PHA-Exchange> CSDH Network hub on Globalization

[Claudio]

> Dear All,

> Globalisation IS increasingly a term that is being widely used and
> depoliticised. Imperialism is for me far less obfuscatory. At the very
> least we need to make clear in the KN that the POLITICAL (power
> relations) and ECONOMIC drive the globalisation process. IT and
> communication are results of this - albeit also contributing to greater
> global integration. But they are not the primary drivers of this
> process, which has been in existence for centuries. Of course there are
> now institutions and mechanisms (treaties, conventions, agreements etc)
> that formalise and accelerate economic integration. But we should not
> lose sight of the fact that these are inspired by and (largely) act at
> ther behest of Imperialism - TNCs and govts that back them.
> So...the big absence from the CSDH is the political dimension - as it
> is from most of the HP discourse. We know that economic power is based
> on and contributed to by political power: today's regime is almost as
> naked as the gunboat diplomacy and colonial invasion that often had the
> explicit objective of securing new raw materials and markets. In terms
> of health advances, we all know that the major and sustained ones were
> secured through political struggles that ultimately achieved social
> reform (you can call it social mobilisation if that is more
> acceptable.)
> In short, the KN on globalisation (as well as the Civil Society
> component of the CSDH) have to push strongly - using evidence and
> argument - for the economic and political determinants of ill-health and
> health to be at the fore.
> Best regards to all,
> David Sanders.
>
> Dear all,
>
Just a small addition  to this debate.  A fundamental problem with use of
the term globalization is that it implies (perhaps deliberately along with
the
> myth that we are all "one world" and we are in this together) that
> there  is one process and that all of us on earth have the same
relationship
> to this process.
> If we accept that globalization is to a large extent imperialism and
> colonialism made substantially more efficient through advances in
> communications, transport and military technology, we have to
> introduce into the analysis ACTORS, CAUSES, POWERFUL INTERESTS.
> We have to expose the apparently "apolitical", ahistorical and finally
> AMORAL discourse that disguises the not-so-new nature of the
> phenomenon  we call globalization. This is langue de bois, typical of UN
speak.
> It deliberately disguises real conflicts and real power balances and
> to my mind is just a part of the massive disinformation to which we are
> subjected throug corporate media. Remember TNCs don't just exert undue
influence on the media, they are the media today.

> As PHM, and to clearly distance ourselves from this
> dishonesty, we want to be explicit about political positions. At the same
time, we  have to expose the clear political position of those who continue
to
> promote further penetration of corporate capitalism into every corner
> of  the globe but who claim to be politically neutral.
 best to all,
A.
>
> Dear All,

> I here add some comments to Ron Labonte's note in upper case.
> Claudio in Saigon.
>
> Your point about distinguishing our KN products from the Commission on
> Macroeconomics and Health is well taken, but a key difference already
> exists.  Rather than looking at how health produces economic growth,
> we would be reversing the equation to examine what how economic
> globalization affects health.  I AM SURE THAT IF THE KN WERE A F/U OF THE
CME+H MOST OF US  WOULD NOT BE COLLABORATORS, BUT 'DENOUNCIATORS'
>
> At the present moment Ted and I probably lean fairly close to Woodward
> et al's emphasis on the SOCIAL, economic, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL aspects
of globalization as principal 'drivers' of other globalization phenomena.
> But I wouldn't describe ourselves as economic determinists (BUT
> ECONOMIC REALISTS AND NON-NAIVE POLITICAL ANIMALS); and I think it would
be very useful for the network to:
>
> 1. identify specifically what non-economic aspects of globalization we
> think important to emphasize  (ESPECIALLY THE SOCIAL MOBILIZATION ASPECTS
OF THE WHAT-TO-DO...CHANGES ARE NOT GOING TO COME FROM ABOVE, e.g., 'BECAUSE
> WHO STRONGLY RECOMMENDS...'.
> 2. discuss how we think it best to approach these aspects relative to
> the economic 'drivers' ..AGAIN, I THINK, IMPORTANTLY  THROUGH A COMPONENT
OF SOCIAL MOBILIZATION...

