Upcoming Events

Dublin | Miscellaneous

no events match your query!

New Events

Dublin

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony

offsite link Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony

offsite link Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Human Rights in Ireland
Promoting Human Rights in Ireland

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link News Round-Up Sun Jan 12, 2025 01:23 | Will Jones
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Top Journal: Scientists Should Be More, Not Less, Political Sat Jan 11, 2025 17:00 | Noah Carl
Science, nominally the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, is at it again. In November, they published an editorial saying that scientists need to be even more political than they already are.
The post Top Journal: Scientists Should Be More, Not Less, Political appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link BlackRock Quits Net Zero Asset Managers Under Republican Pressure Sat Jan 11, 2025 15:00 | Will Jones
BlackRock, the world's biggest asset manager, is abandoning the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative after coming under pressure from Republican politicians over its support for woke climate policies.
The post BlackRock Quits Net Zero Asset Managers Under Republican Pressure appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link The Appalling Treatment of Covid Vaccine Whistleblower Dr. Byram Bridle Sat Jan 11, 2025 13:00 | Dr Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson
Prof Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson write about the appalling treatment of Covid vaccine whistleblower Dr Byram Bridle, the Canadian immunologist who was removed from duties for raising the alarm about the vaccine.
The post The Appalling Treatment of Covid Vaccine Whistleblower Dr. Byram Bridle appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link ?High Chance? Reeves Will be Forced into Emergency Spending Cuts Sat Jan 11, 2025 11:00 | Will Jones
There is a "high chance" that Rachel Reeves will be forced to announce emergency?spending cuts?this spring, Barclay's Chief Economist has said, as borrowing costs surged again on Friday.
The post “High Chance” Reeves Will be Forced into Emergency Spending Cuts appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N?114-115 Fri Jan 10, 2025 14:04 | en

offsite link End of Russian gas transit via Ukraine to the EU Fri Jan 10, 2025 13:45 | en

offsite link After Iraq, Libya, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, the Pentagon attacks Yemen, by Thier... Tue Jan 07, 2025 06:58 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N?113 Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:42 | en

offsite link Pentagon could create a second Kurdish state Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:31 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Rigged rules and diminished progress: the failure of globalisation

category dublin | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis author Sunday November 21, 2004 03:56author by Dave Curran - Global Action, UCD (per cap) Report this post to the editors

The free market solution to world poverty has failed, so countries should be allowed self-determination in their economic policies.

The current religion among much of the economics community is that “openness” to international trade is the best -indeed the only- route out of poverty for the world’s poor countries. This chorus echoing the wondrous ability of free trade globalisation to reduce the obscene levels of poverty in the world today has been backed up by the dominant powers that shape the global economy -institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the OECD, and powerful rich country governments in North America and Europe. And yet, the past twenty five years have seen unprecedented levels of rapid economic “liberalisation” on every continent, and at the end of this period half the world still lives on less than two dollars a day and 800 million people are still chronically undernourished.


The 1980s, which saw the beginning of “rolling back” the state in Latin America and Africa under the IMF’s “Structural Adjustment Programmes”, is now considered by many development agencies to be a “lost decade” in terms of poverty reduction, with economic development slowing in most regions of the world, and with many countries falling back further into poverty. And the 1990s have not been much better. A study by the US-based Centre for Economic and Policy Research found that by all measures of human well being -infant mortality, life expectancy, even economic growth- progress has been slower in the 1980s and 90s than in previous decades, and in the regions subject to neo-liberal economic policies the most, such as Latin America and Africa, growth has been almost zero, with many countries actually experiencing negative growth. In other words, the era of globalisation has resulted in slower economic and social progress, even by its own narrowly defined indicators. Contrary to the assurances of the World Bank and free-market globalisers, the “rising tide” has lifted mainly yachts, and many boats are now sinking fast.


It is not that there has been no growth under globalisation -rather, that the benefits of this growth has gone primarily to a small few. Inequality in most countries has increased to levels never seen before, and hundreds of millions of poor people have seen their situations worsen. The rabid anti-statism of neo-liberal theory saw African countries instructed to cut back on state expenditure on health care and education. In a region now devastated by AIDS, these recommendations were irresponsible in the extreme.


Despite the failures of the neo-liberal model to reduce poverty, it still remains the dominant discourse among the forces that shape the global economic system. Advocates of neo-liberal globalisation, including the myriad of right-wing “think-tanks” that have come to dominate the political landscape over the past few decades (with generous help from the corporate community), still cling to several discredited myths about the benefits of rapid liberalisation.


One such myth is reinforced by studies of “Global Economic Freedom”, which allege to show a strong correlation between “globalising” countries and rich countries. The richest countries, they say, are those that trade more and are more “open” to the global economy. Thus, opening up by cutting back the state and embracing the free market will lead to growth and development. The problem here is one of confused methodology, because economic “openness” has two very different meanings. Openness can refer to an economic outcome -such as if a country‘s economy consists largely of imports and exports- or it can refer to government policies of “opening up”, which usually involve rapid export increase and deregulation of markets. What the studies that claim to show a link between government policies of “opening up” and prosperity actually show is that as countries get richer, they begin to open up. Development leads to trade, and not the other way around.


For example, a recent Oxfam report entitled “Rigged Rules and Double Standards” studies developing countries that embraced “openness” -defined as following neo-liberal doctrine and dismantling state regulation of the economy. These countries are the ones that rapidly privatised state firms, deregulated financial markets, cut state support of infant industries and suppressed unions in order to drive down wages and attract multinational corporations. When these policies are tested, according to the Oxfam report “the World Bank view appears as an upside version of reality.” It turns out that some of the most successful countries “are anything but rapid liberalisers, while many of the most radical liberalisers have actually achieved very little in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction”. For example, South Korea and Taiwan -the very models of successful economic development- achieved growth by ignoring the policy prescriptions of neo-liberals and using massive protectionism and state regulation of the economy. They embraced trade, but very carefully and with strict state guidance. At the other extreme, according to a report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 2004 countries which simply threw open their economies, such as Haiti are some of the poorest in the world.


While poor countries cannot simply trade their way out of poverty, trade if used correctly can be a powerful force for prosperity and poverty reduction. But the current trade rules are totally unfair, and serve to divert the potential benefits of trade away from the poor and toward the rich and powerful. Trade is not free when all the rules have been rigged to benefit western corporations. Poor farmers in Africa cannot “freely” bargain over price with giant coffee conglomerates, because of the huge bargaining power of the companies and the vulnerability of the producers. And a trading system that values the “intellectual property” of drug companies over the lives of AIDS victims should be either reformed or dismantled. For trade to work for the poor, it must be more than free. It must also be fair trade, and must be combined with redistribution, regulation of capital flight, debt cancellation, environmental sustainability and the dismantling of exploitative power relations. The neo-liberal prescription for development, because it ignores all these considerations, is a shallow, self-serving way of redistributing the world’s resources further into the hands of the powerful.


But while free market fundamentalism is a false dawn of world development, its polar extreme is no better. The UNCTAD report earlier this year showed that the poorest countries in the world are on the one hand those that are most open, and on the other hand those that close themselves off to the global economy. It seems that grand theories, from either left or right have failed. Just as the crumbling of the Berlin Wall revealed for the world the failures of communism, the defiant chants of protestors from Seattle to Caracas has drowned out the authoritarian mantra that “there is no alternative” to free market capitalism.


The message for poor countries should be that they do have a choice over which socio-economic path to take. There is no single theory or grand narrative which can solve the problems of world poverty. There are many paths, and there are always alternatives. The message of the global justice movement is that we in the rich countries also have a choice. We can allow globalisation to continue to work for the few, rather than the many. Or we can join together with the progressive movements in the global south and forge a new model of inclusive globalisation, one based not on corporate greed but on the principles of equality, solidarity and social justice.

author by Johnnypublication date Sun Nov 21, 2004 17:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Hmmm, Con Lee did you even read the article?

author by Con Leepublication date Sun Nov 21, 2004 17:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It was Karl Marx who stressed that what we now call "capitalism", (but what Karl called "Capital") is the greatest means of developing the productive forces yet devised by humanity. What is going on in Ireland and in India would seem to prove him right. And to this the Left has no answer.

author by AGpublication date Sun Nov 21, 2004 17:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

True, but they intend to fight to hold what they have and take what anyone else has, using their military muscle. They are like a bunch of bandits. Sooner or later though it is going to end badly for them, and they have only themselves to blame.

author by cumulativedeficitpublication date Sun Nov 21, 2004 16:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Seems that the good ol us of a is up to its proverbial eyeballs in debt. Alan Greenspan has issued a stern warning:

Related Link: http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1119/fed.html
author by Dave Curranpublication date Sun Nov 21, 2004 16:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"However, the dramatic reduction in world poverty in the past two decades should also be recognised."

Thats true Michael. It should be noted, however that the countries that achieved major poverty reduction were mainly those that followed their own economic path, rather than embacing the recommendations of the IMF/ World Bank.

Examples include South Korea, Taiwan, and China in the early 80s etc.

author by Michael Henniganpublication date Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is true that 'there is no single theory or grand narrative which can solve the problems of world poverty' and our own economic success testifies to this. While there is generally free trade in industrial goods, both the US and the EU continue to protect their agricultural sectors.

However, the dramatic reduction in world poverty in the past two decades should also be recognised.

According to the World Bank, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day) in developing countries dropped by almost half between 1981 and 2001, from 40 to 21 percent of global population. But while rapid economic growth in East and South Asia has pulled over 500 million people out of poverty in those two regions alone, the proportion of poor has grown, or fallen only slightly, in many countries in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Click for more information:

http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2025 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy