As documented elsewhere, my own interest in globalization goes way back, to days when the term didn't even exist. Instead, the international economics debate was framed in terms of buzzwords like interdependence (in the mainstream) and core and periphery (on the left). Earlier globalization Pearls (see The Globalization Archives) were informed primarily by that dated academic immersion, backed up with spotty updating of current debates in academia and elsewhere. I suppose I was motivated by a perverse, belated desire to return to the academic trenches and a professional involvement in the outsourcing industry here in the Philippines, which was at the time just emerging.
Over the last couple of years, I have continued my involvement in the outsourcing space (often identified with call centers, but also including medical transcription, animation, and business process outsourcing (BPO)). At the same time, my consulting work has come full circle to focus on the development sector, which is what brought me to the Philippines 20 years ago. Indeed, I consider myself fortunate to be doing work that may have some positive impact on the lives of poor people in Asia (albeit tempered by an awareness that thinking Big Picture strategy and writing documents in the inimitable jargon of development agencies is not quite the same as serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in a rural Cambodian village or digging wells for poor families in Afghanistan).
Thus, please excuse the following free associations about globalization, reflecting my own experiences and intellectual idiosyncracies, with sincere apologies to Immanuel Wallerstein and envious glances at Thomas Friedman. Also note that, consistent with the Pearl ethos, I am wont to make logical leaps that may or may not stand up to critical analysis, try hard to balance often conflicting points of view (which is not quite the same as saying I never take a firm position on anything), and give new meaning to the word "oversimplification". Sorry 'bout that.
One of the flashpoints, as often expressed in the street actions aimed at the nearest McDonalds or Starbucks, is the ongoing homogenization of global culture. Traditional cultures and the values that go with them are in dire straits, and many blame the rapid spread of American culture (Hollywood movies, web sites, pop music, advertising icons), all part of the endless feedback loop of economic, political, and cultural globalization.
Most of the symbols and icons that dominate advertising messages in media ranging from billboards to MTV to movie product placements are associated with the United States and the norm of conspicuous consumption. The generation that grew up during the Great Depression had internalized strong values of thrift, avoiding debt, and living within your means. But the post-war years saw an explosion of consumerism as the boys came home from the war, went to work for corporate America, and bought Levittown-type houses made of ticky-tack in suburbs around the country. The Madison Avenue admen hit their stride as they developed dynamite ad campaigns selling everything from cigarettes (Winston tastes good like a cigarette should) to cars (see the USA in your Chevrolet) to soap (99 44/100% pure). While social critics like Vance Packard pointed out the shallow core of consumerism and crass materialism, few were listening.
Although my own boomer generation came along and rebelled against many of those symbols and the perceived hypocrisy of our parents, that rebellion ultimately turned out to be superficial and non-sustainable. How many earnest young hippies of 1970 are, in middle age, striving to reach the top in this or that profession? How many middle-aged parents now gripe at their kids about that "noise you call music"? (Gulp, sounds like... well, me). Many of the values we espoused that seemed so radical at the time are now as mainstream as you can get - "do you own thing" begets "just do it", Beatles and Stones songs now soundtracks for slickly produced TV ads, and Mick singin' Street Fightin' Man as he celebrates his 60th birthday. Holy cognitive dissonance!
Certainly many of the red, white, and blue symbols (and brands) are immediately recognizable by a large proportion of the world's population, from Chicago gangbangers to Uzbek gangsters to Lagos street kids. Think Levi's 501 jeans, golden arches, Coca Cola. People around the orb share a repertoire of fantasies and phantasmagoric images, with the sun sinking gloriously in the west as the Marlboro Man gracefully leans forward in the saddle to fire up a cancer stick. Indeed, it often seems that Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald are tag-teaming the developing world, with the outcome carefully scripted to bring about the inevitable triumph of capitalism and its associated imagery. (None of the stiffs ever beat Hulk Hogan in his WWF prime either).
The ubiquitous images provide a global point of reference for displaced and no-longer-centered people around the world. As traditional culture deteriorates, poor people move from their villages to the metropole, watch TV and the Terminator (Pinoy street kids who speak little English know how to say "hasta la vista, baby" as part of their cops and robbers games in dingy Manila streets), and participate vicariously in the throbbing beat of MTV culture. Here in the Philippines, most popular music is imitative Los Angeles a few months late and the word "signature" takes on new meaning as everybody tries to keep up with the Santos family (keeping up with the Jones's having been one of those older generation things my generation rebelled against). The fact that 90% of the designer brand products may be knockoffs is beside the point to the Pinoy shopper, as long as the well-displayed logo is the right one.
To play devil's advocate, one could argue that American ad campaigns have, at least in certain historical and cultural contexts, fulfilled a liberating function (say in the transition economies of Eastern Europe in the early-to-mid 1990s when teenagers and young adults were exposed for the first time to messages like "it's OK to rebel against your parents/Big Brother") Whatever spin you put on it, global culture has taken on a life of its own and now exists without specific reference to the point of origin. One could use postmodern terms like decontextualized, I suppose, although I would tend more towards side references to McLuhanville...
Icon #1: Marlboro man. Elsewhere, I have dealt at some length with the imagery of the wild west (see The Wild Wild West and the American Psyche). One of the more famous images reflecting a vision of America as great and endless empty spaces is that of the utterly deserted roadside gas station along Route 66 or its equivalent, arid desert all around and stunning sunset in progress, a Corvette pulls into the station to fill 'er up, a coverall-clad hick sucking on a toothpick pumps the gas, while a curvaceous blonde thumbs a ride conveniently nearby. Ah, the wonder of the beckoning wild blue yonder. A couple of years ago, a Dutch non-alcoholic beer (Stender) used more or less that imagery to great effect, despite the fact that the majority of the target audience had probably never been any closer to Arizona than London. But they knew what the images signified.
Note also that those same Western/empty space images have now been transferred to outer space and action flicks (Schwarzenneger as John Wayne?). Not a coincidence that the action genre accounts for the most profitable products of the Hollywood mill (action movies don't even need to turn a profit stateside, the real bucks are in the residuals). Such flicks have simple plots (plot? what plot?), don't require a great deal of English fluency to follow, and appeal to gut instinct and the desire to bash folks who piss you off. At the same time, they reinforce American values of good triumphing over evil and the means justifying the end. Call it ongoing propaganda in support of the American dream, now morphed into a globalized vision of shared icons, distorted values, and subtle angst about one's own reality never quite measuring up.
Icon #2: His Airness. Everybody on the planet knows Michael Jordan, and I don't begrudge him his wealth or fame. As a lifelong hoopster (see Pinoy Hoop Dreams), I have long appreciated his magic. So it was a bit disorienting a few days ago when I was walking towards the elevator in a Makati five-star, only to find myself suddenly surrounded by five very tall dudes, four of 'em black with dreadlocks, the other a blonde white guy, all between 6'3 and 6'8 or so, all lugging bags of freshly purchased athletic gear from the ritzy mall across the streets - mostly Nike, but I also spotted some Adidas and And 1 boxes - swaggering a bit as they enjoyed the undisguised stares of the folks in the lobby (note that Filipinos never disguise their stares, at least when aimed at foreigners not likely to go amok on them).
I was hoping they would take the other direction, but they were also headed upstairs, so I crowded into an elevator with the whole grip. They seemed to be conversing in grunts, which is the norm in hip-hop culture, so I at first figured them for a visiting team from the states. But I did a quick double take when I realized the grunts were actually colloquial Francais and possibly Italiano - holy Euro invasion! My neurons came to the rescue as I remembered that there was a troupe of traveling European and African (ex-French colonies) dunksters in town to do acrobatic stunts and flying cartwheels at various malls around town. I reckon that's gotta be globalization of one type or another.
Let's make an abrupt shift of gears and briefly touch on the complex interrelationship amongst globalization, poverty, and inequality (see the Globalization Files for more detailed ruminations in this vein).
When I was a graduate student, there was a lot of talk about the "trickle down effects" that would result when you supported economic growth in a developing country. Initially, it was seen as inevitable that the upper classes would derive the demonstrable benefits of economic development. When you support development based on import substitution, you work with domestic élites; when you support agriculture in essentially feudal countries, you support the plantation owners; and when you invest in assembly plants, you make the industrialists richer.
Walt W. Rostow made a career out of arguing that all countries march through certain stages of development, approximately the same ones that the Western countries went through beginning with the industrial revolution. The traditional development economics argument was that it is necessary early on to create economic growth, even if it temporarily increases inequality. Not to worry, the economic benefits will eventually trickle down in the form of job creation, small business opportunities, whatever.
That theory was gradually discredited and few commentators today dare make such a bald case for working solely with domestic élites and ignoring the poor. However, many theorists and development agencies continue to perceive globalization is the greatest thing since sliced bread, with international trade and capital flows leading the way to a better world. London's Centre for Economic Policy Research conducted a review of research on globalization and concluded that most globalization critics were "poorly informed about the historical record, and appear not to be aware of the contribution played by globalization in the struggle against poverty". According to these eminent economists, the primary benefits (in terms of reducing poverty) derive from integration (better economic ties among countries), reduced tariffs and increased international trade, and freer flows of investment.
The World Bank has issued numerous reports with fancy statistical analyses showing that globalization is the key to "curing poverty". Indeed, the principles of the Doha Round (now referred to as "fair markets") are thoroughly integrated into the global development agenda. Much of the money funneled through the multilateral development banks is lent contingent on compliance to those principles and IMF loans have long been pegged to opening markets.
There has been some progress in alleviating global poverty over the last two decades or so (although how much of that success can be attributed to globalization is another question). According to a Columbia University study ("The World Distribution of Income"), 550 million people (17% of global population) lived below the dollar-a-day line in 1970, as compared to 350 million (6.7%) today. In the Philippines, poverty decreased by about 1% a year through the 1990s, but has increased again since 1997 (see Notes on Poverty in the Philippines). The global figures, however, are hard to interpret because the world two largest countries (China and India) grew by leaps and bounds; since they were "very poor" in 1970 and are no longer considered so, their rapid rise makes the overall average income higher.
But inequality is another story. Cross-national comparisons of national income statistics show an ever-increasing dispersion of average incomes. If you compare the ratio of the average income of the highest income countries (US, Western Europe) with the poorest countries (sub-Saharan Africa). The gap has never been larger. At the same time, the gap between rich and poor within countries like the Philippines continues to widen.
Such evidence supports the arguments of globo-critics (globophobes), primarily academics and activists from developing countries. From this perspective, globalization contributes to ever-greater inequality, concentration of income, environmental degradation, exploitation of labor (especially poor and female workers), and the undermining of fiscal viability of developing country governments (especially their ability to raise taxes to improve social services). Critics are also quick to point out that today's near-instantaneous flows of capital create tremendous instability in the global system, with the victimized party often being a developing country that suddenly fell out of favor with investors (case in point Thailand 1997). Indeed, according to the 1999 Human Development Report: "...When the market goes too far in dominating social and political outcomes, the opportunities and rewards of globalization spread unequally and inequitably... The past decade has shown increasing concentration of income, resources, and wealth".
The bottom line: Globalization is a theoretical, abstract, origins-in-academia construct that has been overused, oversimplified, and deeply misunderstood. Globalization excludes some and includes others; marginalizes some and elevates others; forces some below the poverty line and makes other wealthy. A couple of years ago, everybody was arguing (like me?) that globalization has taken on a life of its own, a veritable freight train of global integration that can never be stopped. Now, what with SARS, Iraq and the closing of America's borders, and brewing problems in the international economy, globalization seems to have lost a bit of momentum. But even so, there is little chance of going backwards and, even if the pace of integration slows a tad bit, this state of "globalization" (however defined) will continue to define our reality for the foreseeable future.
View the original article here
MGAZINE BLOG
ReplyDelete