 |
| Dr. M. Pushpangadan |
(This is a detailed response by Dr. M Pushpangadan regarding his
article “Malayala kavithayile Mukthiprasthana Swadheenangal: Oru Prathivadam” which
is presented on 06-11-2011 on “Sahithyavedi Prathimasa Charcha”)
Observation 1:
EIS Thilkan: Culture is always linked to political philosophie
Response
Culture cannot be limited to politics. One’s eating and dressing habits, living, singing,
dancing and spiritual traditions, etc., are all considered as parts of his
culture. Culture encompasses a variety of areas philosophic and spiritual
outlooks, social and communal behaviour, religion and related customs, language
and communication, literary trends and movements, art etc. While some of these patterns are influenced
directly or indirectly by politics, the same cannot be said about all aspects
of life.
Culture is
defined in various ways, but is mainly seen as the shared patterns of
behaviours and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding
that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns
identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of
another group. All of these are not politically influenced. Culture constitutes
the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in
artefacts. The essential core of culture consists of traditional (historically
derived) ideas and their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand,
be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements
of further action. As I mentioned in the Matunga meeting itself, as per Hindu
methodology, ‘Mind’ gives rise to ‘thinking’, which produces ‘word’, which in turn produces ‘action’,
which gives rise to ‘behaviour’ which
results in ‘culture’. The drivers for
these could be many, including but not limited to political philosophies.
The actual fears are that homogenized, western cultures
would dominate and destroy the cultural identities of smaller countries,
especially the ones of emerging economies. It is seen more as a cultural
imperialism.
But there are arguments opposing the insinuation. Thinkers like John Tomlinson have argued that
globalization has helped preserve many cultural identities. Due to space constraints, I am not going into
these arguments.
Observation 2:
 |
| EIS Thilkan |
Response
This is certainly not the view of most critics of
globalization (Shepard, Hayduk, Arundati Roy etc.). Globalization is seen by
them as an all pervasive force destroying languages, environments, economies,
cultures, political organizations, smaller systems, traditions and institutions
across regions. The institutions
mentioned above are seen as some of the instrumentalities for the spread of
globalization. The left wing critics
see these institutions as devices created by US after winning World War II, for
exploiting other countries.
Globalization is not limited to just one process or
practice. It includes a range of
processes and practices. As per Fisher, “in terms of people’s daily lives,
globalization means that the residents of one country are more likely to
consume the products of another country; to invest in another country; to earn income
from other countries; to talk on the telephone to people in other countries; to
visit other countries; to know that they are being affected by economic
developments in other countries; and to know about developments in other
countries. Globalization is much more than an economic phenomenon. The
technological and political changes that drive the process of economic
globalization have massive noneconomic consequences.” In the words of Anthony
Giddens, a leading sociologist: “Globalisation is political, technological and
cultural, as well as economic.”
The theory of exploitation of rest of the world by US
corporates using globalization and their resultant domination is a myth. Data shows that in 1971, 59% of world’s
hundred largest manufacturing corporations were in US with 66% top 100
corporations’ sales. In 2010, only 32 of the world’s one hundred largest corporations
were in US and they accounted for only 34% of the total top hundred sales. Similar trend is available for Japanese and
European corporates. The so called domination of super institutions like IMF is
just an illusory one. It is true that the countries like US and Europe are
trying to dominate these institutions by appointing their nominees as chiefs of
World Bank and IMF. However, these have
not been effective as could be seen from the actual results above. Globalisation is just not limited to the few
areas where these institutions tread.
Observation 3:
EIS Thilkan: Globalisation started with Bretton Wood conference and not
before.
Response
This argument is not shared by most writers / historians. Bretton
Wood conference was an attempt to break the trade barriers imposed by countries
post World War II, and to create a global financial system. While there were many aspects to it, its most
important five features as captured by Richard Cooper, (five point characterization)
were as under:
- Great deal of freedom for national economic policy to pursue national economic objectives (employment, price stability, economic growth) to prevent another 1930s depression.
- Fixed exchange rates—desirable against the turbulence of the 1930s and the distortionary effects of competitive devaluations.
- Convertibility of currencies for trade in goods and services; this was wanted because of dissatisfaction with extensive use of exchange controls and wartime restrictions. Governments would no longer interfere with private sector decisions on the allocation of foreign exchange and so on. (John Lipsky thought that this was the most important achievement of the Bretton Woods system).
- Medium-term lending to cover BOP deficits of a temporary nature; the creation of the IMF was at the centre of this particular initiative.
- And, if deficits turned out not to be temporary, then countries could alter their exchange rates.
The above mechanisms were primarily meant to address the
issue of protectionism while allowing sovereign governments enough leeway to regulate
and control their own economies. The emergence of global institutions later on
were to create structures that could mediate for regional and trade disputes,
help weak economies and create global
standards and processes in corporate governance, regulations etc. They can be seen as part of enabling mechanisms
in the process of international trade but on their own were hardly instrumental
in creation of trade imbalances or unemployment. The proof is economic growth
of Asian, Latin American and Middle East countries who do not (except China
which has a veto power in UN) enjoy any domination in any of these
institutions.
