PHA-Exchange> ONE-LINERS (almost) ON GLOBALIZATION: USE THEM

[Aviva]

The following bits and pieces, for you to use in your debating opponents on the issue of Globalization, come --of all parts...believe it or not-- from the IMF quarterly publication "Finance and Development", Vol.38, No.4, December 2001. (also found in www.imf.org/fandd). I have just excerpted them for you. They are almost all verbatim although I may have somewhat changed the context when editing.

Claudio                                                                                                                                              Your moderator

1. Globalization began gaining momentum in the 1960s when businesses in search of larger markets expanded their reach beyond national borders. (Moderator: As such, it is nothing new, but just another name for Imperialism). But now, foreign capital flows into poor countries contingent on investors being granted monopoly rights and protection from competition.

2. Globalization has heightened the risks of instability and marginalization the world over. The structural reforms that come with Globalization have negatively affected the most vulnerable segments of society. 

3. GDP growth is now slowing in almost all regions of the globe accompanied by a sharp decline in trade growth. Also, income distribution has become much more unequal.

4. Further, Globalization has exacerbated unsustainable external debt at a time that affected countries have received mostly unfulfilled promises of development assistance (ODA).

5. Unavoidable difficulties are accompanying Globalization. For example, income disparities have increased within and between countries and the ratio of capital flight to GNP has increased dramatically (often to over 100%); another example is that Globalization has brought with it an additional sizeable brain drain.

6. At present, the playing field in international trade brought about by Globalization is NOT level. 

7. For example: Africa's non-oil exports in 2000 came to about $69 billion. If Africa had retained its share of non-oil world exports at 1980 levels, exports in 2000 would have been $161 billion, or $92 billion more than their actual level. Let's be clear: without substantial improvement in its trade performance and its terms of trade with rich countries, Africa will be unable to reverse its weak growth performance.

8. Industrial countries' current agricultural trade policies act as disincentives to poor countries. The rich countries' protectionism in agriculture is particularly, but not only, harmful to Africa. (Protection in textiles also remains significant).

9. Import tariffs in the EU and the US are low or zero for agricultural products that they do not produce and are much higher on imports that compete with their domestic products. The tariff structure also discourages import of higher-value-added processed products from the poor countries. These countries have additionally erected non-tariff barriers that keep out agricultural products from the Third World. It is middle-income countries that have reaped most of the benefits of the few preferences given by the rich countries. 

10. If we are to go anywhere, developing countries just have to play a more active role in demanding concessions in trade negotiations. 

11. The abolition of trade barriers for developing countries could yield income flows that are 3x the amount of external aid!

12. Moreover, to reduce extreme poverty (people earning less than $1 a day) by one half by 2015, poor countries will have to raise their real GDP growth rate by 7-8%/yr sustainably. (Moderator:...and that is simply not happening).

13. ...and poverty is more than inadequate income or human development 

--it is also vulnerability and lack of voice, power and representation (WB).

14. Solutions in the right direction will have to include: Giving poor countries free access to industrial country markets; providing them deeper and faster debt relief and; substantially increasing ODA. (Moderator:...and that is not happening).

15. Exports from the poorest countries have to be granted across-the board, bound, duty-free and quota-free access to industrial country markets. For this to happen and to take advantage of new opportunities, poor countries have to find ways to collectively increase their bargaining power by joining forces around areas of common interest and concern. 

16. Concomitantly to Globalization, homegrown factors and policies have been an impediment to development. Therefore, at the same time, poor countries need to undertake transparent, democratic complementary internal reforms. 

17. The state must fight the uncompetitive climate of monopoly rights being given to investors (often foreign), as well as eliminate economic rents and mechanisms that legally confer a dominant position to a few firms and economic agents.

18. For this to happen, civil society needs to become more organized to challenge the power of the states (Moderator: that foster or go along with Globalization), helping to limit deviations from good governance. (Moderator: e.g. rent seeking and corruption). 

19. Civil society needs to increasingly be visible as a credible negotiator between the people and public powers. It has to become a watchdog to contain market and Globalization excesses. They also have to raise the awareness of the people re the challenges Globalization poses. (Moderator: People's Health Movement!).

20. The IMF now spends some $100 million a year on technical assistance work --around 20% of its annual administrative expenditures. (Moderator: This technical assistance fosters and furthers Globalization. How much do we, its opponents, spend a year ...??... it's an unfair battle, isn't it?).

21. Major causes of inequality are identified as population growth (Moderator: ?), fall in non-oil commodity prices by more than half in real terms between 1980 and the early 1990s, and the debt trap.

22. The WB and the IMF have paid remarkable little attention to global inequality. The WB's World Development Report 2000: Attacking Poverty explicitly says that rising income inequality should not be seen as negative....provided the incomes at the bottom do not fall and the number of people in poverty falls and does not rise...(Moderator: ??). We should start by rejecting this neoliberal assumption.

23. (Moderator: Among other, the IMF imposes conditionalities). These affect member countries' ownership of their own economic policies. Conditionality items that are unrealistically ambitious result in repeated failure to meet agreed IMF-set targets and foster a culture of non-performance. Further, IMF conditionalities run counter to countries' education, health or poverty alleviation goals. (Moderator: Their words, not mine!).

24. Although the costs of adjustment are inevitable, they need not fall primarily on the poor nor compromise human rights.

25. But the short-run effects of liberalization (Globalization) on the poor ARE negative and significant... So, compensatory policies are being promoted and designed to help the poor to deal with the transition costs of adjustment. (Moderator: This is reactive/palliative and not proactive/ preventive...).

26. A rights-based approach to growth and poverty reduction is needed. It needs to comprise six elements: active protection of civil/political liberties, (Moderator: Plus social, economic and cultural rights); pro-poor budgets and growth strategies; policies geared towards ensuring that people receive adequate food, education and health care; broad participation in policy design and implementation; environmental and social awareness; and efforts to combat discrimination.

27. So, growth and macroeconomic stability (Moderator: The pillars of Globalization) cannot, by themselves, eliminate poverty or protect human rights. While human rights advocates should be given every opportunity to participate in PRSP consultations, they should not expect the IMF to impose human rights conditions on its member countries. (Moderator: So, are they or are they not for human rights?).

28. Finally, the rules of the global game promoting Globalization heavily depend on professional lobbyists. They steer the policy agenda in favor of special interests.    For each of the 535 members of the US Congress, there are 38 registered lobbyists and $2.7 million in annual lobbying expenditures. Interest groups have more influence on economic policy making than the electoral process itself (!).  We need to counteract and deflect these pressures from interest groups (Moderator: But do we have even a fraction of the money needed for that??).     Only 20% of all interest groups active in influencing Congress in the US are NGOs.                                                                                                Therefore, forces promoting profits for a few prevail over those seeking a more efficient and equitable international flow of goods, people and financial capital.(Moderator: Are the odds then not tipped against us?: Become more active in the People's Health Movement and its work to revert this state of affairs!                  "As individuals, we beg; collectively, we demand").



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20020615/f11b2813/attachment-0001.html>