1

Globalisation Interrogated Flattening or Fragmenting

DR. JOHN MOHAN RAZU

Everyone speaks of globalisation these days. In fact, economists,

historians, theologians, ethicists and social scientists have been

perpetually reflecting and entering into discourses on globalisation, its

implication for economic development, cross-cultural conversation and

state, ethnicity and nationalism. Therefore, globalisation per se as a

concept, an idea, rhetoric and reality sweeps across amidst the different

segments of people and communities, locally and globally. Hence,

questions that globalisation raises are not just academic, but also

existential and real.

We live in a world, which is undergoing stupendous changes. For all these

changes technological revolution is the core factor. Changes are taking

places at an alarming level. Young school going children are using

Internet to complete their assignments. In the remote villages to quench

our thirst even if we don‟t find drinking water, Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola and

other soft multinational beverages are available in teashops. Young boys

and girls working in Business Processing Outsourcing (call-centres)

crammed in cubicles at odd hours. Auto-rickshaw drivers and ordinary

vendors seldom we see talking over the cell-phones. All these changes

force us to reflect and write about globalisation for a larger audience.

It is in this context that The World is Flat1 by Thomas Friedman a celebrated

columnist in New York Times acquires relevance. He moved around the

world including Indian and observed the changing reality. According to

him, Globalisation has the capacity to create a culture in which

knowledge and resources can be shared and even the hitherto nations

can regain their voice. It is a steady movement towards a more fluid and

dialogic world. As Friedman argues, “It is now possible for more people

than ever to collaborate and complete in real time with more other

people on more different kinds of work from more different corners of the

planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the

history of the world” – using computers, e-mail, networks, teleconferencing

and dynamic new software.”2

1 Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Globalized World in the 21st Century,

London: Penguin Books, 2005. 2 Ibid.

2

Interestingly for Friedman, his visit to Bangalore prompted him to write this

book because of India‟s remarkable success in IT and the new

confidence being instilled amongst Indians all around. A software

professional from Bangalore could convince him that the level playing

field is being established and countries like India are able to compete for

global knowledge work as never before. Overwhelmed by the scenario,

over the phone he told his wife: “I am going to write a book entitled The

World is Flat.” For him, it is the dawn of the new era. He analyses that there

are multiple factors out of which increasing acceptance of economic

reform and liberalization throughout the world and the miraculous power

of new technologies – that have led to the emergence of a flat world. The

flat world has made „connectivity‟ possible. Those who believe that the

world has been „flattened‟ by globalisation through windows, the Internet,

workflow and open-source software, out-sourcing, off-shoring (i.e., foreign

direct investment), supply-chaining, in sourcing, Google and wireless

communication. The forces of globalisation according to „flatteners‟ are

transforming the world less hierarchical, more prosperous and equal (by

exporting jobs such as outsourcing i.e., BPO), more transparent and

democratic, and less prone to conflicts and wars.

Friedman‟s metaphor of „flat‟ needs careful interrogation. Some retort by

saying that the world is still „round‟. For them „round‟ denotes „divided‟,

„fragmented‟, „uneven‟, „unequal‟, „hierarchical‟, and „undemocratic‟.

Nevertheless, the pundits of globalisation describe these changes as

unprecedented and momentous, and therefore should be appreciated

and appropriated. Others look at these changes as adverse leading to

another form of dependency and neo-colonialism.

I

Conceptual and Definitional Perceptions

Globalization has become the sign of our times, but its contestations in

terms of its signs and claims; and the challenges it faces and poses to

transform it into a symbol of “human unity” and “disintegration” has not

received sufficient critical scrutiny and evaluation. Pundits of economic

reforms and structural adjustment programs promote global integration of

our social economies, at the cost of destruction of self-subsistent forms of

livelihood. At the same time, the opponents of globalization out rightly

reject this claim. Amidst, a wide range of claims and disclaims

globalization as a word and concept has become the centre to the

growing controversy and discourse. The claims and refutations keep

growing in a maze of literature on globalization. However, different

people view globalization differently and some of their views are given

below:

3

Sonja Eberle (27, TransFair). Getting involved and being active is something that

Sonja Eberle virtually inherited. Ms Eberle, a specialist in remedial care, says her mother

was also a very socially committed person. However, there is a specific reason why she is

now actively involved in TransFair, a global organization that campaigns for fair trade:

“When I was 17, I was in Bolivia and saw the poverty there with my own eyes.” The 27-

year old is convinced: “Globalization is necessary in order to help even out living

conditions in different countries. But at the moment the gap is getting wider.” On behalf

of the initiative she informs the public about how world trade can be fair and explains

how the TransFair seal is awarded. These days she starts her campaign work with young

consumers: “I have developed a chocolate exhibition for elementary school pupils, in

which I show how the cocoa plant is turned into chocolate.”

