Transcript Globalization and governance - University of California

Globalization and governance
What can Theories of Political Economy tell us?
in an age that combined globalization and
uncertainty about US global leadership, how do
you organize the international political
economy?
What is Globalization?
• Growth of networks of interdependence that
transcend national and regional boundaries
• Economic networks
– Trade
– Capital flows
– Labor migration
• Communication and transportation networks
– Networks linking soldiers, criminals, terrorists
– Advocacy networks
– Religious organizations
The “dark side” of globalization
• More access to goods and
services…….but greater illegal
trade in arms, people, drugs,
money.
• More goods transported across
the globe…..but they can bring in
toxic toys, invasive species,
contaminated food
• Ease of internet access expands
free speech but can put porn in
children's hands, facilitate
reckless investments, intellectual
theft
• Movement of people expands
freedom but can spread deadly
diseases.
The Dilemma
• Economics is global
but……
• Politics is local
• Local (national) politics
can’t handle global
issues…..
• But Isn’t this the neoliberal vision?
Local government won’t work under
globalization…….
• Because Globalization undermines state
sovereignty
• National governments can’t protect their
citizens from global “bads”…..
And there could be a backlash…..
• Illiberal democracy because……
– Globalization Econ. Insecruity retreat from
national identity retreat into ethnic and
sectarian identities feeling of “belonging” and
security  exclude others from democracy
• “Jihad” because…..
– Excluvity can lead to separation and
fragmentation of political communities  who
might want the same land  conflict
So….What to do about the dark side?
• Delegate authority
upwards
• Delegate authority
downwards
• Hybrid of public-private
authority
What guidance can theories of political economy give
for the governance of globalization?
• Economic Nationalism (Waltz)
• Distributive justice
• Liberal Theory
– governance by private actors
– Multilateral institutions
• Global communitarianism
Global Public Governance
• International Organizations?
• What are the benefits?
Problem 1: Further usurping of
sovereignty….
Problem 2:They are undemocratic
•
•
•
•
•
No transparency
No accountability
Technocrats rule!
No role for elected representatives PERIOD!!
Voting by APPOINTED rep.
– No role for congress!
– No wonder congress won’t ratify treaties!
• Undermine economic and social rights
• What about “global federalism?” (Rodrick)
Problem 3: And ineffective
•
•
•
•
Collective action problems
Economic nationalism often rears its head
Global institutions can be ignored
They have a long way to go……
• What about global leadership?
• Example of governance in the current financial
crisis……
Example: Can the IMF govern the
global economy?
Who is the Lender of last resort?
• The IMF?
• Resources increased by $500 billion $40 billion
from China (loan) (not confirmed)
– $100 billion from Japan and EU (promised before G20)
– Still need $260 billion…..
• $10 billion promise from Canada
• $4.5 billion promise from Norway
• $100 billion promise from U.S.
• Mexico has already requested $47 billion line of
credit
• Will the IMF become a global Central Bank?
Will the US come to the rescue and again take
on the role of global hegemon
Everyone Chill Out!
II Got this!
IMF voting power: US can still veto
Lender of Last Resort? The Fed and
Central Bank coordination
Counter-cyclical lending?
Dollar strengthened as world’s reserve
currency?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Taking in the world’s distressed goods?
•
•
•
•
Now it’s toxic assets
U.S.Promise not to close its market
Other G20 countries promised too
Are bail-outs of domestic industries acts of
protectionism?
Is the US is an unconscious Hegemon?
• Was the US always an unconscious hegemon?
• Does the world really need a hegemon in
Kindelberger’s sense?
• Will international institutions do the trick?
• Or will everyone keep their markets open
because they have learned that it is the best
thing to do?
Can the U.S. afford this?
And now back to the Arctic….
Can global governance solve the
problems we discussed on Tues?
The two (or really three) tragedies
Global warming,
melting ice
Warming
Opens Arctic
Resources
•Scientific studies aid
in resource
Exploitation
Competition,
Conflict
Growing
resource
depletion
International
scramble for
Arctic
Resources
And Privatization
The Polar Regions as global commons
• Antarctic is defined by treaty as global
commons
• Antarctic is governed as global commons
• Antarctic treaty treats science as “common
good”
• In contrast, Arctic regional governance is
restricted to Arctic states
Antarctica as a global Commons
Antarctic: Earth's only continent without a native human population,
and a land mass surrounded by
ocean
makes definition as a
“global Commons”
easier and Antarctic
Governance as a
“commons” Unique
all land and ice shelves south
of 60°S latitude parallel.
The treaty has now
been signed by
46 countries,
Antarctic Treaty
Does it work?
• Members dedicated to scientific research
• But states have to continue to place a high
priority on environmental protection.
• Can clash with private goals
And there is a conflict between science and
environmental NGOs……
• The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) was
established to continue co-operative scientific research
• . Even so, the scientific community clashes with
environmental organizations.
• SCAR is chronically short of money. It relies on national
committees made up of scientists who in large measure are
dependent on the public purse.
• Governments wishing to ignore scientists could still do so.
Alone, the SCAR would not have a lot of direct influence.”
• In the absence of support from other international actors of
influence scientific interests are unlikely to prevail when in
conflict with other interests.
Turning to the Arctic: Can it too be treated
as a Global Commons? It is different……
•It is an ocean
surrounded by land
•Contains a local
•population including
Indigenous inhabitants
•Governance is thus
subject to sovereignty
Claims, some disputed
Arctic is not defined as a global commons
• Though science treats it as a “global
commons,” the Arctic is not governed by an
international treaty
• Whereas the Antarctic is a special
conservation area, the inhabitants of the
Arctic make use of the region’s rich natural
resources for their livelihood and social and
economic development.
What about the Arctic Council?
international cooperation in the Arctic
Council…..
• A large part of the work of the Arctic Council is science-based.
Different working groups engage in efforts to fill the gaps in
existing circumpolar knowledge, covering new areas or areas
where information has been either scarce or hard to access.
• Examples: two major assessments of pollution in the Arctic,
showing, among other things, rising trends of mercury
contamination in some areas of the region and the Arctic
Human Development Report on cultural, social and economic
conditions in the Arctic.
So if global governance doesn’t work (or is
imperfect), what about Private governance?
•
•
•
•
Just who, exactly, would govern?
What are the benefits?
Example: success despite failure of Kyoto
Other environmental issues
Still no democracy……
Imagine Golden here…..
Private and global governance: the
absence of distributive justice
But what about NGO’s and
Individuals?
Where does the economic nationalist stand on
the issue of governing globalization?
• The soft-core economic nationalist
– Don’t like public or private governance because…..
• The Hard-core economic nationalist
– Think both are silly because…….
The common theme in the criticism….
• Banning politics in the name of economic
efficiency is not a good idea !!!
Could Regionalism be a solution?
What do you think?
The End