Globalism and Neo-liberalism
Introduction
Globalism denotes a policy that views the whole world as a proper sphere for a nation to project its political influence. This political influence affects different areas of concern. Nations appreciate the fact that their economic, social, and cultural facets are determined or shaped by politics and political decisions. Countries that are considered developed have the tendency of exerting their effect on the economic, political, social, and cultural aspects of least developed and developing countries. Globalism shares some semblance with neo-liberalism. The essay that follows will discuss the new globalism and go ahead to show how globalism is connected to neo-liberalism.
Discussion
The New Globalism
A little over two decades ago, the terms globalism and neo-liberalism were unheard of; today they are encountered in different places. The meaning of these terms remains contested to date. Some argue that the terms are connotations of “global westernization”; while others argue that the term refers to the replacement of national and regional markets by a world or a global market. Others argue that neo-liberalism denotes the act or framework through which nations counteract or challenge the influence exerted on them by western powers.
The new globalism is important as it attempts to define the struggle that subsists between powerful countries and between powerful and powerless countries. Additionally, globalism also attempts to define supra-national relationships among nations and institutions. Certain of western forces are of the opinion that globalism creates nations and institutions and that the western forces have a right of controlling these nations and institutions, which they claim to have created.
The Creation of Global Communities
The concept of new globalism attempts at fashioning new communities. Communities define who people are, defines a larger unit to which they belong, and to whom the defined community reports. In this set up, neither local proximity nor geographical distance includes or precludes one from belonging to a community. On a broad scale, communities can be defined as institutions, interactions, and exchanges between individuals (Ambrose, 2010). Relationships that define a community rely on technologies and transactions that facilitate community formation and coherence. Communities can only become institutions if the transactions and technologies involved are able to facilitate exchange among members of the community.
The vision for global oneness is no new vision; this vision predates world leaders of old such as Alexander the great and Adolf Hitler. The dream for a unified world is persistent; world leaders from the time of Alexander the Great attempted to unify the world by imposing their imperial rules across nations and continents. These attempts were faced with a myriad of challenges and they failed miserably. This bid by world leaders in uniting the whole globe failed because of organizational and technological challenges (Jreisat, 2011). Another reason for this failed attempt rests in the fact that the leaders pushing for unity failed to factor in measures to bridge the geographical gaps that subsisted between them and countries found in the corners of the world. The approach used by these world leaders is also faulted; leaders such as Hitler relied on coercion to gain acceptance (Ambrose, 2010). He failed to appreciate the fact that true and lasting co-operation and global unity is built or founded on compliance rather than coercion. His approach sought to achieve world domination, while the real goal should have been the attainment of global unity.
In recent times, the world has moved closer to achieving global unity. This unity is considered compliance-based, and is hailed for its ability at countering authoritarian or dictatorial power in imperialistic states and nations (Jreisat, 2011). This world order is founded on the bedrock of global polity, which gains compliance among states by linking them via mutual security, international organizations (e.g. World bank, EU, the UN), mutual treaties, and trade pacts (e.g. NATO, AGOA). During the same period, a series of non-governmental institutions emerged and formed parallel relations among and between nations; these included multi-national corporations, religious communities, transnational epistemic movements, and international social movements.
The growth of the international relationships and institutions has enjoyed co-operation across the board. Government leaders have played a critical role in boosting the process by aiding and accelerating global economic integration, establishment of solid formal institutions, and revolution in the manner in which people communicate. Global polity has benefitted immensely from the vision embraced by the new society, a reformed society, one that believes in the formation of a transnational community (Lowy, 1998).
Neo-liberalism has introduced a new form of liberalism; one that believes in neo-liberalism as a mechanism for investment and global trade. In this regard, neo-liberalism is looked at as a primer, a catalyst of sorts, which helps countries to develop at a fair and equitable rate (Hettne, et. al, 1999). Neo-liberalism addresses a new form of liberalism; one that supports globalism. It appreciates the fact that nations need to co-operate for prosperity, introducing the subject of co-operation between and among nations and states. Neo-liberalism seeks to ensure that all participants in the new global order benefit from their co-operation in a fair and equitable manner (Turner, 1994). Exploitation of under-developed countries by super power economies is condemned by proponents of neo-liberalism. This group argues that the world has enough resources for the prosperity of all and sundry.
Democratizing the World
Arguments abound as to the role developed countries have in stabilizing the political atmosphere of war-torn countries. Granted, political instability in a country contributes to suffering of its people. Citizens of a war-torn country cannot engage in productive activities, foreign investors are dissuaded from investing in such countries. The woes of such a country often spill to neighbouring countries as these neighbours are forced to accommodate the surging numbers of refugees fleeing wars and civil unrest in their countries (Turner, 1994). Countries such as the DRC, Sierra Leon, Somali, and Sudan have been engaged in continuous civil wars causing displacement of its people. These countries are rich in resources needed to fuel the global economy and their political instability denies the world access to these resources.