Oliver Pye (35, Attac). He has already been a member of two political parties and been

involved in several political initiatives. But it was at Attac that Oliver Pye found what he

was looking for: “People from different movements who agree on common core demands

and want to have an active impact on politics.” The goal to which Mr. Pye, a forestry

expert, is committed is an international economic system that focuses on people and not

shareholder value. At the national coordination centre for universities the 35-year old

student discusses how the organization can propagate “the spirit of Seattle and Genoa.”

Pye is currently a member of a German national project group preparing actions against

the G8 summit in Evian, France. In the run-up to this event, the German Attac

representatives are meeting activists from other countries. “We are globalized too,” says

Pye. “We are globalizing from the bottom up.”

Anja Meinecke (28, Oro Verde). “For me personally, globalization means exchanging

ideas with people of other cultures and tackling ecological, social and economic issues

internationally.” For example, with a project to protect the rain forest in Venezuela.

During her university studies in cultural economics, 28-year old Meinecke planned the

construction of a rainforest school in which the local population can learn about the value

of their environment on the spot. Now she is implementing the project on behalf of Oro

Verde. The project will also be open to tourists. The first workshop there is currently

being planned. Meinecke: “I can build bridges and move something.”3

Further, as Chris Stehr defines, “Globalisation is the continuous process of

webbing of diverse events taking place worldwide in the sectors of

economy, technology, politics and environment with mutual

interdependence and results.”4 In the process of globalization there may

not be winners and losers according to Stehr. He is very optimistic that

“win-win” situation as a target for this process. Another version on

3 Quoted in “Deutschland” on the theme ‘Globalisation: Opportunities and Risks on the Road to One

World’ E4 No.3/2003 June/July, pp.45-47. 4 See the Minutes of the Working Group during Herbstakademie 98 (Autumn Academy 98) of the

Consultation on „Globalisation – The World on the way into the 21st Century’ by Horst Schwiebert.

4

Globalization, which Ruud Lubber explains in an article „The Globalization

of Economy and Society‟:

The term “Globalization”…has accelerated at such a pace that it is giving rise to

a variety of new phenomena. Globalization entails a quantitative shift of several

autonomous national economies to a global marketplace for production,

distribution, and technology. All this has resulted in the emergence of a

worldwide confrontation of political, societal, and ethical insights…5

Broadly speaking, “the term „globalization‟ means integration of

economies and societies through cross country flows of information, ideas,

technologies, goods, services, capital, finance and people. The essence

of globalization is connectivity…”6 On the contrary, Ananta Kumar Giri

points out “Globalisation means the global domination of capitalistic

markets which create not only consumerism but also globalizes affluence

and poverty. Transnational integration goes hand in hand with social

disintegration inasmuch as it creates a global affluent class, on the one

hand, and an excluded majority, on the other.”7 Therefore, the following

are the assumptions about globalization:

Globalization is good because it brings people together – this is

true but globalization also minimizes otherness, which increases

tension between groups of people. People have to fight harder

to define themselves in different way. Identity formation takes

place in youth – there is the tension between Fix (where we

know who we are) and Flux (where we keep changing). When

boundaries are uncertain the result is unpredictable behavior.

Oneness is good – but it often means that more powerful

cultures make other cultures to be like them – differences are

homogenized.

Globalization is about helping each other – but in reality it is

more like a bulldozer – or as one Black theologian commented:

“it is like licking at the shop window” – you can look in but you

can‟t taste!

Globalization puts us in touch with people around the world –

youth who travel are more optimistic about globalization than

those who don‟t. But globalization also increases anonymity.

When people go online they use pseudonyms. Decision are

5 http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/globalisation.html, p.2. 6 See C. Rangarajan‟s feature article entitled „Globalisation: concept & concerns – I’ in “The Hindu”

(6.1.2003) p.10. 7 See Ananta Kumar Giri ‘The Global Human Condition’ in “The Hindu” (17.5.1996) p.10.

5

made in one place and acted out in another. Affordable

clothing one country leads to sweat shops in another.

