What do Australian Historians and Intellectuals have to Say About Globalistion?
The Inevitability Discourse of Globalisation
by Emma Pearce
A key element of the discourse about globalisation is the belief that globalisation is inevitable and irresistible. Examine the politics of the discourse about globalisation. Who promotes this discourse and what are its effects?
The inevitability and irresistibility of globalisation
is central to globalisation discourse. Globalisation, whether we like it or
not, is purported as an unstoppable force. This force will transform the world
into one homogenous group, dominated by free market principles and transnational
corporations (TNCs), with an insignificant nation-state. This discourse has
been gaining prominence over the last 30 years as capital began increasing
its power relative to labour, and political power changed. There are advocates,
adversaries and those who are indifferent towards globalisation. The advocates
are those who promote globalisation, even in the face of adverse effects for,
and opposition from, the majority. The discourse is an expression of power
by the elite over the weak. It results in governments and businesses adopting
policies to the detriment of many, and the benefit of capital. It demoralises
the losers of globalisation, in particular, workers.
Globalisation is seen as an unstoppable force
that moves us towards a global economy, leaving governments and corporations
with no alternative to implement policies that reflect this (Wiseman 1996,
p 27). As Bryan and Farrell (1996, p 13) state, “now, like it or not, we are
becoming citizens of the world”. This
essay takes the view of Dicken, Peck and Tickell (1997), which differs to
“hypercritical” and “boosters” claims. Globalisation is seen as a process.
It moves us towards a world of mobile and footloose capital, TNCs being all-powerful
agents of change, market forces being dominant, an insignificant nation-state,
and homogenisation of social, political and economic conditions (Dicken et
al. 1997, p 160). This process of globalisation is claimed to lead to incredible
levels of economic growth in both developed and developing countries (Bryan
and Farrell 1996, p 6).
Globalisation being inevitable means we have
no choice and the world will become global. Fukuyama (Wiseman 1996, p27) claims
we have reached the “end of history” as global capitalism is the winner in
the struggle for power. Those who claim globalisation is inevitable view history
as a linear process; one where the only outcome will be globalisation. However,
Petras (1999, p19) asserts this idea is false, as throughout history, different
outcomes have arisen from similar circumstances. The inevitability of globalisation
is based on “contingency, not inevitability” (Petras 1999, p20). Furthermore,
Dicken et al. (1997, p 164) assert that globalisation is not a “free-floating”
construct and is instead “constituted through those very practices which it
subsequently transforms.” Therefore, globalisation is not some invisible force,
but something that is projected through other structures. Globalisation is
based on an ideological campaign and not “the ‘natural unfolding’ of the state”
(Petras 1999, p20). Despite the opposition to globalisation from the majority,
its inability to provide predicted growth (Petras 1999), the inequalities
it produces and the instability that results (McQuaig 1999), the inevitability
of globalisation is being touted more fervently. This is a case of escalating
commitment, where there is increased commitment to an idea, even in the face
of evidence against it (Petras 1999 p21).
The discourse of inevitability has gained momentum
since the 1970s. A change in power has occurred over the past 30 years, from
labour to capital. This was partly due to the breakdown in the Fordist means
of production and capital accumulation. The breakdown in Fordism occurred
because the wages demands of labour were eating into profit, capital perceived
the state as too large, international competition increased, productivity
decreased and financial capital was trapped within nations (Bell 1997, p 81).
Capital also took advantage of a bureaucratic union movement to push their
own agenda forward (Petras 1999, p14-15). Furthermore, political power moved away from “leftist, populist
and nationalist regimes toward more global government” (Petras 1999, p24).
Globalists did not react to problems in these systems of governance, they
intervened to ensure such an outcome occurred. The change in class power and
political power resulted in a shift towards, and promotion of, the globalist
ideologies and discourses (Petras 1999, p 15).
According to Petras (1999), there are three
groups involved in the politics of globalisation. These identified as a result
of examining globalisation as a continuation of the exploitative class relations
of imperialism (Petras 1999). First are the advocates of globalisation. These
include the world’s ascending nations and governments; those in dominated
countries with an export orientation; the academics and technocrats who produce
globalist theories and concepts; and commercial interests, with a focus on
exporting and importing. There are also adversaries to globalisation. These
consist of local peasant farmers of dominated countries; workers in both dominated
and imperial nations; public employees; and small business. Third is the ambivalent
group, who both benefits and lose from of globalisation. Those who benefit
from globalisation promote the discourse of its inevitability. Therefore,
the advocates promote the discourse.
The first promoter of the discourse is the nation-state.
