Though often touted as representing the height of economic rationality, globalization has also been portrayed as having a very dark side. Critics repeatedly point out that the contemporary form of globalization , driven by economic power, clearly promotes the hegemony of Western culture and corporations; puts jobs and communities at risk in the rich countries and exploits cheap labor in the poorer countries; increases threats to the environment; and undermines the foundations of democracy and social stability by subjecting national political institutions to forces of economic change beyond their control.
Furthermore, as a recent volume of essays (Holm and Sørensen, 1995) has highlighted, globalization is uneven both in its processes and in its effects. It produces concentrations and deprivations which, in the aggregate, constitute an increasingly well-defined global power structure.
Claude Ake, a leading African critical thinker, has argued in this regard that:
Economic forces are constituting the world into one economy and, to a lesser extent, one political society. Nations participate in global governance according to their economic power, which is coextensive with their rights. The global order is ruled by an informal cabinet of the world’s economically most powerful countries; its law is the logic of the market, and status in this new order is a function of economic performance (Ake, 1995: 26).
Critics also argue that there is a neo-liberal ideology of globalization which serves to “normalize” the process – to make it seem natural, inevitable and beneficial. Thus, while it is clearly in the particular interest of big multinational and global corporations to be free to move money, factories and goods around the planet seeking access to the cheapest factors of production, the most congenial regulatory environments and the most lucrative markets, the ideology of globalization promotes the belief that the interests of humanity and even of the earth itself will also be best served if world markets are “..left unfettered by ethical, moral, social, or environmental considerations.” (Ritchie, 1996)
In an analysis of the North American Trade Association as a case study of both the ideology and practice of globalization, economist Robert MacEwan presents data from the United States and Mexico to substantiate what he calls the “social failures” which are produced by the trade pact: greater income inequality, environmental damage and the decline of democratic control.
Greater income inequality is not the only social failure generated by the success of globalization generally and by NAFTA particularly. Environmental destruction is surely exacerbated with the success of globalization. The greater mobility of capital makes it more and more difficult for citizens of any one political unit to organize and use their government to impose regulations on polluting firms (MacEwan, 1994: 2).
Finally, he argues that globalization has a negative impact on the quality of politics and public life by placing restrictions on governments’ powers to intervene in their own economies, and, thereby “..limiting people’s power to exercise political control over their economic lives” (MacEwan, 1994: 2).
Though one should not necessarily take all this criticism at face value, it does reflect what can go wrong as corporations and capital have acquired the means to move and operate on a much broader scale. Furthermore, it conveys a sense of alarm that the nation-state as an institutional structure cannot cope effectively with these new developments, and, in fact, finds its own priorities and policies heavily influenced, if not dictated, by them.
The question then arises, who will articulate and defend the public interest against the global reach of private financial and commercial interests, when the latter go too far?
For instance, all but the most laissez-faire of economic thinking argue that governments must intervene to protect the public when markets fail, i.e. when they are no longer free and competitive. However, efforts to implement such a strategy at the global level, through various multilateral and international institutions, have achieved little. Consequently, world markets have become increasingly concentrated in major sectors.
Furthermore, while there is a case to be made for reducing expensive and inefficient government regulatory structures, the lack of adequate regulatory standards applying across borders does provide an incentive for multinational firms to choose less-regulated operating environments, and involves countries seeking foreign investment in a “race for the bottom” competition to see who can provide the most “free” and least regulated business environment (The Economist, July 1995: 114).
In summary, there does appear to be at least “a kernel of truth” in the negative characterization of globalization, and this judgment becomes even more plausible when globalization is evaluated as an “engine” of social conflict.
SCHUMPETER E LA DEMOCRAZIA – Piero Meaglia
SOMMARIO: Introduzione. – 1.La critica della «dottrina classica della democrazia».- 2.Una nuova teoria della democrazia. – 2.1.Il ruolo della leadership politica. – 2.2. Il professionismo politico. – 2.3. Lotta per il potere e qualità delle decisioni. – 2.4.Carattere dei politici democratici. –3. Le condizioni di successo della democrazia. – 3.1.La qualità dei politici. – 3.2. La limitazione del raggio delle decisioni politiche. – 3.3. Una burocrazia capace, affidabile, autorevole.-3.4. L’«autocontrollo democratico» di politici e cittadini. – Per concludere: qualcheosservazione.
-
ITALIA : è tempo di distruzione.
A leggere bene i giornali sussidiati (per poco ancora, qualcosa mi dice che il festino sta finendo) ci sono segnali di chiaro sfaldamento fra i poteri deboli italiani. La ragione è ovvia:
Non ci sono più abbastanza soldi per tenere insieme i poteri deboli italiani, colpa della crisi, colpa dell’euro, colpa dei tedeschi, scegliete voi.
Spesso si usa l’espressione “Poteri Forti” ed è sbagliato.
L’Italia è retta da centinaia di piccole cosche, tanti poteri deboli che contemporaneamente difendono insieme il loro privilegio di usare i soldi delle tasse e il potere delle leggi, e contemporaneamente si combattono per avere il più grosso pezzo di torta possibile.
Il mostruoso caso Mastrapasqua è espressione assoluta di questo assetto, ovvero un solo uomo in funzione di garante per partiti, sindacati, alte burocrazie, ministeri (vogliamo dire massonerie e confessioni religiose (una in particolare)? O stiamo azzardando troppo?)
L’unico potere debole, un po’ più forte degli altri è genericamente rappresentato dai banchieri e dalle fondazioni bancarie a nomina politica, tanto è vero che gli unici assets colpiti ancora marginalmente dalle tasse riguardano proprio i conti correnti (se pensate che il capital gain e l’imposta di bollo sia tanto, non avete ancora visto nulla) e i più spropositati favori della politica sono andati proprio alle banche.
Ma come detto la bancarotta incombe e ci sono chiari segnali di sfilacciamento fra i poteri deboli, cioè non ci sono abbastanza soldi né vero potere da distribuire per tenere tutti buoni con la bocca cucita e dunque, nella sola giornata di oggi abbiamo sulle prime pagine dei giornali:
- Il Mostruoso caso Mastrapasqua
- La Guardia di Finanza e la Consob che perquisiscono Mediobanca (link), atto inaudito e inconcepibile solo 5 anni fa.
- Patteggiamento respinto per Jonella Ligresti (quella messa fuori dal Ministro Cancellieri-Peluso, ricordate?), dovrà farsi il processo oppure alzare l’asticella della pena sopra i 3 anni e 4 mesi SENZA risarcimento ai piccoli azionisti (uno scandalo)
E questo solo sulle prime pagine.
Se poi scorriamo le pagine locali, alla voce banche e banchette locali è un fiorire di abusi scoperti, delazioni di amministratori trombati, notizie di reato, bilanci falsi, prestiti ad amici falliti. (ormai il Secolo XIX a Genova tiene praticamente una rubrica fissa su Carige)
Mi sento di dire: era ora !
E ora potete vedere in tempo reale cosa ho sempre visto di buono nella Bancarotta dell’Italia. Forse, se ci dirà bene, avremo una possibilità per ricostruire.
by Admin Marcello Lopez
GeoIntel.Blog.4.Italian/SMEs 