1996-1998 Masalit-Arab conflict, where the torching of Masalit villages instigated the flow of 100, 000 refugees into Chad. The fighting received little international attention.
Full ArticleIt seems that Barber's "jihad" may be related to what many, including Colin Powell, have called the genocide in the Sudan. According to Amnesty International, Darfur's problems have emanated from economic clashes and ethnic wars between thirty-six different cultural groups.
I wonder if a global trade system and global connections like the internet will lead to a stronger global "police force." I know that there are problems in America, but what is our responsibility to other countries, and other peoples experiencing genocide? I am not fully educated on all of the background issues, but if the world is so connected, why is no one taking action against the atrocities in Darfur?
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Fairness vs. Bloodshed or Uniformity
In the exerpts from the articles "How to Judge Globalism" by Amartya Sen and "Jihad vs. McWorld" by Benjamin Barber, each author theorized about the future of globalization, the first focusing on fairness between countries, and the second on the end results of global trade.
In the first article, Sen argued that globalization is not equal to Westernization, and that fairness and balance in the benefits of globalization between the rich and the poor should be the main focus of studies. Sen began the section with examples of Eastern knowedge being transported to the West, and then moved on to the main issue of the rich getting richer and "the poor getting poorer"(18). Instead of looking at the poor countries as "better off" working within the global system simply because they have a slight advantage, Sen attempted to show that a balance of benefits should be more significant. I thought that Sen's argument on fairness and balance was not fully supported, but looking at globalization as a global issue - not as synonymous with Westernization was an important point to be made.
In the second article, Barber sets up what he believed to be the two end results of globalization, a bloody culture war, which he terms "Jihad" or a solution of uniform culture or "culture as commodity" deemed "McWorld." According to Barber, these two ideas, while fundamentally different and opposing, feed off of each other in order to exist. I found the article to be realistic in its determination that some elements of culture clash and other elements of culture spread and acceptance are more likely to be the future of globalization. Rather than choose one path, Barber braced for the win, claming that the best bet for the future is a combination of both extremes.
In the first article, Sen argued that globalization is not equal to Westernization, and that fairness and balance in the benefits of globalization between the rich and the poor should be the main focus of studies. Sen began the section with examples of Eastern knowedge being transported to the West, and then moved on to the main issue of the rich getting richer and "the poor getting poorer"(18). Instead of looking at the poor countries as "better off" working within the global system simply because they have a slight advantage, Sen attempted to show that a balance of benefits should be more significant. I thought that Sen's argument on fairness and balance was not fully supported, but looking at globalization as a global issue - not as synonymous with Westernization was an important point to be made.
In the second article, Barber sets up what he believed to be the two end results of globalization, a bloody culture war, which he terms "Jihad" or a solution of uniform culture or "culture as commodity" deemed "McWorld." According to Barber, these two ideas, while fundamentally different and opposing, feed off of each other in order to exist. I found the article to be realistic in its determination that some elements of culture clash and other elements of culture spread and acceptance are more likely to be the future of globalization. Rather than choose one path, Barber braced for the win, claming that the best bet for the future is a combination of both extremes.
A call for specialization
In Frieden's text, Global Capitalism, he explains that:
A change in culture becomes particularly clear when observing specialization in a developing country. Trinidad, a developing country located in the Caribbean, was a large exporter of cocoa until they struck oil off the coast of the small island. Today, one can hike through the pristine rainforest of Trinidad only to stumble across the many abandoned cocoa estates.
Because oil was a larger industry and generated more revenue, oil became "what the country did best". Oil was in, cocoa was out. The small island of Trinidad, consisting of less than 2,000 sq mi, is now in the top 5 countries to export oil.
The culture is sometimes adversely affected by this specialization of a country. It seems to me that part of the culture was left behind when the cocoa estates were abandoned. However, some Trinis still use their homes for drying cocoa mostly for small profits from selling the products locally rather than exporting it. It is good to see that the locals continue to carry on this process even at a small scale. If nothing else, it shows that even though the focus of industry may change in major cities, the uniqueness of the culture may remain in the small villages and towns.