Globalization started much earlier. I refer to the book
Thilakan himself suggested later on: ‘The Cultures of Globalization’. Its fist section, “Globalization and
Philosophy”, mentions that globalisation had implications from the
fifteenth-century onwards.
As per
some reports, the Phoenicians (ancient inhabitants of current Lebanon, Israel
and Syria) are sometimes considered the founders of globalization, and it is
true that they were great traders, and they went to other civilizations to
trade for whatever they could and were quite successful in doing so. Others
believe that the Chinese with their silk products were indeed the founders of
globalization. Then there were the Spanish colonies, the English colonies, and
the Dutch Traders, all of which were involved in world trade, setting up
outposts and globalizing their civilizations.
Jeffrey Williamson (2002) classifies the period 1820-1914
as the first great globalization era, and the period since World War II as the
second.
The rapid increases in global integration in the second
half of the 19th century and early 20th century were driven by the outbreak of
peace in Europe and the invention of the telegraph, the steamship and the railroad.
Observation 4:
EIS Thilkan: Globalization’s effect on poverty, unemployment.
Response
Poverty reduction can be achieved only by economic growth
and the empirical evidence suggests that globally integrated economies record
higher economic growth. The other
determinant of relative poverty is that of distribution, which is not linked to
globalization.
As per Bourguignon and Morrisson (2002) and World
Bank (2003), the global poverty has come down from 54.8% in 1950 to 44% in
1960, to 35.6% in 1970, to 31.5% in 1980 to 29.6% in 1990 to 23.3% in
1999. It is reportedly declining
continuously. The decline of 21.6% in the 1990s compares well with the declines
of 19.7% in the 1950s and 19.1% in the 1960s.
Since 60% of the population is in China and India, which were pro
globalisation during the 90s, it can hardly be said that globalization
increases poverty levels. We need to
also appreciate the fact that half of African countries have recorded negative
growth rates during the last 25 years of past century. Globally, the decline in
poverty has been fastest where economic growth has been fastest – in developing
Asia – and slowest where growth performance has been worst – in Africa.
.
Globalization increases the employment. Keralites are beneficiaries of this phenomenon
and are acutely aware of this. The volume of remittances provides some evidence
on labor market integration. Remittances from overseas workers make labour
services a major export for many poor countries. The volume of remittances
increased from an annual average of $22bn in the 1970s (measured in 1995
dollars) to $81bn in the 1990s, which is more than the annual volume of global aid.
(Busch, Kuckulenz and Le Manchec, 2002).
A passage from Rudi Dornbusch (2000) says: “On the verge
of world deflation, Japan bankrupt and Europe moving at near-stalling speed
only, the emerging markets battered and the US beholding a glorious bubble –
how can this mark the end of a great century of prosperity? And yet, this has
been the best century ever, never mind the great depression, a momentary
setback from communism and socialism, and two great wars. Mankind today is far
and further ahead of where it has ever been and there are the seeds of
innovation from biology to the Internet for better and richer lives even beyond
our wildest dreams. This century, and in particular the last three decades,
have witnessed just that as the nation state has been dismantled in favor of a
global economy, state enterprise and economic repression give way to free
enterprise, and breathtaking innovation and greedy capitalism break down
government and corporate bureaucracies. Anyone who says impossible finds
himself interrupted by someone who just did it. The process is far from complete;
innovation and free enterprise spread the mindset, the success and the acceptance
of this model to the horror of status quo politicians and the sheer exuberance of
all those who are willing to embrace a can-do attitude. If this century taught
anything it is surely this: even daunting setbacks like depression and war are
only momentary tragedies – buying opportunities, if you like – in a relentless
advance of the standard of living and the scope for enjoying better lives. One
of the great economists of this century, Joseph Schumpeter - Austrian finance
minister of the 1920s and Harvard professor at the end - wrote of creative
destruction as the dramatic mechanism of economic progress. That process is at
work.”
Observation 5:
Comments by Fredrick Jameson on Globalisation (Thilakan’s
message after meeting)
Response
Jameson is an American literary critic and a Marxist
theorist. Jameson says that American Television, American music, food and
clothes are seen by many as the very heart of globalization. There is very
little evidence of this in countries like India and China.
The American / western hegemony
is seen as the major culprit. The key
feature of the world system is that as an economy it displays greater tendency
to cohesion and interconnectedness, but as a polity it remains fragmented. It
has never been transformed into a universal empire, although it has been united
more by economics than by politics. But the political disunity arising as it
does in a context of a dynamic and rapidly expanding cosmopolitan system of
commerce and finance, has also often been the spur to expansion, as well as
resulting in a highly unequal distribution of income and resources. Strong
states arose to protect and promote the national advantage of their citizens
within the expanding global economy.