While some people, such as Ohame (1995), profess globalisation has weakened
the nation-state, Petras (1999, p25) claim, “the nation-state, far from weakening
with globalization, became an essential political support in spreading the
message.” The creation of a global economy is “highly dependent on the nation-state
for its projections abroad” (Petras 1999, p12). The nation-state is the main
political instrument for promoting the ideology of globalisation. Politicians
such as Margaret Thatcher stated “There Is No Alternative” to globalisation
(Wiseman 1996). Dicken et al. (1997 p159) argue statements like this are dangerous
as they “naturalize the global” and reinforce it as an inevitable process.
Other promoters of this discourse are the academics
and technocrats who produce the theories. Leyshon (1997) argues this group
is very business-oriented. Their “scripts and understandings of global economic
and political transformation (are produced) for a largely corporate audience”
(Leyshon 1997, p143). This group formulate their ideas from a business perspective
and communicate it to the corporate sector. However, such a discourse is also
promoted to governments. For example, many Australian academic economists
accept the inevitability of globalisation and recommend governments implement
policies that encourage international competitiveness (Kasper 1992, cited
in Wiseman 1996).
The final promoter of this discourse is the
commercial class. Roberts (Leyshon 1997) states that companies and managers
themselves are responsible for promoting much of the discourse about globalisation.
Leyshon (1997) maintains these groups are only interested in developing corporate
strategy and as a result, the effects upon the majority are not considered.
They present a partial representation of the world and create a self-affirming
discourse. The discourse in this group has been so successful due to its simplicity.
It provides some understanding of complex issues. It not only provides an
explanation, but also a program of action. For example, John McGuigan, chairman
of a technology company states, “it’s critical to understand that it’s a global
game. Whereas before you could do reasonably well if you take a parochial
approach, I think that is not open anymore” (James 1999). This means companies
have to act on a global scale, as there is no alternative. International competitiveness
is a major policy promoted by the commercial classes. It is promoted as a
response to the globalisation process that is occurring and has become a “fact
of life that is so obvious that we unthinkingly acquiesce to its dictates”
(Rinehart 1995, p 14).
The discourse of the inevitability of globalisation
is all about power. It is a way for those in power to control their adversaries.
Seiler (1999 p1) claims,
“Globalisation…grows out of
power, justifying the continuing control
of that power by the regimes
and elites which possess it, and suggesting
to the powerless that their
best and indeed only choice it to accede in
the construct and to the power
sustaining it.”
It is an attempt to demoralise adversaries and
creates a sense of defeatism (Cox 1992 and Petras 1999). The discourse produces
a “deepening and extension of exploitative class relations” (Petras 1999,
p6). The power of the advocates of the adversaries of globalisation are compounded
by the by the fact that advocates are linked better internationally than the
adversaries (Petras 1999 p11). Also, the adversaries of globalisation are
classes within the system that is created by, and for the advantage of, the
advocates (Petras 1999, p17). The discourse is an attempt to ensure the interests
of the powerful are continually looked after, at the expense of the weak.
This discourse effects the nation-state. Dicken
at al. (1997 p159) state a consequence of believing the inevitability of globalisation
is that governments are perceived as being “hollowed out.” This makes some
forms of government intervention viewed as ineffective. The inevitability
discourse asserts that footloose capital, a part of globalisation, overrides
the ability of governments to formulate any effective macroeconomic policy
(Cox 1992, p427). The transfer of power has occurred from democratically elected
governments to corporate interests. It leads to governments saying they are
powerless in the world economy and results in what McQuaig (1999, p xi) describes
as a “cult of impotence.” This has the effect of “breeding political defeatism…(and)
also serves to legitimate and rationalize certain neo-liberal strategies”
(Dicken et al. 1997). Neoliberalism involves creating a smaller state by reducing
expenditure, deregulation with the aim to create free markets, privatisation
and the introducing market principles into every area of economic life (Broomhill
1996, p22). Pursuing such policies are highly favourable to capital with a
global focus (Teeple 1995). Neoliberalism also results in the nation-state
reducing in size, due to expenditure cuts, and importance, as accepting these
policies creates a harmonised global economy (Teeple 1995). However, this
process is not completed and governments still have some power (Broomhill
1996). McQuaig (1999) believes the loss of power of the nation-state is exaggerated
and that governments still have power. Furthermore, power that has been lost
was given away by governments initially. The effects of the inevitability
discourse of globalisation have a self-fulfilling effect on the nation-state.
By saying that globalisation is inevitable, governments change their policies
to reflect this. As a result the globalisation process is able to gain momentum.
The discourse of globalisation also effects
citizens. Governments implement policies that support globalisation could
not succeed without public support (McQuaig 1999 p xiii). However, this has
occurred because voters have been swayed by the discourse of globalisation.
They have come to believe that no alternative is possible and the process
of globalisation has eliminated “democratic options that once existed” (McQuaig
1999, p xiii).
The inevitability discourse also effects corporations.