People, companies, regions, and countries cut back on economic activities they were less good at to concentrate on those at which they were particularly good. In earlier eras countries had tried to be self-sufficient, but now they focused on producing and exporting what they did best and trading for the rest.When you really think about "what a region does best" it is synonymous to "what creates the most revenue" for that region. Therefore, people tend to focus on what brings the most profit to their country. The rise in one industry in a certain area draws away from previously successful industries; the introduction of a new and successful industry to a country usually leads a decline in other areas.
A change in culture becomes particularly clear when observing specialization in a developing country. Trinidad, a developing country located in the Caribbean, was a large exporter of cocoa until they struck oil off the coast of the small island. Today, one can hike through the pristine rainforest of Trinidad only to stumble across the many abandoned cocoa estates.
Because oil was a larger industry and generated more revenue, oil became "what the country did best". Oil was in, cocoa was out. The small island of Trinidad, consisting of less than 2,000 sq mi, is now in the top 5 countries to export oil.
The culture is sometimes adversely affected by this specialization of a country. It seems to me that part of the culture was left behind when the cocoa estates were abandoned. However, some Trinis still use their homes for drying cocoa mostly for small profits from selling the products locally rather than exporting it. It is good to see that the locals continue to carry on this process even at a small scale. If nothing else, it shows that even though the focus of industry may change in major cities, the uniqueness of the culture may remain in the small villages and towns.
Islamic Fundamentalism & Westernization
Ahmadinejad Calls for University Purge
CNN.com
POSTED: 7:41 p.m. EDT, September 5, 2006
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.
With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic's late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Ahmadinejad's call was not a surprise -- since taking office a year ago, he also has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
Iran still has strong moderate factions but Ahmadinejad's administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.
Speaking to a group of students Tuesday, Ahmadinejad called on them to pressure his administration to keep driving out moderate instructors, a process that began earlier this year.
Dozens of liberal university professors and teachers were sent into retirement this year after Ahmadinejad's administration named the first cleric to head Tehran University, sparking strong protests from students.
CNN Full Article
For my junior research seminar paper I looked at the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a response to Westernization and the effects that the revolution had on Iranian women living in Tehran. Ayatollah Khomeini was often quoted as abhoring the "decadent" West and all that it embodied. I used autobiographies of Iranian women to look at their lives pre- and post-Revolution.
In my research I found that some upper-middle class women before the Islamic Revolution wore jean jackets with Michael Jackson buttons and Nike shoes while listening to Iron Maiden while others played with Star Wars toys and fought over who could be Princess Leia.
However, with the onset of the revolution, women seen out without husbands, wearing makeup or an improper veil could be publically flogged, arrested, or even executed by Guardians of the Revolution. Islamic dress was strictly enforced and Islamic fundamentalism took over schooling. Leftist and uncooperative teachers were fired from their positions and girls were discouraged from attending institutions of higher education.
Where my research paper stopped, a brighter future for women was supposedly starting, but it appears that that future may have only been temporary. Currently, the leaders in Iran are again firing professors that disagree with their principles, and restructuring the entire educational system. This revisitation of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, although not yet fully acted upon, may be a similar reaction against what I would term the Westernization of Iran.
My question is, what makes countries try to ignore or resist globalization? In the case of Iran, it could be argued that the fundamentalist religious institutions at the governmental level keeping Iran out of global politics and commerce might be to enact some hidden agenda. Although, they could just really be following the principles of their religion as they understand it.
Eliminating those who oppose the government-
What will be next?
CNN.com
POSTED: 7:41 p.m. EDT, September 5, 2006
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.
With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic's late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Ahmadinejad's call was not a surprise -- since taking office a year ago, he also has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
Iran still has strong moderate factions but Ahmadinejad's administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.
Speaking to a group of students Tuesday, Ahmadinejad called on them to pressure his administration to keep driving out moderate instructors, a process that began earlier this year.
Dozens of liberal university professors and teachers were sent into retirement this year after Ahmadinejad's administration named the first cleric to head Tehran University, sparking strong protests from students.
CNN Full Article
For my junior research seminar paper I looked at the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a response to Westernization and the effects that the revolution had on Iranian women living in Tehran. Ayatollah Khomeini was often quoted as abhoring the "decadent" West and all that it embodied. I used autobiographies of Iranian women to look at their lives pre- and post-Revolution.
In my research I found that some upper-middle class women before the Islamic Revolution wore jean jackets with Michael Jackson buttons and Nike shoes while listening to Iron Maiden while others played with Star Wars toys and fought over who could be Princess Leia.
