the Ethnography of Globalization
an investigation into the sociocultural
and economic consequences
of free trade
€•£•¥•$
a report prepared by
the Honors Seminar in Contemporary Civilization
Honors 103-03
MontclairStateUniversity
Spring 2009
cover design by Katherine Demeski & Janice Demeski
Table of Contents
Introduction by Prof. Glenn Alcalay, Dept. of Anthropology6
Chapter 1 • Our World Versus the World’s Poor
by Chynna DeStefano7
Chapter 2 • IGOs, NGOs and the Role of International
Organizations and Globalization by Alison Blumenfeld20
Chapter 3 • Workers in a Global Economy by Katherine Milsop29
Chapter 4 • Globalization and Environmental Impacts
by Katie Paccioretti39
Chapter 5 • Women’s Past, Present and Future: How Globalization
Has Affected Women by Adrienne Ackermann47
Chapter 6 • Women and Children for Sale: The Consequences of
a Globalized World by Honore Mollica57
Chapter 7 • United States Production of Armaments and its Effect
on Globalization by Thomas Fuchs67
Chapter 8 • Propaganda in Relation to Globalization
by Michael Brewer77
Chapter 9 • Genocide, American Involvement & the American
Media: A Failure of Globalization by Katherine Demeski88
Chapter 10 • Genocide and its Effects on the 20th Century
by Natalie Delgado99
Chapter 11 • Indigenous People in a Modern World
by Gabriella Fontana108
Chapter 12 • Food and Globalization by Anabella Bergamasco116
Chapter 13 • Globalization & Religion by Tom Warren126
Chapter 14 • Globalization and Music: Artistic Innovation
or Cultural Homogenization? by Kate Stanley134
Chapter 15 • Fair Trade versus Free Trade: a Humane Path
for the Future of Globalization by Kristen Larson143
Epilogue •1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights154
Recommended Websites and Contacts159
Introduction
by Professor Glenn Alcalay
Department of Anthropology
It has been a privilege to spend a rigorous semester with the students in the Honors Seminar in Contemporary Civilization in critical pursuit of the consequences – warts and all - of Globalization. We wish to thank Dr. Gregory Waters, Ms. Chrystel Williams and Michelle Wiese of the Honors Program at MontclairStateUniversity for their kind assistance and support. Special thanks also to Dr. Richard Franke of the Anthropology Department. Also thanks to Katherine Demeski and Janice Demeski for designing the cover of this Report. Finally, thanks to Lisa Green for her generous editorial assistance.
The topics covered in this Report are by no means considered the definitive word to describe and critically assess such a leviathan of a subject as Globalization. Indeed, this Report was conceived as a stimulative work-in-progress to facilitate discussion – and to promote action – concerning the new forces of Globalization shaping and altering the planet's present and future course.
Globalization is a concept that has proliferated in both popular and scholarly arenas, describing the increasing intensity of flows of capital, labor, commodities, and ideologies across national borders. Electronic highways, the expansion of jet travel, satellite technology and trade liberalization have made transnational communication and cultural, political, and economic connections closer and faster than ever before. The goal of this Report is to interpret these historical currents and movements through an anthropological and ethnographic lens, and to analyze some of the meanings and implications of these global processes for people's everyday lives.
The Report begins with a discussion of multilateral trade agreements and international lending institutions at the macro level [DeStefano] in order to describe the shape and nature of Globalization.
The Report will examine the cultural, environmental and economic impacts on Planet Earth and its inhabitants from Globalization though an anthropological lens. For example, what will be the environmental impact of developing nations trying to make up for lost time, and cutting corners with respect to environmental protection? Are short-term, bottom line quarterly statements, and is ROI [return on investment] compatible with long-term concerns about rapid [and human created] climate change? How related are Globalization and global warming? Are there alternative economic models that afford a blend of individual liberties, protection of capital & property, respect for indigenous rights, and the development of a sustainable global economy?
The scholarly and robust essays in this Report span the full gamut - from indigenous rights and genocide to food policy and music/artistic rights - of the consequences and contours of what is now known as Globalization.
The last essay in this Report by Kristen Larson addresses the alternative to free trade - fair trade – as a possible way forward.
Finally, the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights is included as an Epilogue to this Report.
Chapter 1
Our World versus the World's Poor by Chynna DeStefano
Introduction
Countless people in today’s society in the United States are so work-consumed and short of time, that they do not stop to examine what is occurring between the United States, other super power countries and the third world or developing countries in the poorer parts of the world. Sadly, some of our most highly-educated and affluent citizens are not aware that many of these developing countries are devastated under the burden of debt and trade policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank and The World Trade Organization (WTO).
Instead of helping these developing countries through the use of loans and trade programs, the United States along-side other dominantcountries has harmed these developing countries by enforcing their governments to abide with structural adjustment policies (SAPs)—policies which, according to the writers of Houston Catholic Worker Newspaper, force these countries to cut spending on education and health, eliminate basic foods and transportation subsidies, devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper, privatize national assets, and freeze wages. Collected here is an in-depth look at what these controlling financial organizations of our world are doing to subjugate the world poor.
Part I The International Monetary Fund
The International Monetary Fund was created in 1944, preceding the end of WWII, during the Bretton Woods conference; a meeting between representatives of 44 nations at the Bretton Woods resort in New Hampshire. Originally, the International Monetary Fund was developed to aid countries in solving their balance-of-payment issues through use of ‘temporary’ financing to support policies that are aimed at correcting the underlying issues causing the payment problems. The IMF has stated their main goal is to reduce poverty in these developing countries, as well as provide them with technical assistance to train citizens of those countries in their area of expertise.
Over the years, the IMF has lent money to many countries, such as Mexico in the 1980’s and 1995, South East Asia and Russia in the late 1990’s and Argentina in 2001. Since the 1980’s (when the IMF began lending money to Mexico), the IMF had extended its role in the world economy by providing money to ‘bailout’ an increasing amount of countries in financial calamity (Global Exchange, 2007). From this rather restricted and optimistic view, the IMF could be seen as a savior to these struggling, developing countries, after all, what could be bad about lending these strained countries money?; Almost everything.
Since the 1980’s the International Monetary Fund has designed specific economic policies for over 60 separate countries—a substantial amount considering there are 195 countries in the world today (192 in whom belong to the UN and the Vatican City, Kosovo and Taiwan). Up to 2002, these borrowing countries had paid about $550 billiondollars in both principle and interest back to the IMF for about $540 billion dollars in loans, but the IMF stated that these countries still owed about $523 billion dollars to repay their debts. Currently, due to debt cancellation, the 60 poorest countries in the world (as determined by the World Bank) now owe about $153 billion to repay their debts—a vast jump from $523 billion, but still a colossal and rather asinine number (Shah 2005). The compound interest that the IMF imposes on the money it lends is strangling these poorer countries: forcing them to pay back their debts with huge interest rates (approximately 20%+ a year) so it can benefit the rich members of the IMF and force the citizens of these poorer countries to live an even-lesser quality of life than they did before the IMF intervened.
It is not the fact that the IMF creates a specific plan and goal for these countries’ monetary needs which makes its actions so sinister: it is the fact that after these desperate countries accept the money, they become locked in robotic economic policies which calculates and rules their government’s every move. These countries’ governments are not allowed to use the money as they please. They are not allowed to disobey the specific structural policies that they are given by the IMF; to do so would result in termination of their ability to receive loans, international assistance or debt relief (Mutume 2001). As if being locked into a policy were not enough, the effects of the policies on the entire population of the countries’ citizens can be rather devastating.
Though many are unaware—it is clear that the International Monetary Fund is one of the most powerful institutions in operation in this world. You may ask yourself, bring as powerful as it is, is it possible that an institution whose main goal was meant to be to aid the poor, has actually forced many of these poorer countries into an even lower standard of living?: Yes. Through the SAP’s—structural adjustment policies that the IMF has forced upon governments already receiving aid, the IMF has taken control of the way these governments allocate received funds and has lessened the quality of life that citizens of these developing countries have. The governments of struggling countries have been forced to spend less on health care and education in order to comply with the SAP’s imposed budgetary restraints.
Although the IMF states that the cuts to health care spending are irrelevant because of equal increases within private sector alternatives, they seem to be failing to truly asses the needs of the poor. While private providers may undeniably offer higher quality education and medical care, they often require very expensive fees, which the poor cannot pay. The IMF is wrong— cuts of funding to public health care institutions have been incredibly relevant: clinics and public institutions have been forced into charging fees to poor users due to lost financial support. SAPs ensure debt repayment by requiring countries to cut spending on education and health, forcing these countries to eliminate basic foods and transportation subsidies, devalue their national currencies to make exports cheaper, privatize their national assets and freeze wages of working citizens, allowing multinational corporations to exploit workers and pollute the environment (Kapoor, 2005).
Governments of these developing countries whom have received aid from the IMF know just how devastating the IMF’s policies are. In August 2000, Nigeria was among one of the Group of 77 Nations (otherwise known as G77), indebted by the IMF.
During this time, President Obasanjo, president of Nigeria along with the leaders of other indebted nations pushed for 100% debt cancellation for the poorest countries for the new agreement of the time, which would have been G8. The G8 leaders paid no mind and failed to make any progress on debt cancelation policies and even backtracked on their promises for debt cancelation. After their failed attempts, President Obasanjo stated to the Jubilee 2000 news group:
"All that we had borrowed up to 1985 or 1986 was around $5 billion and we have paid about $16 billion yet we are still being told that we owe about $28 billion. That $28 billion came about because of the injustice in the foreign creditors' interest rates. If you ask me what is the worst thing in the world, I will say it is compound interest” (Global Exchange 2007).
The poorest countries in the world, including Nigeria are instructed to pay back about 20 to 25 percent of their yearly export earnings towards debt repayment, yet borrowing European countries such as France, Italy and Britain are paying back close to 4 percent a year, and clearly have a better quality of life than the poorer, struggling nations (Global Exchange, 2007). It seems to be suggested that the IMF is imposing impossible conditions on these developing countries, possibly to ‘kick down the ladder’ that would lead to their success and create unsustainable economic conditions for them.
Nigeria isn’t the only case of economic struggle caused by the IMF. Argentina, a once ‘model’ development by the IMF and World Bank is now becoming a casualty of these same economic hardships. In 2001, as Argentina’s economy began collapsing, people died in confrontations, millions lost jobs and many were the risk of going hungry. After becoming aware of Argentina’s situation, the IMF offered a $20 billion dollar ‘bailout’ loan. Unfortunately, this ‘bailout’ would only swindle away more money from the Argentinean government and leave them even higher and drier than to begin with. In the middle of 2001, Argentina owed $128 billion dollars in debts to the IMF. The normal interest compounded on the premium of their principle loan amounted to around 27 billion dollars a year—thus proving that Argentina wouldn’t net one cent from the $20 billion dollar ‘bailout’, which couldn’t even cover the interest they owed to the IMF for one year (Vann, 2002).
The IMF has halted the development of these countries that they have lent to—countries that could have developed strong, domestic economies. Through offering more money than these countries could ever pay back, they have indebted these developing nations and pushed their citizen’s quality of life even lower than before their ‘helpful’ monetary intervention. The IMF has allowed privatization of corporations in these developing countries to exploit the country’s laborers and pollute their environment. Structural Adjustment Policies ensure debt repayment by requiring these developing countries to cut spending on education and health, eliminate basic foods and transportation subsidies, devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper, privatize national assets and freeze laborers wages. The IMF has not been the only institution that
has harmfully intervened with developing country’s way of life; The World Bank has had
a hand in this depressing situation as well.
Part 2 The World Bank
The World Bank was not always involved in the detrimental acts that it has had hand in today. From The World Bank’s creation in 1944 up until the 1960’s, the bank was a conservative establishment and usually funded transportation improvement, construction and basic needs within developing countries. In 1968, Robert McNamara became the bank’s president and with that, he had made the bank more dedicated to attaining higher loan levels. From 1968 up until McNamara’s resignation in 1981, the bank’s lending had soared from $883 million dollars to 12 billion dollars! (Bovard, 1987) Since McNamara’s influence over The World Bank, it has become just as destructive an institution as the previously mentioned International Monetary Fund. The World Bank has become known for its involvement in human rights in developing countries and the destruction that it’s interfering has led to.
The World Bank was created alongside the International Monetary fund; both focused on different, but complimentary ends. The World Bank was designed to invest in developing countries to encourage post-war reconstruction. The bank has been very successful with expanding the control of the governments of the developing countries it aids, but has done a very poor job with helping these countries to reform their private sector corporations. The World Bank seems responsible for the rush of socialism into these developing countries, which includes the rising tyrannical political power over the private sector corporations of these countries and quite possibly the economic collapse of Africa. Is it possible that the World Bank considers itself a success because socialist governments such as Ethiopia and Mozambique (and many others) accept zero interest 50-year loans or other subsidized aid from the bank? Auditors of The World Bank claim that the bank is suffering from the political expectation that it must lend bigger amounts each year (Kapoor 2005).
If the bank were to request more capital next year, the bank’s request will only result in a commitment of around $10 billion dollars of American tax payer’s money—proof that the World Bank is devastatingly destructive in terms of monetary drain in the United States. It seems the World Bank is mainly concerned with meeting its quantitative goals—rather than bettering the countries that it is lending to. By forcing developing countries to borrow more than they wish to has been nothing but a dire choice for these countries. The World Bank has pushed their borrowers to use extra money on unnecessary steel factories and buildings, underused airports, and inferior roads which do not stand the wear of use or time. The bank has not helped borrowing countries to become more dependent on markets, nor has is concerned itself with the welfare of the poor citizen’s of these countries.