Companies now believe they compete in a global environment and must implement
policies to reflect this. Competing internationally is important and “efficiency
is becoming the sole imperative” for organisations (James 1999, p 71). Becoming
internationally competitive has arisen as a major policy for corporations
and is becoming a “force that is useless to question or resist” (Rinehart
1995, p14). Competitiveness is promoted as a good thing for all and a “win-win”
situation (Rinehart 1995). It is used by capital to justify their actions
that cause detriment to others, such as opposing unions and reducing wages
(Rinehart 1995, p15). Now, it is also increasingly used by supposedly footloose
capital as a form of blackmail. Corporations threaten to move offshore if
conditions are not adequate for them to conduct business in a host nation
(Rinehart 1995, p15). Increasingly, corporations put pressure on countries
to provide internationally competitive wages and taxes concessions in exchange
for business investment (Wiseman 1996, p27). These are provided, as the mobility
of capital is not questioned (Cox 1992). Promoting such a strategy benefits
corporations only and creates a “race to the bottom” for all others (Rinehart
1995, p22). Workers suffer wages cuts, decreased job security and fewer employment
opportunities (Rinehart 1995). The inevitability of globalisation effects
the strategies implemented by corporations. Internationally competitiveness
is used to justify cutbacks to increase profitability. Mobility is used to
coerce more favourable local business conditions. These both serve to increase
the power of capital.
Finally, the inevitability discourse effects
workers. Workers have been major loses in the shift of power towards capital
(Petras 1999). The discourse promoted by the advocates are overgeneralised
and “serve to mystify” workers (Cox 1997, p177). It also creates a sense of
“defeatism” for workers (Cox 1992, p427).
Workers have become defensive in a situation where “a deeper understanding
of capital, and the pressures and temptations to which firms are subject,
might have led to a better bargaining power for labour” (Cox 1997, p178).
Wiseman (1996) states the union movement in industrial nations have accepted
this inevitability and as a result, union’s focus has changed. Instead of
attacking the power of capital, labour has been placed on the back foot. It
fights to maintain union membership and protect jobs, rather than seeking
increased power relative to capital (Wiseman 1996, p31). The discourse of
inevitability has resulted in workers becoming reactive rather than proactive.
Capital has increased its class and political
power over labour in the past 30 years. The discourse of the inevitability
of globalisation is an attempt to reinforce that power. It results in governments
adopting policies that promote the interests of capital, and in effect, create
a self-fulfilling prophecy of the inevitability discourse. Corporations use
the discourse to promote their own interests, at the expense of nations and
workers. The discourse creates a sense of defeatism in adversaries of globalisation.
In order to overcome this, adversaries must understand that globalisation
is not unavoidable. Globalisation is not an unstoppable force, but rather,
is created through those who support it. A deeper understanding of the globalisation
discourse is required so adversaries are not mystified by its rhetoric and
can take action against its undesirable effects.
Bell, S (1997) “A watershed in political economy.” Ungoverning the
economy: the political economy of Australian economic policy, Melbourne:
Oxford University Press, pp 80-121.
Broomhill, R (1996) “Globalisation, neoliberalism and restructuring the
public sector.” Australian Options, 2 (5), pp 21-26.
Bryan, L and Farrell, D (1996) “Global capital revolution.” Market
Unbound: Unleashing Global Capitalism, New York: Wiley & Sons, pp
1-13.
Cox, K (1992) “The politics of globalization: A sceptic’s view.” Political
Geography, 11 (5), pp 427-429.
Cox, K (1997) “Globalization and geographies of workers’ struggle in the
late twentieth century.” Geographies of Economies, Ed. Lee, R and Wills,
J, London: Arnold, pp 177-185.
Dicken, P; Peck, J and Tickell, A (1997) “Unpacking the global.” Geographies
of Economies, Ed. Lee, R and Wills, J, London: Arnold, pp 158-166.
James, D (1999) “Globalisation: Australia’s second chance.” Business
Review Weekly, 24 September, pp 68-75.
Leyshon, A (1997) “True stories? Global dreams, global nightmares, and
writing globalisation.” Geographies of Economies, Ed. Lee, R and Wills,
J, London: Arnold, pp 133-146.
McQuaig, L (1999) The Cult of Impotence: Selling the Myth of Powerlessness
in the Global Economy, Toronto: Penguin, pp xi-xviii.
Ohmae, K (1995) “Putting global logic first.” The Evolving Global Economy,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp 119-125.
Petras, J (1999) “Globalization: a critical analysis.” Journal of Contemporary
Asia, 29 (1), pp 3-37.
Rinehart, J (1995) “The ideology of competitiveness.” Monthly Review,
47 (5), pp 14-23.
Seiler, J (2000) “Deconstructing Globalisation.” African News Service, April 19.
Teeple, G (1995) “Neo-liberal policies and their rationale.” Globalization
and the Decline of Social Reform” Toronto: Garamond Press, pp 75-127.
Wiseman, J (1996) “Life on the global racetrack: the nature and implication
of globalisation.” Just Policy, no. 6, pp 26-33.