-Caveat Lector- radman pull quote: "If we are to confront the real threat of anarchy, let us begin with anarcho-capitalists inside the cordon sanitaire, rather than the victims outside." ----------------------- Our leaders are wrong. Globalisation is not delivering for the poor Special report: globalisation - http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/ Alan Simpson Wednesday August 15, 2001 The Guardian You have to take a deep breath before deciding to publicly fall out with a national leader, a cautious chancellor and an economics nobel laureate all at the same time. But the fact that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Amartya Sen share a consensus of confusion about globalisation, does not make their infatuation sensible, equitable or sustainable. A widening chasm divides public protesters from free trade fantasists. With or without the permission of world leaders, a mixed bag of political challenges and ethical alternatives is beginning to force its way into public debate. The pace is being set by those who have decided they cannot go any further down the path of neo-liberalism that corporations, the World Trade Organisation and compliant politicians would have us believe is the road to salvation. Over the last year, some 3m people in over 20 countries have protested against globalisation. Tony Blair may have lavished praise on Brazil's privatisation programme, but his view is not shared by the Brazilian population, caught in the middle of a colossal energy crisis. American energy giant AES has threatened to block a #2bn investment programme unless Brazil deregulates energy prices, while the government has announced surcharges of up to 200% on electricity consumers. Nor did the prime minister see fit to mention that in neighbouring Colombia workers have been so ecstatic about the privatisation programme imposed as a condition of US aid that they have retaken control of the major supplier of water, electricity and telecommunications in Cali, the country's second city. In New York, it might be understandable for Gordon Brown to enthuse about a possible $350bn gain from "a fully open trading and commercial relationship between Europe and America". American executives - many of whom represented corporations queuing up for the guaranteed profit stream from privatised public services - loved it. None would have read the devastating critique by Allyson Pollock and her colleagues from University College London, showing that privatised markets in public services cost us more, deliver less, bequeath huge debts and generally walk off with the public's assets. That wouldn't have bothered the chancellor's audience. But Amartya Sen would have cared, and it is within the contradictions of his analysis that we find the most hopeful seeds for a counter-thesis to globalisation. Sen's great achievement is to have written an economics for the poor. He has never given up on the politics and economics of redistribution. The trouble is that his approach has not moved on from economics as it was, nor caught up with climate changes that will rewrite economics as it will become. None of the protesters in Genoa would disagree with Amartya Sen's comments here last month that "even though the world is incomparably richer than ever before, ours is a world of extraordinary deprivation and of staggering inequality". The problems begin with the reasons for this, and whether globalisation makes it worse. Sen accuses the opponents of globalisation of wanting to deny the poor access to "the great advantages of contemporary technology". But it was the pharmaceutical companies, not free-trade protesters, that ganged up to prevent Southern Africa from manufacturing its own anti-Aids drugs. Not one of the most exciting technological advances is being offered freely to the poor. All demand the protectionism of patents and the payment of royalties. In its most grotesque form, this even charges the poor for access to the parts of their own biodiversity that have been patented. To some extent, Amartya Sen's faith in the malleability of the market economy hinges on longstanding economic views about the significance of the nation state in international trade. Theories of comparative advantage - in which all countries gain by focusing on production and trade in goods they have a relative cost advantage in - depended on assumptions about capitalism that are long past their sell-by date. >From Adam Smith through to Keynes, there was a reasonable presumption that capital was essentially national in character, rooted in the ownership of land and production of goods. Capitalist entrepreneurs were assumed to play largely within national rules. The second half of the 20th century saw a transformation in capitalism itself. Its shift from productive capital to finance capital went along with its loss of interest in the nation state. Land could not move offshore, but money could. Capital demanded to be bribed to come and exploit your labour rather than pay taxes to moderate the excesses of its exploitation. Sen marvels at the wealth generated by world trade and wonders why the poor are left so far behind, but he should lift the curtain on what lies behind trade figures. Globalisation rules require the developing world to sign up to liberalisation and privatisation programmes that are little more than a fire sale of their most important assets. Job losses in the north become wealth losses in the south as the real economic transfers go to global corporations, rather than national economies. When economists of the poor will not make the case for corporate wealth taxation - or even "Tobin" taxes on speculative capital movements - to finance the new global institutions we need, it should come as no surprise that shallower politicians take cover in corporate patronage. But were we to make such demands, it would still leave us championing yesterday's economic solutions. Equality and environmental equity must become the mainstream economic agenda of the north as well as the south. Much of the exponential growth in carbon emissions comes from the spurious global trade in goods. In agriculture, for example, we would be better supplying localised markets where we can, and swapping recipes rather than processed foods. The problem is not food subsidies, but subsidies for export and subsidies for avoidable transport. The poor in the south have never had the choice of a development agenda that begins with the right to meet their own needs rather than catering for ours. Allowing them to do so would address our concerns about Kyoto targets as well as their fears of starvation, water shortages and non-polluting energy. This is the bedrock upon which a new economics of sustainability has to be written. It cries out for visions of an inclusive internationalism to replace exploitative globalisation. This is what most anti-capitalist protesters are looking for. They are not nihilists. If we are to confront the real threat of anarchy, let us begin with anarcho-capitalists inside the cordon sanitaire, rather than the victims outside. ---------------- Alan Simpson is Labour MP for Nottingham South [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