However, with the onset of the revolution, women seen out without husbands, wearing makeup or an improper veil could be publically flogged, arrested, or even executed by Guardians of the Revolution. Islamic dress was strictly enforced and Islamic fundamentalism took over schooling. Leftist and uncooperative teachers were fired from their positions and girls were discouraged from attending institutions of higher education.
Where my research paper stopped, a brighter future for women was supposedly starting, but it appears that that future may have only been temporary. Currently, the leaders in Iran are again firing professors that disagree with their principles, and restructuring the entire educational system. This revisitation of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, although not yet fully acted upon, may be a similar reaction against what I would term the Westernization of Iran.
My question is, what makes countries try to ignore or resist globalization? In the case of Iran, it could be argued that the fundamentalist religious institutions at the governmental level keeping Iran out of global politics and commerce might be to enact some hidden agenda. Although, they could just really be following the principles of their religion as they understand it.
Eliminating those who oppose the government-
What will be next?
Barber vs Sen
I think that whereas Amartya Sen draws a rather moderate picture of globalization, Benjamin Barber wants to call the reader's attention to one central result of globalization and its opponents...
As Julie has already summarized, Artya Sen's biggest concern is not to judge globalization as something bad, it is rather about the reformation and the fair redistribution of all benefits, something that I would identify as probably one concept of "Fairtrade".
- I think that the reason for his concern is basically justifiable, but I have a big problem with how he wants to archieve his goals? For example how does he want to change the "...overall balance of institutional arrangements" (LB, 20)? I do not think that a completely fair distribution is possible.
Benjamin Barber's "Jihad vs McWorld" confronts the reader with a very dark and bitter perspective. For him extreme nationalism or specific national values (represented by the image of "Jihad") and globalization (represented by the image of "McWorld") are connected by influencing each other permanently (eg. Technology). Both concepts act beyond democracy and are even probably against it. "Jihad" needs "McWorld" to revolt against its philosophy and "McWorld" re-creates and reinforces "Jihad" only by its existance.
- I might be wrong with this assumption too, but what I found quite striking is that Barber, when he wrote that book in 1996, foreshadowed the world's current massive conflict between the origin of the "Mc World" /its supporters (USA, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, just to name a few) and those who oppose it ("Jihad-supporters").
As Julie has already summarized, Artya Sen's biggest concern is not to judge globalization as something bad, it is rather about the reformation and the fair redistribution of all benefits, something that I would identify as probably one concept of "Fairtrade".
- I think that the reason for his concern is basically justifiable, but I have a big problem with how he wants to archieve his goals? For example how does he want to change the "...overall balance of institutional arrangements" (LB, 20)? I do not think that a completely fair distribution is possible.
Benjamin Barber's "Jihad vs McWorld" confronts the reader with a very dark and bitter perspective. For him extreme nationalism or specific national values (represented by the image of "Jihad") and globalization (represented by the image of "McWorld") are connected by influencing each other permanently (eg. Technology). Both concepts act beyond democracy and are even probably against it. "Jihad" needs "McWorld" to revolt against its philosophy and "McWorld" re-creates and reinforces "Jihad" only by its existance.
- I might be wrong with this assumption too, but what I found quite striking is that Barber, when he wrote that book in 1996, foreshadowed the world's current massive conflict between the origin of the "Mc World" /its supporters (USA, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, just to name a few) and those who oppose it ("Jihad-supporters").
Monday, September 04, 2006
Keeping up with modernization
In our constantly changing world of the 21st century we are always looking for ways to make transportation of goods more efficient. Ships are continually being built larger in order to meet demands of consumers while minimizing the costs of transportation. As the transport vessels continue to grow, demands are placed on the ports that house the ships as well as the routes by which the vessels move.
Recently, there has been a push to add a third lock to the Panama Canal in order to meet demands of the daily transits that move through the canal. The decision lies in the hands of the Panamanians, since the control of the canal was handed over by the U.S. to Panama on December 31, 1999. If the third lock is added to the canal it will not only increase the amount of traffic that can move through the canal, but it will allow even the largest vessels to navigate the canal. (Full article)
I find that this article relates back to the selection from Hobsbawm's The World Unified. The world is constantly growing more integrated. The unification is achieved by standardizing networks simultaneously. The 92-year-old Panama Canal was not built for the large superships of today, therefore Panama is being pressured to modernize the canal. If Panama votes against the expansion of the canal they are at risk of losing much of the revenue that is generated by the canal because as more ships outgrow the canal shippers will seek alternate trade routes.