Before the advent of cartography, the world was seen as a complete whole made of land and patches of water bodies. This represented the state of affairs advocated by both neo-liberalism and the new globalism. Such a continuity of alternating landmasses with water bodies presents the world in its unpolluted form. This showed how countries were connected, bring to the fore the reality that the actions of one country affect both immediate and distant nations.
Global oneness and unity was first experienced in June of 1967 when for the first time, a global television network aired a live performance of the Beatles, a music sensation of the yester years. This live transmission reached over 350 million viewers in the world. Countries that had the right telecommunication infrastructure and allowed free transmission and exchange of information were the very fast ones to receive the first global television program. This infrastructure was later on used to transmit pictures of the world taken by astronauts from outer space. Of particular interest are the pictures taken from outer space. The mission was US funded, the transmission originated from the US. These are just some of the occurrences that reveal overdependence in the US; the world order of that time was predominated by the west.
It is around the 1960’s that western imperialism was being heavily felt by other nations of the world. Around the same time, riots broke out as activists and citizens of nations revolted against Soviet domination, Vietnam War, racism, and decolonization of Africa. During this period, global communication resonated with the political movements that had formed in the different parts of the world. The European colonial power was hardest hit by the descent that hit most of its colonies. The colonial powers were forced to close shop as they succumbed to pressures from nationalist leaders that came off as proponents of human rights.
Globalism in Markets and Labour
The world has experienced a shift in the world political culture, which have led to changes in the global economy. As European and American multinational companies continued to exert their influences on their former colonies, most of these colonies began to feel the powers of these former colonial powers. Around the 1960s, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) took over the control of world oil prices and in 1973, their power was felt when they shut off the oil supply of the world to enforce demand.
Soon after, the world labour markets begun to respond to the disparities that were evident between the developed and the developing countries. The world markets noted with great concern the ever-increasing wealth gap that existed between the developed and least developing countries (Hettne, et. al, 1999). The response by the world labour markets took different forms. One entailed an increase in the outsourcing of unskilled labour from the third world to first world. Another aspect involved the influx of immigrants from developing countries to developed countries. These immigrants took jobs in the First world that the citizens of these nations were unwilling to do. These used the global communications infrastructures to retain links with their native lands. Remittances by immigrants influenced their local economies by increasing per capita income, reducing poverty, and inspiring growth among the middle class.
The transformation of Ethnicities
Globalism and neo-liberalism has caused countries such as Canada and the US to adapt to the growth of non-Canadians and non-Americans respectively. Prior to this period, the immigrants used to abandon their customs, languages, and birth names to take up the names, customs, and languages they found in the host countries. Globalism has caused immigrants to remain linked to their native origins and those that have taken up US citizenship have opted to become hyphenated Americans e.g. the Latino-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and so forth.
Technology has played a vital role in the transformation of ethnic communities. Immigrants that had come to the US in or before the nineteenth Century faced serious obstacles as regards maintaining contact with their native lands. First-forward to the 20th Century and all the challenges of the 19th Century were overcome by the advent of the Internet and a reduction in the cost of telecommunication, both locally and internationally. Globalism has not only allowed international workers to maintain contact with their native lands, but also allowed them to access dual citizenship. Neo-liberalism has uprooted the racial and class demarcations that previously forbid the mixing of the natives and the non-natives.
Globalism and Higher Education
The transnational community is facilitated by the globalization of higher education. Students from least developed countries have had the opportunity of flying to developed countries to access globalized education. Foreign or non-native students coming to the US to access higher education doubled during the periods that spun from 1980s to 2000. Additionally, the number of students that received masters and doctorate degrees from Universities found within the United Stated of America rose to 38.7% by mid 1990s from a figure of about 27% towards the end of 1970s. These figures represent all the degrees that American universities awarded students.
The number of foreign students who have opted to remain in the United States of America after receiving their higher education qualifications registered a significant change rising from 46% in the year 1985 to about 54% by 1995. The figures indicate that there is a shift from the traditional scenario whereby people tended to emigrate to the “promised land.” (Turpin, 2004) The high number of students returning to their home countries is a clear indication that students are not using their quest for higher education as a guise for gaining permanent residence in a country where many dream of gaining residence. Those students who gain higher education in the United States and gone back to their countries have gone on to hold very crucial jobs. There are those who are serving their national governments at senior levels, others serve in international bodies while still others hold important positions in other entities.
Higher Education and the Globalizing of Ethnic Identity
The change in admissions criteria for American Universities has had an impact on merit. Nicholas Lemann conducted a study with respect to the way American institutions had standardized their tests to select students for admission. The University of Yale made a decision in the 1960s to admit students on the basis of merit for those who were from different ethnic groups from Asia. These students were largely drawn from working class or immigrant background (Lemann, 2000). Initially, Yale was dominated by a student community drawn largely from people who were white, upper class, male and they were mostly Protestants in their faith. The few students of Asian extraction who were admitted sought ways to have a higher “Asian” presence at Yale (Kloor, 2010).
The Asian students were a minority at Yale and matters the larger student population did not make matters any better by taunting the students on certain issues such as the Pearl Harbor attack. The feeling of discrimination led to Asian students to explore their identity as well as history (Lemann, 2000). The Asian-Americans focused on admission of more student of Asian extraction. During the year when the Asian-American came up with an organization the number of students that the University of Yale admitted rose to thirty five. By the late 1990s the composition of Yale University was 15% for newly admitted students while overall their composition was 12%.
One can draw important conclusions based on the associations that have been formed by Asian-American students as well as the fact that numbers indicate that the number of Asian students in America is increasing as a proportion of international students. American institutions of higher learning had originally served the role of “Americanizing” ethnic students. However, the same institutions provided settings where the students began redefining themselves in terms of their ethnic extractions rather than the citizenships they held.
An example is cited of Harvard’s doctoral program where students whose ethnicity was Chinese but differentiated by the fact that one was a second generation Chinese American while the other was an ordinary Chinese student undertaking studies in America writing their theses on voluntary associations as well as social movements that are indigenous in China. Previously Chinese students would study in American universities and take up careers in Chinese universities. However, things have changed whereby a native Chinese has an opportunity of holding an academic position in a university in the United States. What is apparent is that ethnicity appears to be a more important factor in determining how students relate rather than their nationality (Otero, 2008).
Education, Nationality, and Transnationality
It is possible to understand the development of civil societies world wide based on the history of the civil society in the United States. The United States is an expansive country and in addition to its vast size, it has people who have diverse traditions and languages. Most nations either have a few different groups or even one homogeneous group. There are differences to be found even among the English speaking Americans. These differences can be seen in the diverse religion, different lifestyles as well as modes of production (Elliot, 1869). The differences among the American people are sufficient to lead to the different people engaging in a civil war which would be very destructive as evidence by the famous American Civil War. The federal union eventually emerged victorious in the civil war but Charles W. Eliot, who was the Harvard president observed that the American people had a great struggle to attain self government and it was necessary that they were well trained for the same (Elliot, 1869). Many nationalists realized that even though political unity had been achieved nationality had not been realized. This problem was solved by educators who actively came up with a national culture as well as national elite. Part of this was through the national recruitment of students to leading universities in the United States.
Conclusion
Globalism is seen to be the view that one nation can exercise its political influence in the whole world. It is against this backdrop that countries that wield a lot of wealth and influence tend to impose their will on other countries. This influence takes on different forms ranging from economic, social as well as cultural. Neoliberalism on the other hand refers an economic philosophy, which sough to mend the conflicts between collectivist central planning, and classical liberalism, which was meant to temper capitalism while at the same time avoiding nationalism. These two phenomena seek to bring about influence in the world. As would be expected, there are many people who are support as well as those who oppose the two. There have been both positive and negative effects of globalism and neoliberalism. The development of urbanization as well as institutions with mixed ethnicities has made the world to be more cohesive. On the other hand global health has suffered due to reduced spending by governments. This has meant that health programs cannot be controlled fully by the government and this has resulted in fragmentation as well as social inequality.
References:
Ambrose, S.E. (2010).Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938, Ninth Revised Edition. New York: Penguin Group US.
Eliot, C.W. (1869). “The New Education.” Atlantic MonthlyXXIII (February and March), 202-220, 363-366.
Hettne, B., Inotai, & Sunkel, A.O. (1999).Globalism and the New Regionalism. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Jreisat, J. (2011). Globalism and Comparative Public Administration. Florida: CRC Press.
Kloor, K. (2010). The new world order. Nature Reports Climate Change.
Lemann, N. (2000). The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Lowy, R. F. (1998). Development theory, globalism, and the new world order. Journal of Black Studies, 28(5), 594.
Otero, G. (2008). Food for the few: Neoliberal globalism and biotechnology in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Turner, B.S. (1994).Orientalism, Postmodernism, and Globalism.London: Routledge.
Turpin, P. (2004). Globalism: The New Market Ideology (review). Rhetoric & Public Affairs.
