FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

World Economic Forum

Last weekend’s World Economic Forum in New York was noticeably different from previous globalization conferences for several reasons. Held in the Swiss ski resort of Davos in its first 31 years, the sponsors of the forum decided to move this year’s forum to New York to show support for the city after the September 11 terror attacks. Remarkably, the total number arrested during the meeting was barely over 200, mostly for disorderly conduct, a far cry from previous WTO or other globalization meetings. Surprisingly, speaker after speaker at the World Economic Forum lambasted America as a smug superpower, too beholden to Israel at the expense of the Muslim world, and inattentive to the needs of poor countries or the advice of allies. In a curious convergence, the titans of business and politics at the meeting seized on many of the same socially liberal issues that they have been accused of ignoring at past gatherings.

Does this mean we now have globalization with a human face?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, in the last year or so, globalization and market forces, the much hyped panacea of world economics, have gone awry. Bloodshed in the Middle East, terrorist attacks in New York, a worldwide recession and falling corporate profits for powerful multinationals have unsettled the stock markets and ordinary consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. The continuing influence of local circumstances and politics on the precarious global economy is stronger than ever.

In the 1990s globalization was shamelessly hyped for the good fortune it would bring. Ethnic hatreds would melt away as the internet and McDonald’s hamburger stalls spread worldwide. Expanding free markets would cure the world’s ills. Many, such as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, preached the doctrine of interdependence. In that Promised Land, it was not terribly important who was in charge. The markets were.

In retrospect, in some parts of the globe, the dominance of market forces has had unexpected results. For instance, globalization has integrated global capital markets and consequently this has increased the ease with which individuals in the rich developed countries of the north and poorer developing countries of the south can move their assets abroad. However, the rising scale of capital flight from developing countries is a matter of increasing concern.

When we think about the causes of poverty in the developing world, the International Debt Crisis, IMF, corruption, strife and civil wars readily come to mind. Capital flight as a blight on growth in developing countries and a major cause of poverty in these countries is often neglected.

Without capital flight and corruption the international debt crisis would not exist in its current form. More than half of developing countries’ debts are in the form of private capital deposited in the tax havens controlled by the banks of the north. The five leading countries that host this type of capital are Panama, Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the United States.

Although many people living in developing countries are familiar with the incidence of capital flight from their countries, the actual measurement of this phenomenon reveals the staggering proportions of the depletion of resources from poor countries to affluent ones.

According to a background report prepared by Valpy Fitzgerald and Alex Cobham of the University of Oxford for the DFID (Department for International Development, UK), in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East 39 percent of domestic investors’ portfolios are held abroad. The total value of Sudanese assets held abroad exceeds the country’s GNP; Nigeria’s external assets are equal to the country’s GDP while Kenya’s is around 75 percent of the GNP.

Obviously, the effect of a return of such (relatively) huge investment flows would be dramatic. Furthermore the estimated average share of total national debt generated by despots in 22 countries that have, or had, entrenched dictatorships is 57 percent. “Trade-faking,” the deliberate under-invoicing of exports to, and over-invoicing of exports from associated companies to present false accounts and accrue balances overseas, has severely distorting effects for some African countries and India.

Not surprisingly, from the perspective of the developing world, globalization is not a bed of roses. Perhaps we need to think again.

Globalization needs to be replaced by localization – protecting and rebuilding local economies.

Long distance trade would be gradually reduced to supplying what could not come from within one country or a region. Trade would be conducted under rules that give preference to goods supplied in a way that benefits workers, the local community and the environment. The global flow of technology and information would be encouraged only when and where it could strengthen local economies.

This does not mean a return to overpowering state control. But new rules would have to be enacted to stop imported goods and services that could be produced locally. Industries would have to be put in the local community if they are to win permission to sell in it.

Today’s global casino consists of traders gambling on minute market fluctuations. In 1980, the daily average of foreign trading was $80 billion. Today, more than $1,500 billion flows daily across international borders. Up to 90% of transactions are speculative (based on movements in currency and interest rates) rather than productive.

Democratic control over such capital is the key to providing the money for governments and communities to rebuild. In addition to tax on international capital transactions to curb currency speculators, broader regulation of finance capital will be required. This would include controls on capital flows, taxes on short term speculative transactions, tightening of easy credit that allows speculators to multiply the size of their bets way beyond the cash required to cover them.