Globalization decreases the distance between people – while

globalization creates a sense of connection between people

who live far apart, it results in massive existential homelessness

due to a loss of anchors.8

Globalization, in the present context has the following prominent features:

a. Mobility across borders: There has been an escalating movement of

goods, services, capital (trade and investment) and speculative

money across international borders.

b. Deregulation: Regulations are dropped or liberalized in order to

enable this movement to occur more freely.

c. Corporate power: A growing portion of the world‟s large economies

is actually controlled by large corporations, which are

unaccountable to the public.

d. Privatization: Many public goods and services, such as water,

electricity, health care and education are being privatized.

e. Commodification of life: A monetary value is being placed on more

and more areas of life, which can then be marketed worldwide.

f. Homogenization: While Western consumer-oriented ways of life are

marketed around the world local products and cultural practices

are eventually disappearing.

g. Speculative investment: Buying and selling money instruments for

the purpose of high short-term gain outpace trade in actual goods

and services and long-term investment in production-oriented

economic activity.

h. Loss of sovereignty: In the face of these trends, governments

increasingly feel there is little they can do to protect their people

and resources.9

Hence,

Globalization is both a description and a prescription, and as such it serves as

both an explanation… and an ideology that currently dominates thinking,

policy-making and political practice. As a description, “globalization” refers to

the widening and deepening of the international flows of trade, capital,

technology and information within a single integrated global market. Like terms

such as “the global village,” it identifies a complex of change produced by the

dynamics of capitalist development as well as the diffusion of values and cultural

8 See the notes on ‘Globalisation, Youth Ministry and the Church’ taken at Winter School in Pretoria in

May 2000, which appeared in http://www.btc.co.za/youth/global.htm, pp.1-2. 9 See LWF‟s “A Call to Participate in Transforming Economic Globalization’ document of the Tenth

Assembly, held at Winnipeg, Canada, from 21-23 of July 2003, p.3.

6

practices associated with this development…As a prescription, “globalization”

involves the liberalization of national and global markets in the belief that free

flows of trade, capital and information will produce the best outcome for growth

and human welfare…When the term “globalization” is used, whether to describe

or prescribe, it is usually presented with an air of inevitability and overwhelming

conviction, betraying its ideological roots.10

II

Fences & Windows of Globalization – Developing Economies such as India

In the last few years, globalization has penetrated almost all the spheres of

life in most parts of the world. It has „promised‟ many things and „claims‟

to be doing greater things. Its „claims‟ and „promises‟ would have to be

critically examined and evaluated. In accordance to these foundational

meanings the proponents of globalization are of the view that the global

flow of the capital would open-up job opportunities for the unskilled and

the semi-skilled in the present era of market economy. Developing

economies like India have opened its door for the operation of

transnational capital in their countries by creating global assembly line for

the off-shore production of the transnational corporations of the

developed economies. In view of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and

Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP), the transnational capital enters

into the economies of the developing countries thereby by-passing high

production costs, labour rights and environmental concerns in the

countries of their origin.

Youths as Targets

The concept of consumer culture has penetrated into the minds of

teenager to consume more and more. A teen is a cultural phenomenon,

where there are dependent on the changing cultural milieu. Globalization

culture is driven by consumerism – teens are learning how to function in

adult society from globalization culture – they are not learning skills but the

ability to buy things. Markets believe that if you get a teen you have a

consumer for life. 11

Youths as Producers

Globalization culture affects youth because they produce it. For the first

time in history, adolescents are the experts on technology that is

10 James Petras & Henry Veltmeyer, ‘Globalization Unmasked’ Delhi: Madhyam Books, 2001, p.11. 11 See ‘Globalisation, Youth Ministry and the Church’ op.cit., p2.

7

changing the world. Innovation, collaboration, networking is leading to a

boundary-less world.12

For example, young women comprise the majority of the work force

involved in the offshore production in Malaysia and Mexico. These

workingwomen are subjected to “tight work discipline” and are used as

replaceable instruments of labour. Sometimes, new workers are employed

on six months contract basis so that they could be relieved or re-hired for

the same low wage rate.13 Therefore, the distortion of the global economy

should pave way for critical evaluation and reflection of globalization.

In a globalizing context, the consequences of global shifts for youth:

a) The Homeless Mind – time and location no longer significantly

determine a young person‟s experience. There is a new longing for

home.

b) The Impossible Dream – consumerism objectifies young people and

destroys them through frustration or addiction. We find a way to

help youth create an identity that is based on who they are in Christ

and not on what they consume. We must communicate to youth

that we do not have to buy to get God. What we have is not for

sale, but is given for free.

c) The Ambiguous Self – there is a new way of living without

boundaries but youth do not know how to deal with choices. We

must figure out how to fix the flux without being or becoming rigid.14

The best way I have chosen is to illustrate some of the cases which would

amply reflect the impact of globalization on different spheres of

developing economies especially India.

Agriculture has emerged as the most important issue in the present

context. The critical importance of the agriculture sector in developing

countries like India has its distinctive characteristics vis-à-vis developed

countries. Some of them are illustrated below:

Agriculture continues to be the main employer in low-income

countries. It employs over 70% of the labour force in low-income

countries, 30% in middle-income countries and only 4% in high-income

countries. This is of great significance as viable alternative sources of

livelihoods and employment is not available for this vast amount of

population in the near future.

12 Ibid. 13 See Ananta Kumar Giri, op.cit. 14 See ‘Globalisation, Youth Ministry and the Church’ op.cit., p.2.

8

It is a significant contributor to GDP in developing countries. Between

1990 and 1996 contribution of agriculture as a proportion of GDP was

on an average 34% for low income countries as compared to 8% for

upper middle income countries, and 1.5% for the high income

countries of the OECD.

Agriculture also continues to be an important source of foreign

exchange and revenue for developing countries. In 1996 for example,

while the share of agricultural exports in the total merchandise exports

was in excess of 50% for about a quarter of 55 developing countries,

this share was in excess of 30% for about half of these countries.

Food consumption accounts for a large share of expenditure out of

the total household income in developing countries, while in

developed countries, it accounts for a small and decreasing

proportion. Therefore, even small changes in agricultural employment

opportunities, or prices, can have major socio-economic effects in

developing countries. For most developing countries, the need is to

raise agricultural productivity and increase production, particularly of

basic foodstuffs. In contrast, in developed countries the primary

concern appears to be to maintain some sort of parity of income

between the small proportion of the work force in farming and those in

industry.

The social and economic vulnerability of agriculture in developing

countries is generally reflected in parameters such as substantial

contribution of agriculture to their GDP, low level of commercialization

of agriculture, low productivity, weak market orientation,

preponderance of small and marginal uneconomical operational

landholdings, lack of infrastructure, dependence on monsoon,

susceptibility to natural calamities, and dependence of a very large

percentage of population on agriculture for their livelihood etc. Such

vulnerability fully justifies the extension of special provisions to the

developing country members for ensuring their food and livelihood

security concerns.

Thus the subsistence and survival of the majority of people in the

developing countries like India is dependent on agricultural production. In

a market ushered liberalized economy this entitlement is threatened due

to subsidized imports. Several commodities like wheat, coarse grains,

oilseeds, vegetables oils, sugar, dairy products, fruits, tea, coffee spices

and vegetables that are of great significance for food security in

developing countries have been subjected to high levels of export

subsidies by the developed countries. Because of heavy subsides the

9

developing countries are not in a position to compete with the products

of the developed countries.15

Test Case – 1

Trading in Food Insecurity in Kerala

Kerala, a State in South India has tropical climate and the unique

backwater systems, which helped to preserve the food security. But over

the past few years, ever since economic liberalization became the

development mantra, Kerala has been on the receiving end. In view of

the highly subsidized agricultural imports, its agrarian economy has been

badly affected. Due to competition from other exporting nations Kerala

had to import palm oil or rubber or coffee that has given a negative

impact on its socio-economic status. Because of the imports coconut

prices had crashed from Rs.10/- to Rs.2/-. Rubber has plummeted from

Rs.60/- to Rs.16/-, coffee from Rs.58/- in 1999 to Rs.30/- per kg in 2000. Even

spices such as pepper fell from Rs.2,600/- to Rs.1,300/- per quintal in the

consecutive period.

In addition to these products, Kerala‟s tea plantations are amongst the

worst affected. Over a million people directly or indirectly depend on tea

plantations for their living. Out of 32 tea factories in Peramedu Taluk in

Idukki District, 18 had to be shutdown. Their owners, leaving about 30,000

people jobless, have abandoned another 13 tea estates. Prior to

globalization and WTO, plantation products from Kerala such as tea,

coffee, cardamom and pepper used to earn considerable foreign

exchange. India produces 850 million tones of tea annually. The internal

consumptions is 670 million tons. By exporting 180 million tons of tea India

was accumulating a big sum in its foreign reserve. But the globalization-

oriented new import policy has undermined the situation, says P S Rajan,

President, Hill Ranges Estate Employees Association.

Test Case – 2

Indian Tea: Storm in the Tea Cup:

Since the globalization process, India opened its gate to foreign goods.

Tea dust from 13 countries started to flood in. Sri Lankan tea is imported by

15 See the Background paper of the „Fifth Ministerial of the WTO: Post Cancun Lessons and Challenges for

Civil Society’ organized by NGOs at U.T.C., Bangalore on 18th December 2003, p.2.

10

paying merely 7.4% of import duty. This has created ripples in the South

Indian Market especially Kerala. “Producers from South India were

demanding a sharp increase in the import duty for Sri Lankan tea. But the

government increased the duty from 7 per cent to only 15 per cent,” says

Lalaji Babu, General Secretary of CITU. Surplus production and reduction

in tariff barriers are said to be the main reasons for the present crisis. Prices

of plantation products such as tea, coffee and rubber in both domestic

and international markets have been witnessing a steady decline over the

years. The reason that is attributed is “This is a market-driven humanitarian

crisis. It is the result of the wrong policy initiatives of the Central

Government under globalization agenda,” says C.S. Rajan. 16

III

Globalisation and Its Discontents

Globalisation claims that there is going to be win-win situation for all. But

the questions that arise now are: what is the time frame? How long?

Special and differentiated treatments under globalization have become

accepted principle. How long to wait so that the market economies

would bring-in benefits to all? If the basic assumption were that the

market economics would work only in the long run. Then, in the long run

people are dead. Despite growing problems and aftermath the poor and

the developing countries stringently follow the dictates of the international

financial institutions such as:

Cuts in government spending particularly expenditure on services

that are crucial to the poor, the vulnerable and the aged

(education, health, housing, water, etc.);

Removal of import controls and removal of low prices for even

essential goods and allowing the free market to determine prices;

Tight fisted control of money supply and credit to control inflation

and raise interest rates to encourage savings;

Privatisation of government enterprises;

De-valuation of currencies.

The overall result of these measures, it was assumed and hoped that the

fiscal and trade imbalances be rectified and thus improve the capacity

of the government to service its debt obligations. The spending of

government on social sector should be drastically cut, promoting the

private sector to push its role in the area of development Government

development projects (peoples) and social service initiatives would be

16 Ibid., p.1 &2.

11

suspended until adjustment is carried out. It was hoped that India would

import less and export more.

Did these policies work in the Indian context? What have been their

impacts on the day-to-day aspects of life of the subalterns? A hard look at

the globalization process shows that its advantages are likely to be easily

tilted by its disadvantages. There are data and empirical evidence on the

impact of globalization on inequality is very clear.

Globalization and Migration

Migrants are characteristic figures in the epic drama of globalization. It

means that people, who have been forced to leave their homes or roots

for one reason or other, can no longer sustain themselves. It looks as if all

humanity has been set in movement, a restless one-way movement

across the world, away from spatiality, sufficiency, family and identity; an

irreversible global trajectories. Globalization has intensified the problem of

migration. More and more people are migrating to cities and townships,

due to poverty, hunger, environmental degradation, eviction, debt,

unemployment and the inability to provide the basic necessities for,

themselves and their families.

Globalization and Agriculture

Globalization has replaced labour intensive mode of agriculture to

capital-intensive mode. It is assumed that globalization would bring in

benefits to our country's agricultural sector. However, the beneficiaries are

neither farmers nor the Government of India. A recent editorial of a

business daily had a heading 'Freeing wheat'. It is significant to ask: What

wheat is being freed from chemicals?

Agri-business corporations have diversified in aqua and shrimp cultivation

thereby converting agricultural lands making many to migrate for

employment. In recent times, there has been continuous exodus of

people across the country for want of jobs in order to sustain their families.

Notably, both in the North as well as in the South many families have

committed suicide due to debts and poverty. Globalization has escalated

poverty and unemployment due to market-oriented, capital-intensive

mode of production. Globalization of agriculture is gradually pushing the

victims of this process resulting in commoditisation of women.

It is a well-known fact that international trade in agriculture linked to the

removal of agricultural subsidies. In reality, thirty rich OECD countries

provide US $350bn or US $1bn a day. Out of this the two major culprits are

12

America and the European Union. Whereas, recent estimates show that

developing countries lose more than US $24bn a year due to

protectionism that the rich countries provide to their agriculture. Further,

the US, EU, Japan and Canada maintain tariff regulation that works out

with 350 to 900 per cent on food products such as rice, dairy products,

meat, fruits, vegetables and fish. On the other hand, India, like other

developing countries has removed all the restrictions on agricultural

products, thereby becoming an open field for agri-business, corporations

to enter in. In order to cover up the unjust practices in trade, the rich

countries talk about and promise US $2.7bn as „aid-for-trade‟. When it

comes to justice in trade the rich and developed countries do not want to

take up this.

Globalization and Labour

Globalization encourages capital to move freely across national borders

to maximize profits by way of cheap, controllable and. expendable

„global workforce‟. Migrant labour has become an essential part of global

free market system. Further, in a global economy, production centres are

relocated. Therefore, there will be cross-migration of labour. Due to

internationalisation of division of labour there is a freer movement of

labour force between borders. More importantly, capital also moves

where there is cheap labour to maximise profit. Hence, the movement of

capital is towards the „two-thirds world‟. Globalization process is gradually

phasing out unskilled and semi-skilled workers who are involved in

agricultural and agricultural-related activities and also traditional artisans.

