¶ … Defense of Globalization Jagdish Bhagwati and the Defense of Globalization

It has lately become fashionable to talk about the evil face of globalization as a parasitic force that devours small nations and economies for the benefit of the rich and powerful countries. The anti-globalization movement today has a wide range of supporters, in the West and developing countries, among politicians, scholars, students, environmentalists, human rights activists, and many others. Globalization, these critics contend, further enriches the rich and impoverishes the poor, by using international trade and financial institutions and imposing Western forms of economics on the rest of the world. But in this paper I argue, using insights and arguments from the works of Columbia law and economics professor Jagdish Bhagwati, that the attacks on globalization are contradictory, misguided, and unjustified. Globalization, I argue, has been a force for good in the West and the rest of the world.

One of the oft-repeated charges directed against globalization is that it is a new form of colonialism and imperialism. In the words of Indian anti-globalization activist Arundhati Roy, globalization is "a mutant form of globalization" (Roy, 2002). The main problem with such characterization is the overly simplistic understanding of global forces. Globalization refers to worldwide integration of political, economic, and cultural institutions, but it is the economic form of globalization that comes under heavy criticism most often. The problem with Roy's characterization is that Indians, Saudis, Guatemalans, or any other people from the developing world using financial institutions for their own benefit is also the result of globalization. People in poorer nations having access to the rest of the world by using the Internet, computers, cell phones, tablets, etc., is also thanks to globalization. It would be ludicrous to describe these processes as a "mutant form of colonialism."

There is much more to globalization than just exploitation of weak nations by predatory multi-national corporations. It is true that some multi-national corporations use the loopholes in the international institutions or the corruption in local governments...

There is no denying to that. But it should not distract us from positive sides of globalization. For example, when predatory corporations commit crimes against workers in poor nations or pollute their environment without adequately compensating for that, it is thanks to the forces of globalization these poor nations can hold powerful multi-national corporations to task. These forces include the United Nations, international human rights and environmental organizations, the international media, and the world public without whom it would have been impossible for any poor nations to challenge these corporations. But for some reason, anti-globalizationists do not take this into account. And that is the essential contradiction of anti-globalization position.
As today's one of the foremost economists of the world Jagdish Bhagwati argues, "economic globalization has a human face and it advances, rather than inhibits, the achievements of social agendas as wide-ranging as the promotion of gender equality worldwide and the reduction of poverty and child labor in poorer countries" (Bhagwati, 2004a). Note that when some countries and cultures practice egregious forms of gender inequality or force children into labor, these abuses are exposed to the world more often than ever before today primarily thanks to globalization. Forces of globalization demand that some standards of labor and gender relations are met, inducing abusive governments to abandon their worst excesses.

The contradiction of anti-globalization activism is also visible in Western countries. As Bhagwati notes, during U.S. presidential elections in 2004, "Senator John Kerry has characterized companies that outsource as traitors -- even if, after doing so, Kerry and his wife dined on imported French wine and brie, rather than on Kraft cheese and Milwaukee beer, and watched a BBC Masterpiece Theater drama instead of a U.S. sitcom television" (Bhagwati, 2004a). Likewise, one might add, many right-wing U.S. politicians routinely call for imposing tariffs for Chinese products in order to protect domestic…