This imbalance between the
economic and the political in the world system predated industrialisation, but
industrialisation intensified it. In the international state-system,
nation-states have remained the focus of decision-making and legitimacy;
international institutions have been slow to develop and have not kept pace
with economic integration. Problems arise because international institutions
are needed to create and sustain the conditions for a global economic order.
The type of governance that is necessary to sustain national markets is also
necessary for global markets. States can enforce rates within the territories
they control-the problem is the exchanges, which spill over state frontiers.
A global economy requires the
supply of certain functions if it is to function satisfactorily. A global
polity would be one means of providing these but it is not the only one.
Another alternative is that one of the states in the international state system
is so dominant that it exercises hegemony over the other leading states and can
either impose or get agreement to a system of international rights and norms.
Such a condition of hegemony develops when one state has such economic
supremacy that no other state or combination of states is able to challenge it
effectively. The main dimensions of economic supremacy lie in production
(technological lead), commerce (share of world trade), and finance
(international credit and currency). If a state enjoys supremacy in all three
areas it possesses the ability to exercise hegemony, and to some extent to
assume state functions for the whole of the world system as though it were the
central authority.
The other perspective on the
understanding of hegemony is associated with Gramsci. The exercise of power entails the use of both
coercion and consent, and the most stable polities are those where consent is
prominent. The focus is less on the structural factors, which establish the
possibility of hegemony as on the way in which power is accepted as legitimate
through ideological and cultural persuasion. The emphasis is on how a
particular conception of world order is created and sustained through a myriad
of agencies and organisations, and the incorporation of many different
interests into an overarching political project. The ideological aspect of
hegemony is what is most significant about it.
Observation 6:
 |
| K Rajan |
Response
This is a contentious issue. I am
enclosing herewith a study by Asian Development Bank in 2010 (By Rana Hasan,
Priya Ranjan and others, October 2010) which arrives at opposite
conclusion.
There are two factors here. As a thumb rule, if the economy grows at 7%,
it can create a job growth rate of about 2.25 to 2.5%. If the population growth
is contained below that, which India is currently able to achieve, the
unemployment level gets reduced. This
also assumes that the change in adult population joining the job market is in
line with the net addition in population, which may not be always correct. But the trend would be a useful benchmark on
a long term basis. Thus if Indian
economy grows at more than 7% per year, and population growth is under 2%, the
fair assumption is that unemployment is declining. There are caveats like income distribution
inequality, concentration of power etc., which distort these assumptions but in
a large and diversified economy like ours, and in the absence of reliable data
capturing methods, these thumb rules are relatively better tools of
measurement.
Observation 7:
K. Rajan: Religion was not a major factor in globalization in the
initial stages
Response
As per The Hedgehog Review (Institute for Advanced
studies in Culture - Virginia University), “The history of Christianity, of
course, can be understood in part as an early effort to create a global network
of believers. Its extraordinary growth and influence as a world religion was a
result of a link between its own global ambitions and the expansion of various
political and economic regimes. It succeeded as a globalizing force long before
there was a phenomenon called globalization.
Elements of this historical pattern can be found in Buddhism, Islam, and
other faiths as well.”
Observation 8:
K. Rajan: Drug prices have gone up due to globalization.
Response
These cannot be attributed to
globalization. In any country or
location, the traders or producers would tend to charge the maximum for their
products. Profit maximization is the ultimate aim and objective of all traders
and this trend can be controlled only by appropriate levels of healthy competition,
effective regulation and its honest implementation. Here the governments and regulatory agencies
have a big role to play. The high
telephone charges earlier were a result of poor competition. High cost products can also be made
affordable by subsidization. For example, certain products like life saving
drugs have to be controlled or subsidized by governments. This is applicable to
non globalised, domestic products like fertilizers, cooking gas, power etc.
Observation 9:
K. Rajan: Even without globalization, progress would have happened.
Response
Theoretically yes. But reinventing them would have taken
centuries and would have wasted human and natural resources. Think of the
progress made in medicine, space technology, carbon dating, DNA and chemical
analysis, computers etc. Should we reinvent all these?
The whole emphasis of my paper
was to suggest that the intellectual and creative efforts of one individual
anywhere in the world, irrespective of his citizenship or political ideology, should
ultimately benefit all the people in the globe (ideally all the living
creatures in the world). That is what we mean by global citizen as envisaged in
Hindu way of life. Rajan’s point goes against the principle.
The same goes with other aspects
of life. The historical knowledge base
consisting of political philosophies, spiritual writings of various religions,
philosophic and literary creations, scientific and social research findings
related to various fields, all should belong to and be shared by all for the
common good. There are issues here in
terms of ownership, patents and commercialization. But these are more matters of
negotiation. The solution certainly does
not lie in reinventing all these knowledge in each geographic pocket and making
them isolated islands of knowledge with Chinese walls in between.
Like the running theme in my
article, here again we will find many arguments for and against. This is the way life is. The different colours and sounds of life are
what make it very interesting and challenging.
(M. Pushpangadan)
Dated 27th November 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment