This leads to a lack of connection and trust between the elites and the rest of the population. The principle of authority itself is being called into question.
Many citizens think that the political class does not represent them, that they are deprived of a voice or for that matter a loudspeaker to express their ideas, as they do through social media and think, moreover, that experts form part of this elite that benefits from the current system, which is why they fail to offer solutions benefitting the majority.
According to this hypothesis, the global financial crisis of and the way it was subsequently handled will have had social effects, the impact of which we are only just starting to discern. The credibility of experts, above all of economists, the most influential profession in the public debate, has been conspicuously damaged by their failure to predict the crisis.
Thereafter the perception that the current political and judicial system benefits the elites will have been reinforced by the fact that taxpayers had to bail out banks while very few bankers have had to pay for their mistakes. The reputation of experts was even more damaged after the crisis. Many television viewers and newspaper readers became aware that experts were not neutral. Each expert explained the causes of the crisis from a very different perspective and put forward solutions that were often in mutual conflict.
Some called for greater fiscal stimulus, while others defended austerity. This has created a good deal of confusion, while simultaneously undermining the role of experts. For many there is a sensation that each expert has his or her own agenda, and that almost all defend the liberal order because it benefits them. By the same token, it is thought that many of these experts, who are educated at the finest universities and therefore far removed from the average citizen, hold liberal values towards religion, abortion, same-sex marriage, racial diversity and gender equality that are not shared by a large part of the population, especially in the US.
For many years, politicians have hidden behind a veil of technical solutions. They have agreed that central banks should be independent and headed by technocrats shielded from public and democratic scrutiny. They have also delegated the negotiation of free-trade and investment treaties to experts and ceded sovereignty to international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. In the case of Europe, the transfer of sovereignty to the European Central Bank and the European Commission still far removed from voters has been even greater.
Such delegation worked well for as long as the economy and employment were growing. But with the advent of the crisis, the authority and legitimacy of the technocrats started to be called into much greater question, particularly when, amid the lack of a political response, they began to accumulate more and more power. Indeed, it may be argued that the politicians have left it to the central banks to tackle the crisis with monetary stimuli.
Unfortunately, however, it is becoming more and more evident that the structural problems besetting developed societies cannot be solved by monetary policy alone. All this questioning has led to doubts being cast on the open society and many voters being prepared to lend their support to candidates who speak in a way that connects with the ordinary citizen and promises easy solutions to complex problems.
The anti-establishment message thereby succeeds in attracting an amalgam of highly heterogeneous voters, but with an ever-wider basis. It encompasses those who feel vulnerable and left behind, but also those who are doing well economically but are disillusioned with politicians and technocrats and who therefore wish to curb the power of the state and the establishment to unleash market forces.
The questioning of experts emerged particularly starkly in the Brexit campaign. The causes of this phenomenon are manifold. They encompass the anger of those who have lost out from globalisation, the widespread fear of losing national identity in societies that are increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan, anxiety about technological change and its impact on employment, frustration concerning the dwindling resources available to maintain the welfare state and indignation at the unrepresentative nature of many aspects of the democratic system in an ever-more globalised world where the concept of national sovereignty has been rendered obsolete.
All these intermingle and threaten the open society and the international order that has held sway for decades and been responsible for spectacular economic progress but has also produced growing material inequalities and inequalities of opportunity in advanced societies. Responding to the well-founded fears of their citizens is perhaps the greatest challenge confronting Western nations. Simply ignoring them and hoping that the storm will blow over, as has been the habit of recent years, is a recipe for failure.
Developing better policies for integrating immigrants and refugees is crucial in this context. It is also necessary to ensure a better redistribution of the enormous amounts of wealth generated by globalisation, to emphasise the advantages of diversity and to prepare citizens for technological change, equipping them with the resources to adapt themselves.
It is not so much a case of protecting against the effects of globalisation as empowering citizens, enabling them to get the most out of it to the fullest extent possible.
Finally, it is necessary to give a better explanation of the limitations faced by the welfare state and the reforms it needs in order to be sustainable, and to open new public forums and channels enabling citizens to feel more and better represented. Pierce, Peter K. Error: Javascript is disabled in this browser. This page requires Javascript. Modify your browser's settings to allow Javascript to execute.
See your browser's documentation for specific instructions. Summary This paper presents five hypotheses to account for support for anti-establishment and anti-globalisation movements. American dominance within the organisations of political globalization can be seen through the powers of veto and weighted voting systems embedded into the organisations of global governance. Similarly, we can point to the structural adjustment policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank in return for lending, which have enforced the Washington consensus of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation, usually benefiting American interests.
Thus, it appears that America can dominate political globalization by way of controlling inter-governmental organisations. Nevertheless, political globalization being dominated by America is contested and so the extent of the truth of this assumption needs to be examined and evaluated.
Confusing globalization with American dominance is both analytically and empirically incorrect Held and McGrew, b: First, if America came to be seen as a threat, or was not acting in the global interest, supporting states would withhold their support and thus America would lose its power.
This is especially the case since there is significant competition within global governance from the EU, Japan and China Nye, Furthermore, dominance is not a problem of globalization itself; rather, it is a problem with the management of political globalization at present. Stiglitz argues that if we address the democratic deficit within international organisations, we could have a kind of globalization that would benefit all Stiglitz, Thus, by adopting his recommendations, it is likely that we could effectively remove the American dominance from political globalization.
In effect, American dominance is often overstated, because there are in fact significant alternatives in terms of power. In addition, the problem of dominance is not a problem with globalization per se, rather with how it is managed at present. The final broad opposition that will be considered is that globalization creates new global problems. These include, but are not limited to: international organised crime, global terrorism and worldwide environmental problems.
Even the defender of globalization, Bhagwati, acknowledges that globalization has led to a rise in international organised crime; he considers specifically the exploitation of women across the world, arguing that more open borders allow women to work away from home as domestic servants, where they are often subject to abuse, especially in places such as the Middle East.
In addition, the proliferation of international tourism in places such as Thailand has led to growing prostitution. The trafficking of women has also become a problem in countries with economic issues, such as Russia or some Asian countries Bhagwati, Clearly, all these examples of female exploitation by organised criminals are a result of increasing interconnectedness, examples of which include more open borders, greater international tourism and faster, cheaper transportation methods.
Global terrorism has also developed as a result of globalization; indeed, Islamic terrorism demonstrates a resistance to Western culture, which is seen as contradictory to Islamic religion and culture Hoffman. So, we can conceptualise terrorism as a response to perceived conflicts within cultural globalization.
The worldwide environmental issues we face have been caused by, firstly, increasing technology supporting high pollution growth in developed countries; secondly, the rapid industrialisation of the developing world; and finally, an exponentially increasing world population. The first two are directly linked to globalization: in a world with global warming, carbon emitters across the world are increasingly responsible for the fate of the Pacific island nations Held and McGrew, a: The objection is therefore raised that globalization has caused these new global problems.
Whilst it is certainly true that most of these problems are caused to an extent by globalization, this essay would argue that these are not inherent flaws with globalization but rather with how it is implemented.
In fact, globalization can be used to solve these problems. In the first problem, the exploitation of women by organised criminals, the recent proliferation of international non-governmental organisations NGOs such as ECPAT and international conventions, which work to prevent trafficking, have been relatively successful.
More progress could be made through further steps towards political globalization, allowing for easier enforcement Bhagwati, On the problems of global terrorism, clearly a multilateral coordinated approach is necessary, given the transnational borderless nature of modern terrorism. This method of prevention of terrorism is analogous to increasing globalization, intensifying the flows of information. In respect of worldwide environmental issues, the only way they will be solved is through cooperation; for example, the Montreal Protocol, which has been successful through international coordination in significantly reducing Chlorofluorocarbon CFC emissions, which damage the ozone layer Bhagwati, For all these problems, globalization leads to a situation where actions in one country can have effects on the rest of the world; this interdependence requires greater collective action to solve these problems.
Those opposed to globalization are therefore fearful of the expanding significance of the global realm, reducing the significance of the nation-state. Finally, we should consider why a liberal cosmopolitan stance is a favourable one, since it should be clear that all the opposition to globalization essentially resides in a fear of the global realm superseding the nation-state and the subsequent denial of the doctrine of sovereignty.
Firstly, stemming the tide of globalization is just not possible, as flows across continents now form an essential part of political, social and economic life.
If we accept this premise, we should by default accept the cosmopolitan stance, since it allows us to ameliorate the problems which globalization causes. As explained earlier, the global problems caused can be solved by the world coming together and cooperating; furthermore, the economy can provide gains for all by embracing this interconnectedness. Thus it is favourable to conceive of political and social life in a cosmopolitan sense.
Indeed the nation state has not always been accepted as the sovereign and the ultimate source of power within its territory; previously there existed city-states, empires and principalities Held et al, Just as sovereignty was uncoupled from these authorities, it is entirely possible to imagine it becoming disentangled from the nation-state and moving into the global realm. Lee Poh Ping, a professor in political science and senior fellow at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, said a country could play a regional role either as a result of the globalisation process or as a step towards a global role.
In his paper titled Globalisation and Regionalism: Japan Now and in the Seventies, he cited Japan as an example which had expressed itself in the various financial schemes it was introducing to address the Asian financial crisis. At the same time, many are not enamoured with the global approach of institutions like the IMF as it involves too high a social and political price," he said. Meanwhile, American University school of international service professor J. Mittelman said resistance was not only response to but also an integral component of neoliberal globalisation.
Fundamentally, a priority in research is to uncover the whole series of mediations among resistances, which are central to the historical transformation known as globalisation," he said.
Mittelman said public debates and most scholarly discourse had focused on macroresistance, which signalled new dynamics in globalisation.
0コメント