A widespread and co-ordinated attack on corporate tax evasion and capital flight including offshore banking centers is also essential. Naturally, the markets would immediately punish any country proposing such controls on its own. However, a regional grouping of powerful states such as the European Union would be a secure and lucrative enough market to ensure that those who control money would not dare leave the safety and security afforded by such a bloc. This pattern would then be attempted globally.

Politically, the 20th century was a battle between left and right. In the 21st century the contest will pit localists against those struggling to manage globalization. The former will seek control over the local economy; the latter will continue to see globalization as inevitable as gravity. Their role will be to attempt to make it a better balance for all of us.

Wole Akande lives in Nigeria. Akande writes for YellowTimes. He encourages your comments: wakande@YellowTimes.ORG

More articles by:

December 13, 2018
John Davis
What World Do We Seek?
Subhankar Banerjee
Biological Annihilation: a Planet in Loss Mode
Lawrence Davidson
What the Attack on Marc Lamont Hill Tells Us
James McEnteer
Breathless
Ramzy Baroud
The Real Face of Justin Trudeau: Are Palestinians Canada’s new Jews?
Dean Baker
Pelosi Would Sabotage the Progressive Agenda With a Pay-Go Rule
Elliot Sperber
Understanding the Yellow Vests Movement Through Basic Color Theory 
Rivera Sun
The End of the NRA? Business Magazines Tell Activists: The Strategy is Working
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Historic Opportunity to Transform Trade
December 12, 2018
Arshad Khan
War, Anniversaries and Lessons Never Learned
Paul Street
Blacking Out the Yellow Vests on Cable News: Corporate Media Doing its Job
Kenneth Surin
The Brexit Shambles Rambles On
David Schultz
Stacking the Deck Against Democracy in Wisconsin
Steve Early
The Housing Affordability Crisis and What Millennials Can do About It
George Ochenski
Collaboration Failure: Trump Trashes Sage Grouse Protections
Rob Seimetz
Bringing a Life Into a Dying World: A Letter From a Father to His Unborn Son
Michael Howard
PETA and the ‘S’-Word
John Kendall Hawkins
Good Panopt, Bad Panopt: Does It Make A Difference?
Kim C. Domenico
Redeeming Utopia: a Meditation On An Essay by Ursula LeGuin
Binoy Kampmark
Exhuming Franco: Spain’s Immemorial Divisions
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Democratizing Money
Laura Finley
Congress Must Reauthorize VAWA
December 11, 2018
Eric Draitser
AFRICOM: A Neocolonial Occupation Force?
Sheldon Richman
War Over Ukraine?
Louis Proyect
Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression
Howard Lisnoff
Police Violence and Mass Policing in the U.S.
Mark Ashwill
A “Patriotic” Education Study Abroad Program in Viet Nam: God Bless America, Right or Wrong!
Laura Flanders
HUD Official to Move into Public Housing?
Nino Pagliccia
Resistance is Not Terrorism
Matthew Johnson
See No Evil, See No Good: The Truth Is Not Black and White
Maria Paez Victor
How Reuters Slandered Venezuela’s Social Benefits Card
December 10, 2018
Jacques R. Pauwels
Foreign Interventions in Revolutionary Russia
Richard Klin
The Disasters of War
Katie Fite
Rebranding Bundy
Gary Olson
A Few Thoughts on Politics and Personal Identity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit Britain’s Crisis of Self-Confidence Will Only End in Tears and Rising Nationalism
Andrew Moss
Undocumented Citizen
Dean Baker
Trump and China: Going With Patent Holders Against Workers
Lawrence Wittner
Reviving the Nuclear Disarmament Movement: a Practical Proposal
Dan Siegel
Thoughts on the 2018 Elections and Beyond
Thomas Knapp
Election 2020: I Can Smell the Dumpster Fires Already
Weekend Edition
December 07, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Steve Hendricks
What If We Just Buy Off Big Fossil Fuel? A Novel Plan to Mitigate the Climate Calamity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Cancer as Weapon: Poppy Bush’s Radioactive War on Iraq
Paul Street
The McCain and Bush Death Tours: Establishment Rituals in How to be a Proper Ruler
Jason Hirthler
Laws of the Jungle: The Free Market and the Continuity of Change
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail