Anti-Globalization
Globalization or globalization is an umbrella term for a complex series of economic, social, technological, cultural and political changes seen as increasing interdependence, integration and interaction between people and companies in disparate locations.
Globalization is a relatively new term used to describe a very old process. It is a historical process that began with our human ancestors moving out of Africa to spread all over the globe. In the millennia that have followed, distance has been largely overcome and human-made barriers lowered or removed to facilitate the exchange of goods and ideas. Propelled by the desire to improve one's life and helped along by technology, both the interconnectedness and interdependence have grown. This increasing integration of the world or 'globalization' has enriched life but also created new problems.
The term "globalization" is used to refer to these collective changes as a process, or else as the cause of turbulent change. The distinct uses include:
· Economically and socially positive : As an engine of commerce; one which brings an increased standard of living - prosperity to developing countries and further wealth to First World and Third World countries. This view claims that economic prosperity brings about social prosperity.
· Economically, socially, and ecologically negative: As an engine of "corporate imperialism"; one which tramples over the human rights of developing societies, claims to bring prosperity, yet often simply amounts to plundering and profiteering. Negative effects include cultural assimilation via cultural imperialism, the export of artificial wants, and the destruction or inhibition of authentic local and global community, ecology and cultures.
Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se
Many see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities increasingly shapes the political policy of nation-states.
Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and is forcing savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations; it can therefore be said that "globalization" is another term for a form of Americanization, as it is believed by some observers that the United States could be one of the few countries (if not the only one) to truly profit from globalization.
The financial crises in Southeast Asia that began in 1997 in the relatively small, debt-ridden economy of Thailand but quickly spread to Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea and eventually were felt all around the world, demonstrated the new risks and volatility in rapidly changing globalize markets. The IMF's subsequent 'bailout' money came with conditions of political change (i.e. government spending limits) attached and came to be viewed by critics as undermining national sovereignty in neo-colonialist fashion. Anti-Globalization activists pointed to the meltdowns as proof of the high human cost of the indiscriminate global economy.
Opposition to international financial institutions and transnational corporations
Generally speaking, protesters believe that the global financial institutions and agreements undermine local decision-making methods. Many governments and free trade institutions are seen as acting for the good of transnational (or multinational) corporations (e.g. Microsoft, Monsanto, etc.). These corporations are seen as having privileges that most human persons do not have: moving freely across borders, extracting desired natural resources, and utilizing a diversity of human resources. They are perceived to be able to move on after doing permanent damage to the natural capital and biodiversity of a nation, in a manner impossible for that nation's citizens. Activists also claim that corporations impose a kind of "global monoculture". Some of the movements' common goals are, therefore, an end to the legal status of corporate personhood and the dissolution or dramatic reform of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO.
The Three Sisters and Other Institutions
The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization wield tremendous power and influence, but exclude the voices of developing countries most adversely affected by financial and trade policies. Money rules at the World Bank and the IMF, and "consensus" at the WTO is often the product of behind-the-scenes "greenroom" bargaining and pressure from trade heavyweights such as the United States. These articles address the need for democratization, accessibility, accountability and transparency at all three institutions.
Despite a two-year focus on reducing poverty in its client countries, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are sticking to economic prescriptions that may have increased poverty and joblessness in many nations and widened the gap between rich and poor, according to a number of grassroots development groups.
"Large numbers of people--particularly those who live in hardship conditions and/or have been socially and politically marginalized for long periods of time--are alienated from decision-making processes that deeply affect their livelihood and future," according to the report, 'The World Bank and the PRSP: Flawed Thinking and Failed Experiences.'
The IMF, the report argues, has "unprecedented power over these vulnerable countries", earning the nickname "the Gatekeeper" because "it determines whether to open or shut the `gate' between a borrowing government and its creditors ... Unless the IMF gives its `seal of approval', signifying that a government's policies are `adequate', the government may be unable to access credit and attract foreign investment." The only way these countries have been able to gain the IMF's "seal of approval" is by introducing structural adjustment programs (SAPs).
Water Privatization The World Bank's Latest Market Fantasy
The impacts of World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programs on countries in the Global South have been well-documented in the areas of health and education, food security and jobs. However, less is known about the impacts of the World Bank's latest obsession -- the privatization of water services. In country after country in recent years, the World Bank has been quietly imposing a for-profit system of water delivery, leaving millions of people without access to water.
Here are ten major corporate players now delivering fresh water services for profit. Between them, the three biggest -- Suez and Vivendi [recently renamed Veolia Environment] of France and RWE-AG of Germany -- deliver water and wastewater services to almost 300 million customers in over 100 countries, and are in a race, along with the others such as Bouygues SAUR, Thames Water (owned by RWE) and Bechtel-United Utilities, to expand to every corner of the globe. Their growth is exponential; a decade ago, they serviced around 51 million people in just 12 countries. And, although less than 10 percent of the world's water systems are currently under private control, at the rate they are expanding, the top three alone will control over 70 percent of the water systems in Europe and North America in a decade.
The revenue growth of the big three has kept apace. Vivendi earned $5 billion a decade ago in its water-related revenues; by 2002, it had increased to over $12 billion. RWE, which moved into the world market with its acquisition of Britain's Thames Water, increased its water revenue a whopping 9,786 percent in 10 years. All three are among the top 100 corporations in the world; together their annual revenues in 2001 were almost $160 billion and growing at ten percent a year -- outpacing the economies of many of the countries in which they operate. They also employ more staff than most governments: Vivendi employs 295,000 worldwide; Suez employs 173,000.
There are many examples. Bolivia's famed "water war" of 2001 was a direct result of a World Bank initiative involving a Bechtel subsidiary. When the price of water tripled after privatization was introduced, thousands took to the streets until the government backed down and told the company to leave. Now, Bechtel is suing the government of Bolivia for millions of dollars under a bilateral investment treaty for losses in future profits (see World Bank's ICSID to Hear Case on Bolivia Water Privatization, Economic Justice News, October 2002).
also part of the report on "Corporate Ethics"