> Ron.
> _____________
> From: Kelley Lee [mailto:Kelley.Lee at lshtm.ac.uk] Upper case from Claudio.

> Just a quick note from sticky Bangkok where the Global Conference on
> Health Promotion is just about to kick off. A GOOD START IN THE SPIRIT OF
THE CSDH WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE TEXT OF THE BKK DECLARATION WHICH IS
TERRIBLY WEAK AS THE PHM HAS BEEN POINTING OUT OUTSPOKENLY DURING THE
> LAST MONTH OR SO.
>
> There is much value to this descriptive work.  THIS ALONE WOULD, BY FAR,
NOT  BE ENOUGH.
> It seems essential for the network to build into this agenda the "so
> what" questions into each area in terms, particularly, of the governance
> challenges facing us.  THESE ARE THE POLITICAL ASPECTS I CONTEND WILL
ONLY  HAVE  A CHANCE TO BE CHANGED THROUGH CONSCIUOSNESS BUILDING AND SOCIAL
MOBILIZATION (OR 'PUBLIC AGITATION' IN THE WORDS OF AMARTYA SEN)
> An assessment of what can be done to manage economic globalisation
> better (??) within each of these areas, and what institutional
> mechanisms/instruments are needed, would take forward the policy
> agenda.  NO, I THINK IT WOULD NOT. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES (PAT SOLUTIONS)
FROM ABOVE  WILL FALL ON DEAF EARS! GLOBALIZATION IS ABOUT POWER
RELATIONS...
> This would fit well with efforts by the global financial community to
> manage economic globalisation more effectively  OY VEY! (although
obviously their  policy objectives quite different from those from public
health).  AND THIS 'OBVIOUSLY' IS THE CRUX! WILL THEY CHANGE THEIR
OBJECTIVES BECAUSE THE  CSDH
> SO RECOMMENDS?
> Talk of new global financial architecture clearly needs to
> include a public health voice, and this work should directly seek to
> provide such a voice. AS PER DEMANDS FROM THE BENEFICIARIES (who ARE  NOT
BENEFITTING FROM MUCH AT ALL THESE DAYS...), ERGO: SOCIAL  MOBILIZATION.
>
> Second, the need to focus the agenda into "do-ables" means that the
> network will focus on economic globalisation.  NOT NECESSARILY ONLY.
BEWARE OF FALLING INTO A UTILITARIAN MOOD. A LIST OF DO-ABLES FOR THE SAKE
OF  A LIST IS DANGEROUS, I WOULD CONTEND.... STARTING PROCESSES OF
STRUCTURAL
> CHANGE IS MORE WHAT I HAVE IN MIND.
> This might be the most saleable for engaging certain key sectors and
> such analyses will nodoubt contribute much to our knowledge base.  AGAIN,
BEWARE OF UTILITARIAN INFLUENCES. WHO ARE THE KEY SECTORS WE HAVE IN MIND?
THE IFIs???
> However, there is a risk that we will reduce everything down to
> economic determinants and outcomes as per WHO's framework.  THE POLITICAL
DETERMINANTS ARE  DOWNPLAYED  THERE.
>  Also, we want to distinguish this body of work from that of the
> Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (is this an extension of this work
or distinctly broader approach?). AS ABOVE
>  It seems that we must balance focus and do-ability, with
> demonstrating the complex nature of changes associated with globalisation
that may not be reduceable to economics.  NOT 'MAY NOT BE'  'ARE INDEED NOT
REDUCEABLE TO ECONOMICS'.
> One might argue that it all begins with economic change (ALWAYS?) but
> this is a moot point rather than a given?  I am happy to defer to the
> collective  views of the network on what the framework should be for
organising this body of work.  SO, THIS IS WHAT I START HERE...
> But it would be a shame to lose the "social" AND POLITICAL focus of
> this  knowledge network as part of efforts to tackle the social
determinants
> of health. AGREE