Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance

James H. Mittelman, Professor of International Relations in the School of International Service at American University, Washington, D.C.

On June 28, 2000, Professor Mittelman visited the Carnegie Endowment to present the findings and conclusions of his recent book The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. The majority of globalization literature thus far has focused upon the experiences of Western countries. The Globalization Syndrome, conversely, centers on the experiences of people in non-Western countries (in particular East Asian and Southern African countries), and examines those societies and groups that have been hurt by the processes of globalization. These are individuals and collectivities at the bottom of the world hierarchy that have not benefited from globalization, people on the fringes of society, the unemployed, and the marginalized, especially women and children, in developing countries.

A Concept of Globalization

Professor Mittelman discussed various conceptual frameworks of globalization. Although the current literature on globalization offers many definitions, two main categories are prevalent. The first of these points to an increase in interconnections, or interdependence, a rise in transnational flows, and an intensification of processes such that the world is becoming a single place. The second category is more theoretical and emphasizes the compression of time and space. Through new technologies and the decreased costs of travel and communication, there has been a shrinking of time and a shift in traditional notions of space. For example, Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics argues that space, being a structure of social activities, is increasingly dislocated from place, which is understood as the geographical setting of a social activity. Professor Mittelman does not reject either of these interpretations, but instead argues that they do not go far enough. Both interpretations are ambiguous about social stratification and the hierarchical structures of power that globalization facilitates.

Professor Mittelman has attempted to develop another concept of globalization. As experienced from below, globalization means a historical transformation. In economic terms, this has meant a drastic change in peoples' livelihoods. Professor Mittelman cited the sudden emergence of migrant industrial workers in China who have left their families in search of jobs in the country's "special economic zones." In political terms, globalization has resulted in a loss in the degree of control exercised locally. The locus of power is gradually shifting in various proportions above and below the territorial state. Finally, globalization has had a cultural impact, resulting in a devaluation of an indigenous society's achievements or perceptions of them. In addition, globalization is a domain of knowledge. It is not a fully-fledged paradigm but a critical approach that helps to explain the intricacy and variability of the ways the world is structured. Professor Mittelman's globalization framework thus interrelates multiple levels of analysis, encompassing economics, politics, society, and culture.

The Impact of Globalization

Professor Mittelman presented three arguments on the consequences of globalization. He first argued that globalization is not a unified phenomenon, but a syndrome of processes and activities. The term "syndrome" designates a pattern of related characteristics of the human condition, or, more specifically, within the global political economy. "Syndrome" is not meant to convey the medical sense of symptoms of a disease, for globalization is by no means an abnormality. Globalization has become normalized as a dominant set of ideas and a policy framework, as seen with the proliferation of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization around the globe.

Professor Mittelman's second argument is that integral to the globalization "syndrome" are the interactions between the global division of labor and power (GDLP), the new regionalism, and resistance politics. He presented these interactions as a triangulated structure:

The Global Division of Labor and Power (GDLP)

New Regionalism Resistance Politics

The GDLP is the anatomy of the global political economy. It is composed of a spatial reorganization of production among world regions, large scale flows of migration among and within them, complex webs of networks that connect production processes and buyers and sellers, and the emergence of transnational cultural networks (e.g., familial ties) that mediate among these processes. The GDLP has manifested itself in a new regionalism. Previous instances of regionalism, such as during early periods of the twentieth century and the Cold War, were founded upon regionally based security and military alliances, as with NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The new regionalism, however, is more complex. Globalization advances through macroregional projects sponsored by states and economic forces seeking to open larger markets as a means toward greater competitiveness. Thus, throughout the world today there is an "urge to merge," as seen with the emergence of regional economic groupings, such as NAFTA and MERCOSUR. Finally, the GDLP and the new regionalism provoke resistant politics. The specific configuration of power manifested through the GDLP and the new regionalism begets resistant movements, often transnational coalitions (e.g., environmental justice coalitions), that press issues onto the global agenda.

Professor Mittelman's third argument is that globalization fosters a number of global tensions and frictions that lie behind the policy debates. While globalization offers major benefits, including gains in productivity, technological advances, higher standards of living, more jobs, broader access to consumer products at lower costs, widespread dissemination of information and knowledge, it also leads to global problems. As economic globalization accelerates across borders, it horizontal capital flows are difficult to control. The vertical Westphalian state, a product of the seventeenth century, must grapple with the horizontal nature of globalization. Closely related, a tension emerges between the forces of horizontal economic globalization, which are remote and certainly nondemocratic, and the increasing global demands for greater accountability.

There is also a clash between globalization and marginalization. While some regions of the world have benefited from globalization, there are entire zones that have been left out of the process. These zones are not strictly spatial in a geographic sense-race, religion, and gender all factor into the distribution of globalization's benefits. An underlying question emerges: Is globalization ethically sustainable? While resistance movements raise this question, it is important to search for alternatives so that the productive potential of globalization can serve the goal of equity.

Alternative Visions of Globalization

Professor Mittelman concluded his presentation by focusing upon possible alternative visions and principles upon which globalization could advance. He argued that within the globalization syndrome, real policy choices do exist. Professor Mittelman first discussed possible institutional reforms within the domestic arena that could occur through administrative and legal procedures. He noted debates about "reregulation" in Latin America that have spread in response to the Asian economic crisis and the buildup of social problems linked to neoliberal policies. Professor Mittelman cited proposed national reforms in the financial realm, such as tougher bank standards, curbs on hedge funds, and an "exit tax" which would penalize investors for quickly withdrawing their money from a country. A central idea behind certain domestic reforms is to emphasize investment in the real economy, rather than to encourage short-term speculative capital.

Professor Mittelman also mentioned possible global institutional reforms, including some of the IMF's recommendations, most notably transparency and greater accountability by government. An additional proposal for international reform is the Tobin tax, which would place a small charge on cross-border capital flows in order to discourage the rapid transfers by speculators that upset vulnerable economies. Other suggestions are the creation of an "early warning system" to alert the world to approaching economic trends, the creation of a global central bank, and the establishment of semifixed exchange rates among leading currencies. Professor Mittelman noted, however, that such alternatives would not be successful if they fail to come to terms with the power relations inscribed in globalization.

The second category of alternatives calls for a structural change in globalization. On the right of the political spectrum, politicians and intellectuals have argued for a reassertion of identities based on membership in religious, racial, ethnic, or linguistic communities subject to globalizing forces. Right-wing movements, especially in Europe and the United States, have opposed the major structural elements of globalization that challenge national culture and sovereignty, and facilitate greater immigration flows. Xenophobic groups have not only invoked a sense of nativism, but they have also contested regional pacts such as NAFTA, arguing that they are the precursor to world government.

The final category of alternatives-which is only in its embryonic stages-focuses upon whether globalization is indefinitely sustainable or is merely a finite period of history. In this group, critics of globalization argue that there is no going back to pre-globalization conditions. They are promoting the relaxation of sovereignty in favor of identities at other levels. This involves the redrawing of the boundaries of the global political economy. The approach emphasizes bottom-up processes that engage and localize the benefits of globalization, resulting in a greater diffusion of power. It also seeks participatory democratic control of market forces and the assertion of greater autonomy relative to globalizing structures.

Discussion

Many interesting viewpoints were expressed during the discussion section. One participant argued that countries that have adopted neoliberal economic policies and have integrated themselves into the global economy have greater increases in living standards than countries that have failed to embrace globalization. Professor Mittelman countered this claim by arguing that there has been a redistribution of poverty around the world and within individual countries. This has resulted in an increase in social inequality. He also maintained that poverty is more than statistical figures. There are relative poverty standards and subjective concerns of people, such as the degradation of indigenous culture, that cannot be accounted for through statistical measures of absolute poverty.

Other participants inquired as to how globalization can be made more democratic and can reflect local concerns. Professor Mittelman discussed ways in which local communities are forming networks of civil society organizations that address common concerns among towns and villages in the developing world. He also argued that the traditional liberal democracy model might not be applicable to all societies. In such cases, local community groups are using other discourses-such as religious traditions-to disseminate views expressing the need for equality and the protection of the environment and human rights.

Mittelman, James. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Prepared by Jonathan Blavin, Junior Fellow.