George Ritzer - Globalization

Needless to say, the globaphiliacs have little use for the globaphobics (and vice versa). For example, Martin Wolf, a prominent neoliberal, often argues that the criticisms of globalization are “wrong,” “almost entirely mistaken,” “largely, though not entirely, groundless,” and so on. Wolf calls one of the a well-known critical works in globalization, Hardt and Negri’s Empire , an “absurdity” (Wolf 2005: 57). His most general judgment of the critics is the following:

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the collapse of the Soviet communist tyranny, an unprecedentedly rapid spread of democracy and nigh on universal economic liberalization. East and South Asia, home to 55 % of humanity, enjoyed a leap towards prosperity. Yet critics of globalization talk of this period of hope and achievement as if it were a catastrophe. Some do so out of a genuine and understandable dismay over the extent of poverty and misery in a world of plenty, but then reach the wrong conclusion on the causes and cures. Others do so because they lament the death of the revolutionary tradition that held sway over the imaginations of so many for two centuries. Most of these critics compare the imperfect world in which we live with a perfect one of their imagining. It is in their way of viewing what has happened in the world, rather than the details of their critique, that those hostile to global economic integration are most in error . (Wolf 2005: 308, italics added)

Some scholars have sought to find some sort of middle ground position between the two extremes discussed above. One example is In Defense of Globalization by the well-known economist, Jagdish Bhagwati (2004). However, the title indicates the problems involved in finding such a compromise position since the book is mainly a defense of globalization, especially the economics of it, in the face of a raft of criticisms. Bhagwati uses hard data, subjective impressions, and personal experiences to argue that, in the main, economic globalization has been a good thing. However, he admits that left to itself globalization will produce good results, but not necessarily the best results. Thus, he grudgingly acknowledges that there are not only benefits, but also problems, in globalization today: “Everything does not necessarily improve every time! There are occasional downsides” (2004: 228). His solution to the problems, his suggestion on how to make globalization better, is to manage the process by coming up with more appropriate social policies. Managing globalization is heresy to most economists (especially neoliberals) who believe in a market free of outside interference, but Bhagwati is willing to deviate from established economic dogma. In the process, he offers a comparatively balanced position, but nonetheless his work is most strongly associated with globaphilia.

Another middle-ground position is taken by de la Dehesa who argues that globalization, “although positive overall, entails certain unavoidable, but mainly temporary, negative economic, social, political, and cultural consequences that must be urgently addressed” (2007: 2). De la Dehesa closes his analysis with a long list of the criticisms of globalization and his views on each.

While “globalization has been accused of increasing the world’s poverty level,” de la Dehesa concludes that the data and evidence “tend to demonstrate how the world’s absolute and relative poverty has been reduced significantly since the 1980s, while globalization has gathered momentum” (2007: 294).

Globalization “has been accused of significantly increasing the world’s inequality,” but while measurement is problematic, “there is a considerable amount of empirical evidence demonstrating that inequality among the citizens of the world has been reduced, albeit quite modestly” (2007: 295).

“[I]t is argued that globalization has enabled multinationals to acquire more power than states and governments and that they have become bigger than most countries.” However, “[n]either of these two arguments is substantiated by available empirical evidence” (2007: 295–6).

He accepts the accusation that “developed countries have been accused of maintaining high levels of protectionism on the goods and services exported by developing countries, such as agricultural and food products, textiles, footwear and clothing,” but there is “much evidence that, on average, developing countries protect their production much more than developed countries, even though their protection is much less widespread” (2007: 298).

He is outraged by the “stinginess” of the developed countries and their reduction of, rather than increase in, aid to developing countries.

It is “partly true” that international financial organizations (e.g. IMF, World Bank) act in the interests of the developed countries.

The World Bank does not always work well as far as developing countries are concerned.

Financial crises have always existed, but it is surprising that the financial markets have not become better than they have in dealing with them.

He agrees with, and is most concerned about, the fact that “the huge demographic imbalance between wealthy and poor countries could spark a very severe and unsustainable situation in the long run” (2007: 305).

While de la Dehesa presents a reasonably balanced picture, it must be remembered that it is from an economist, reviewing work in economics, who, when all is said and done, finds globalization to be positive.

One final middle-ground position is Kellner’s (2002) view that globalization is full of contradictions and includes both winners and losers. He rejects any deterministic view that suggests globalization is all good or all bad, and asserts that it is highly complex and contradictory. Whether globalization is directed from above or from below, Kellner urges us to consider who wins and who loses from globalization in its many different forms in evaluating whether globalization processes are positive or negative.

There are clearly large groups of people who are disadvantaged, if not oppressed and exploited, by various aspects of, and by some groups and organizations involved in, globalization. What can they do about the problems as they perceive them?

In this view, globalization is an inexorable process and there is nothing that can be done to stop it – it is a “runaway world.” While there is clearly great economic and political power involved in and behind globalization, the idea that nothing can be done about it only serves to reify the process. Reificationis the idea, derived from Marxian theory, that people come to accord social processes a reality of their own and come to feel that even though they created, and in fact are in many ways, those processes, there is nothing they can do about them (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2017 : 277). As a result, these processes come to have a life of their own and instead of being controlled by people, they come to control people. While reification certainly occurs, it is not inevitable. Those who see globalization as inevitable and beyond their control are guilty of reifying the process and if they persist in doing so, it will be beyond their control; there will be nothing to be done about it. However, reification, like globalization, is a social process and this means that people are involved in, create, and regularly re-create both reified and globalized structures and processes through their involvement (or lack of involvement) in them (Berger and Luckmann 1967). Thus, just as people create these realities, they can certainly change them by altering the nature of their involvement in them. Of course, this is no easy matter, but in principle no social process, including one as all-encompassing as globalization, is inexorable; all social processes are open to change by those who create them and are involved in them.