The commission on Labour notes that, out of 286 million 'main' workers

based on the 1991 census, 259 million or 90.6 per cent are in the informal

sectors and that out of 191 million workers engaged in agriculture, forestry,

fisheries and plantations. The percentage of workers in building and

construction is about 78 per cent; whereas in trade and commerce 98 per

cent, and in transport, storage and communication is 61.5 per cent. In our

country, 8.56 million workers are added per year to the labour market; in

the organised sector employment has been halved to 0.72 per cent

during the 1990's. Where is the social security net for this section?

The distance between countries has shrunk but those between

communities have widened and this is the irony of globalization. It has

indeed reduced the social space and thus made the impersonal. Its claim

of creating 'global village' has become a fallacy where one does not

know about his/her neighbour resulting in exclusion and anonymity. In the

name of uniformity, globalization has changed out food habits and thus

standardised our tastes, dress we wear and the things we use. The poor

are getting poorer. Apparently, the number of poor is growing round the

13

world, especially in the developing countries. The victims of globalization

are mostly women and 'children as they are pushed to the conditions

where they experience hunger, destitution and powerlessness. The

middle-class segment comprising of 200 million is being benefited and

therefore believe in individual success/pursuit. Increasingly this class is

becoming insensitive.

Currently, over 60 per cent of the Indian labor forces still survives on

agriculture and agricultural-related activities (which constitutes less than

30 per cent of the GDP), about 25 per cent is in services and only 15 per

cent in the industrial sector.17 Undoubtedly, this has altered the agrarian

sector and thus dispersed millions of people especially the landless

agricultural laborers who are migrating to the nearby towns and cities for

want of employment for one square meal a day. Inflation is escalating at

alarming level. Recent data shows that more people especially involved

in the informal sectors earn less than US $l a day. On the other hand, we

are faced with inflation and on the other; there is no proportional increase

in the wages. Prices of essential commodities have gone up but wages

remain the same. How could the poor and the vulnerable communities

subsist in an era of globalization?

The current framework of globalisation is hierarchical and pyramidal.

Therefore, it is nothing but another form of social Darwinism, which means

„law of the jungle‟ and „the survival of the fittest‟. Since the forces of

market regulate it, market assumes centripetal status and the state

occupies centrifugal positions. Goods and services moves across the

world at a faster pace than ever before and there are more financial

benefits in the process

Poor countries are hit more because of the unjust and unfair terms in trade

and other transactions. As a consequence livelihood of teeming millions

has become worse. The current framework of globalisation is nothing but

creating pyramidal structure by way of fragmenting. In poor countries one

out of four households live in less than $1 a day. Outsourcing and IT sectors

have brought about some employment opportunities for a tiny per cent,

but the current form of globalisation has not created core and

manufacturing industries that could provide sustain economic growth and

employment possibilities. Globalisation creates opportunities that help the

global wants for a tiny percent of people, thereby, negating local needs.

Having witnessed two decades of globalisation the present frame

escalates the process of fragmentation intensely than ever before.

Therefore globalisation is not flattening the world, but fragmenting and

segmenting peoples and communities between and within nations.

17 Ibid.

14

IV

Christian Ethical Response

The Christian community preserves the memory of the response of the Ancient

Church to an earlier form of globalization in the Hellenistic empire. The very

concept of the oikioumene was the expression of this “global” consciousness. The

Hellenistic oikioumene was based on the principle of unity: one God; one

emperor; one empire; one language, one currency, one citizenship, but his

imperial globalization demanded its prince them, as it does today i.e., the

exclusion of the slaves and of the barbaric people beyond the borders of the

empire. The early Christian community developed and spread among disinherited

people on the fringe of the empire. When the New Testament speaks about the

oikoumene, an attitude of critical distance with regard to the political

connotation of the terms is still discernable in several instances, especially in the

Lucan writings (Luke 2:1, 4:5-7, Acts 17:6) and in Revelation (especially 16:14).

The Letter to the Hebrews refers to the oikoumene to come, suggesting that the

gospel of God’s coming reign implies an alternative vision of the oikoumene of

global reality.

It was this alternative vision of the oikoumene which inspired early Christian

mission, making use of the advantages of a “globalised” system. It found

expression in the formulation of a “counter-culture” of inclusive communities

and of solidarity with the poor and the victims of imperial globalization. Over

against the imperial structures of governance, the Early Church developed its

own structure as a community of local churches, which acknowledged each other

in their diversity, Christian conciliarity and conciliar fellowship, rooted in the

celebration of the one Eucharist, were the specific response of the Church to the

Constantinian alliance, ecclesial conciliarity, the praxis of unity and the

understanding of the oikoumene were adapted and transformed, losing much of

their critical potential. But the memory of the alternative vision has lived on.

The ecumenical movement of our century has drawn on this memory, most

recently in the conciliar process on justices, peace and creation. We are beginning

to see more clearly that the challenge of globalization must lead to a re-

ecamination of our ecumenical commitment, freeing the critical potential of its

alternative vision of global reality and thus enabling it to become a source of

inspiration for rebuilding community and for developing and strengthening a

culture of life and hope. This implies a new understanding of what it means to be

the Church.18

18 Konrad Raiser, „Okkumene and Globalization‟ in Echoes-Justice, Peace and Creation News, Geneva:

WCC, 12/1997, p. 4.

15

In the midst of this critical situation we read the Bible and listen to our faith

stories searching for orientation. The cries of the people and of creation

lead us to say: „the time has come for a radical change‟ of the dominant

economic system‟. The time has come for a committed process of

education and confession regarding economic injustice and ecological

destruction. The ideology of the free market captures and dominated all

sectors of societies and all dimensions of people‟s lives, even our bodies

and deepest desires. It promises good life for all, but in reality it destroys

the lives of many.

Under neo-liberalism, capital has become an idol-a false God. It asks for

unconditional surrender and for sacrifices and claims this is the only way of

being. It denounces interventions of governments and social movements

aiming at political control and social justice. We read in the Bible: “The

love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim 6:10). Jesus says: “You

cannot serve God and Mammon” (Math.6: 24). The world in which we live

belong to God. Therefore, „oikos,‟ as the household of God,

Through Jesus Christ, God gives life in abundance to all people and the

whole of creation (John 10:10). We reject the notion that there is no

alternative to the neo-liberal model of economy. We draw orientation

from the image of the „oikos‟ (house): an economy that makes possible

life for all and is guided by the principles of equality and inclusiveness,

justice and solidarity, care for people as well as for creation. It can be

measured both quantitatively and qualitatively by its spread to all people

across God‟s created world.

We should evolve common reflection and action on our various strategic

options, such as, prophetic critique and legal taming of power and

wealth, resistance to unjust structures and living out alternatives. At the

same time we are aware of the contradictions, failures and temptations in

which our churches and communities and we ourselves are entangled

with the economic system-historically and at present. We too are in need

of liberation, repentance and renewal. Why should there be a liberation,

repentance and renewal from the clutches of globalising forces? The faith

stance is as follows:

Neo-Liberalism as the Economics of Death

As people of faith, we are called to probe at our own economic system

and to critique what is not life-giving and sustaining. Today, we see a

large proportion of the world‟s people live with less than their need to

survive, and often without enough to sustain. All the natural resources are

appropriated to satiate human greed and avarice. In order to satiate the

„wants‟ of a tiny percentage of people within and between nations, the

16

neo-liberal economic ideology transforms all the available material

resources into finished products. While doing this some of the vital non-

renewal resources are being transformed into consumer items for this

segment.

For instance, the richest 20 percent of the world‟s population now earns

150 times more than the poorest 20 percent, double the gap of 30 years

ago. The poorest Nations of the South spend major foreign exchange

earnings towards repayment in the form of „debt-services‟ and „unfair

terms of trade‟ to the „Rich North‟. For every dollar the North assists to the

South in terms of aid, three dollars are repatriated in the forms of debt

servicing. Over 1.6 billion live under $1 a day and about 2.3 billion

manage with $2 a day. More than half of the global humanity lives in

„abject‟ as well as relative poverty. More than one-fifth of the population

is chronically malnourished. Many infectious diseases like tuberculosis and

malaria are on the rise, affecting the poor.

Through these facts and figures, we can discern that something is seriously

wrong with the management of our world. To have more, and to

consume more, a small percentage is destroying life rather than sustaining

it. We need to interrogate the values embedded in this global economic

order. What do our faith values say about them? In simple terms, how

Jesus would have responded and what could have been the response of

Jesus about the present management of our home both at the micro and

macro levels?

Maximization of Profit

More and more profits tend to be the overarching principle of the current

globalization. The major vehicle that translates this principle is the

Translations Corporations (TNCs). The global reach of these transnationals

has been phenomenal. They control almost all the productive sectors of

the world having subsidiaries and affiliates allover the world. For example,

out of 100 leading economies, 51 are the TNCs and 49 national

economies.

The core philosophy of market-ushered economics is that the natural and

human resources ought to be appropriated and exploited respectively

towards the goal of adding more and more profits. Its philosophy

premised on „mass consumption society‟. To achieve this, the „free market

system‟ with the help of TNCs would continue to exploit indiscriminately by

employing technological and managerial expertise. In the process, it

caters to the „wants‟ of a minority and eliminates the „needs‟ of the

majority. Along with these, it also promotes the values such as

„competition‟, „professionalism‟ and „skill‟ in the name of „quality‟, „good

17

life‟, and „choice‟. The gospel according to present era of globalization is

to bring „progress‟ and „prosperity‟ for all. But in practice, it contravenes

the gospel of Jesus that is found in Jn.10: 10.