Recently, there has been a push to add a third lock to the Panama Canal in order to meet demands of the daily transits that move through the canal. The decision lies in the hands of the Panamanians, since the control of the canal was handed over by the U.S. to Panama on December 31, 1999. If the third lock is added to the canal it will not only increase the amount of traffic that can move through the canal, but it will allow even the largest vessels to navigate the canal. (Full article)
I find that this article relates back to the selection from Hobsbawm's The World Unified. The world is constantly growing more integrated. The unification is achieved by standardizing networks simultaneously. The 92-year-old Panama Canal was not built for the large superships of today, therefore Panama is being pressured to modernize the canal. If Panama votes against the expansion of the canal they are at risk of losing much of the revenue that is generated by the canal because as more ships outgrow the canal shippers will seek alternate trade routes.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Globalization Reform?
The adverse effects of globalization are embodied in the Wal-Mart Corporation. Wal-Mart represents an extremely influential transnational corporation imposing American business tactics via globalization. Wal-Mart’s anti-union sentiments, poor employee treatment, destruction of small businesses, and irresponsible manufacturing policies have undoubtedly contributed to its success around the world. The German resistance to the company seems to finally be paying off, and this may represent a step toward an improved version of globalization.
Sen discusses the pros and cons of globalization in How to Judge Globalism, and emphasizes that the “real issue” concerning globalization is the distribution of globalization’s benefits. Globalization itself is not the problem, but instead the national institutions that are not prepared to protect the people from globalization. Some institution must be able to provide strong, “orderly and highly organized autocracies” that will appeal to international business concerns (Sen 20). Those countries that can appeal to the international market will enjoy the fruits of globalization (economic growth, a role in the international economy, etc.). George Soros championed the argument that private business is much more likely to offer such stability. Through significant monetary donations, Soros helps those who have fallen victim to poor support systems during this era of increased globalization. Soros argues that we have allowed globalization to progress unchecked, without realizing the need for strong “international political and social arrangements,” resulting in “lopsided social development.”
With the retreat of Wal-Mart from Germany, Soros and Sen may find a bit of solace. Could the era of globalization reform be upon us? Would restricting globalization be against the basic nature of this driving economic force? Is regulation of globalization even possible? The humanitarian in me certainly hopes so…
Sen discusses the pros and cons of globalization in How to Judge Globalism, and emphasizes that the “real issue” concerning globalization is the distribution of globalization’s benefits. Globalization itself is not the problem, but instead the national institutions that are not prepared to protect the people from globalization. Some institution must be able to provide strong, “orderly and highly organized autocracies” that will appeal to international business concerns (Sen 20). Those countries that can appeal to the international market will enjoy the fruits of globalization (economic growth, a role in the international economy, etc.). George Soros championed the argument that private business is much more likely to offer such stability. Through significant monetary donations, Soros helps those who have fallen victim to poor support systems during this era of increased globalization. Soros argues that we have allowed globalization to progress unchecked, without realizing the need for strong “international political and social arrangements,” resulting in “lopsided social development.”
With the retreat of Wal-Mart from Germany, Soros and Sen may find a bit of solace. Could the era of globalization reform be upon us? Would restricting globalization be against the basic nature of this driving economic force? Is regulation of globalization even possible? The humanitarian in me certainly hopes so…
There goes Wal-Mart...
"The vulnerability of Wal-Mart is in fact an object lesson for other retailers. Business schools should write case studies about Wal-Mart's German debacle, for it is an example of locals bucking globalising uniformity..." (Summary)
What I found extremely interesting is that one of the world's biggest discounter stores and also a figurehead of American globalization, Wal-Mart, is withdrawing from the German market by selling its 85 hypermarkets to the Metro AG . Wal-Mart's officials explained it with an unexpected loss due to German consumer buying habits, who prefered other discount stores.
I believe that Wal-Mart's statement needs to be understood as an attempt to use German consumer buying habits as an excuse for its inability of competing with other German discount stores and its anti-union philosophy, facing a strong German union.
Do you also identify Wal-Mart as a symbol of globalization? Does Wal-Mart have the same problems in the US?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
