Mimicking Globalization

The debate continues. Whether globalization is good or bad continues to intrigue many historians, especially John Micklethwait, Adrian Wooldridge, Amartya Sen, and John Gray. These historians remain divided, refusing to come to agreements, almost like nations refusing to accept the force of globalization. Despite their differences, all of these authors seem to agree that globalization is neither entirely good nor entirely bad.

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge focus mainly on portraying a positive outlook on globalization. In “Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed,” they claim that “restricting overmighty states and elites is all very well, but globalization increases the basic freedom of individuals as well…Globalization is helping to give birth to an economy that is closer to the classic theoretical model of capitalism, under which rational individuals pursue their interests in the light of perfect information, relatively free from government and geographical obstacles.” To them, people have more freedom because of globalization. Even more importantly, they see the main benefit of globalization as a creator. “It is also helping to create a society that is closer to the model that liberal political theorists once imagined, in which power lies increasingly in the hands of individuals rather than government, and in which people are free, within reasonable bounds, to pursue the good life wherever they find it. (17)” However, they do acknowledge that this system does not often provide those who benefit the most with the loudest voices. In fact, it is often the case that the opponents of globalization express their discontent more convincingly than the supporters. Thus, globalization has not yet achieved its ultimate success.

Amartya Sen also sees globalization through a similar pair of eyes. He wrote "How to Judge Globalism." While he strongly believes that globalization is a positive development, he explains that the lack of understanding as to the real globalization has weakened its effects. One of his main arguments is that globalization is not synonymous with the West. He explains that “over thousands of years, globalization has contributed to the progress of the world through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences, and dissemination of knowledge and understanding… They have not necessarily taken the form of increased Western influence. Indeed, the active agents of globalization have often been located far from the West. (19)” The author goes further by saying that “to see globalization as merely Western imperialism of ideas and believes (as the rhetoric often suggests) would be a serious and costly error, in the same way that any European resistance to Eastern influence would have been at the beginning of the last millennium (21).” Globalization is misunderstood. These misconceptions have helped carve the way to even more crucial areas. People often go about the issue of poverty in the wrong way. Rarely do people ask about the “distribution of gloablization’s benefits (22).” Instead, they often compare the amount of wealth of a given group, which is the wrong way to go about the discussion. Like the other historians, Sen also acknowledges that the global situation needs to be improved. “Global capitalism is much more concerned with expanding the domainof market relations than with, say, establishing democracy, expanding elementary education, enhancing the social opportunities of society’s underdogs (24).” Thus, despite the success of globalization, there is still room for improvement, according to Sen.

John Gray, the author of “From the Great Transformation to the Global Free Market,” represents the opponents of globalization. According to him, globalization works against the Free-market, a system that is prized in the US and other areas of the world. He claims that “economic globalization… actually threatens the stability of the single global market that is being constructed by American-led transnational organizations (28).” He goes further by saying that “no reformist programme today has a chance of success unless it understands that many of the changes produced, accelerated or reinforced by New Right policies are irreversible (29).” Essentially, it is impossible to return to the way things initially were or were intended to be. While he does acknowledge that for a brief moment, the problems from globalization may remain hidden, they soon become apparent. Globalization creates “instability.”