from
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/globalisation.html
Most of the confusion about globalisation occurs when nation
states pursue neoliberal policies. This is what Tony Blair
means, when he talks about the "opportunities" of
globalisation - his reaction to the Genoa summit protests.
The neoliberal attitude to the national economy is more
accurately described as neo-mercantilist. Neoliberals see
the nation as an economic unit, competing with other similar
units: they often compare the nation to a business firm.
Neoliberal economic policies, within the nation state, are
designed to meet the needs of this imaginary business -
'Great Britain Limited', 'Deutschland GmbH', 'BV Nederland'.
This does not mean that the nation state *is* a business
firm. That would be impossible within a liberal democracy
anyway - it would require a totalitarian level of economic
planning. Businesses are not run like nation states, for
good reasons - and nation states can probably not be run
like a business. Neoliberals also contradict themselves, by
insisting that regions and cities should also compete with
each other, like business firms. This would make a national
economic policy impossible.
What neoliberals promote is a set of social goals, a model
of a society arranged for the benefit of the entrepreneur.
This is usually called 'competitiveness', a favourite word
for Tony Blair and other neoliberal politicians. Economists
compile league tables, in which nations are ranked by
competitiveness. But this does *not* mean that nation states
are forced to be 'competitive' by some all-powerful global
organisation. They are not even forced in a metaphorical
sense, by the global market. The 'competitiveness' is an
internal policy, a neoliberal social policy. It may not even
be competitive. (If it was taken to the extremes suggested
by some neoliberals, it would probably cause economic collapse).
So when western political leaders speak positively of
globalisation, this is usually what they are talking about.
This is usually what the media are talking about, when they
use the word 'globalisation'. It has nothing to do with the
erosion of the nation state. It also has very little to do
with classic market liberalism, which advocates unlimited
competition between every single entrepreneur. Classic
market liberals would call 'Great Britain Limited' a cartel.
The ideology of 'competitiveness' has everything to do with
nationalism. It is a modern version of the old nationalist
insistence, that the whole nation should work together. It
is a new form of jingoism, chauvinism, flag-waving and
foreigner-bashing (particularly suited for Tony Blair). It
is not in any way an indicator that a new global order has
superseded the order of nation states, or that they have
been colonised by global financial institutions.
--
Paul Treanor
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/globalisation.html
|