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.