From justice and faith perspective, we must question the logic of

maximization of profit as the key motor of economic activity. This logic is

premised on „greed‟, „avarice‟, „exploitation‟ and „oppression‟. As people

of faith, we need to ask the following questions:

At what cost and whose cost?

The nature and people vis-à-vis the present and future generations

have not been taken into account by the forces of globalization?

The Idol of Growth

The value in the current era of neo-liberalism is the pursuit of „growth‟.

„Growth‟ is construed more in monetary and monopolization terms.

„Growth‟ is measured in terms of „volumes of goods produced, consumed

and distributed‟. More in terms of „how much‟ and „what speed‟, and not

based on „subsistence and survival needs‟. Its logic is nothing but „limitless

growth‟. It assumes that the economy is expected to growth, without

realizing the resources are limited and many are non-renewable. It leads

to unlimited consumption and encourages limitless wants. Most of the

products we use and consume are unnecessary and destructive.

Conclusion

Our belief in God of life prompts us to look to the possibility of a new kind

of an economic order based on justice with fairness and equity. Neither

the Bible nor the scriptures of other faiths propose alternatives in detail,

but offer values to the current values of marked-triggered economics. We

ought to reject the values of greed, competition, limitless growth,

individualism, consumerism and speculation. An alternative vision of

economics should seek to sustain and enhance life, building community in

this world.

We should seek an answer to the following question: Is another world

possible? At this juncture, this question poses hope and skepticism. As

people of faith and hope, our mandate is to work out and evolve

alternatives so that the present and future generations can live.

Therefore our Affirmation and Response shall be:

We affirm that we have been called to live and to celebrate the

abundant life and that the present world situation is a complete denial

of that call.

18

We affirm that people come before money and life before profit

Money Is a means and not an end.

We affirm that land, labour and riches of creation abundantly given to

fulfill human needs and not as a tool of oppression and an instrument of

the powerful and the rich.

We affirm the witness of the prophetic minority in the churches and their

spirit of hope and solidarity.

We affirm the voices of the oppressed poor of the South who are

calling our attention to the pain of poverty, and their initiatives to

reclaim their dignity and sovereignty.

We affirm the Jubilee vision and the struggles for the cancellation of

external debts especially the voices from the South in the Jubilee global

movement, who are raising questions about the interconnectedness of

debt and globalization.

We affirm a market with social controls in which all activities are

responsible ethical and oriented toward the common good and local

needs rather than the self-interest of the powerful and greed of the

wealthy minority.

We affirm the need of repentance, confession, acknowledgement of

our limitations, and life of sharing.

We resist the idolatry of capital and the new religion of consumerism,

which defines the purpose of life in terms of material possessions.

We resist the subsidizing of the North by the South in the name of

Structural Adjustment Programs, which impose on the poor nations, with

the consent of their political class, drastic budgetary reductions in

education, health, housings retirement programs and other social

services.

We resist the assumptions that fair competition is possible in a world

dominated by Mammon, where transnational realities transcend

national regulatory mechanisms and the powerful impose the rules of

the economic game, with the unavoidable result that the rich become

richer and the poor become poorer.

We resist hypocrisy, the application of double standards (also in the

Church) when questions related to profit and to the use of money are

at stake. The art of self-criticism is underdeveloped in the global village!

19

Let us sing and celebrate:

Good calls all people to a new life

Walking along together hand in hand

The time is ripe for changing

The moment is now. Let walk together

No one can go alone. So come and join

Get in a circle with all the people, come!

Your hands and hearts are important, come!

Brazilian Song19

Questions for Reflection:

Can globalization build bridges between the rich and the poor?

Can globalization integrate those who are within and those outside

the market forces?

Can globalization foster genuine oikumene (one whole habitat) in a

fragmented and divided world?

Are there alternatives to globalization? Can we turn the clock

back?

The above questions clearly posit whether we should accept or reject

globalisation? If yes, what kind of globalization? If no, what can be done?

We need to work for a system that is just, transparent and democratic.

Any alternative that we suggest or evolve will have to take the resources

and knowledge of the communities. It should be based on the common

good of the people. Any system that under- pins market forces cannot be

considered as right and ought to be resisted and rejected.

19 See The Colloquium 2000 Declaration on “Faith Communities and Social Movements Facing

Globalization” held at Hofgeismar, Germany in May 2000. The Writer was also part of the Declaration.