Summary
The author started with his discussion on the debates of globalization and liberalization in the historical context, the debates on why globalization works and does not work. He referred to the discourse as ‘liberal globalization’ since what is talked about is on the integration of economic activities driven by technological changes and policy changes. He divided champions of globalization into two groups, that of those ‘who are promoting policies of economic liberalization’ and those following the ideas of Anthony Giddens (1998) on the ‘creative possibilities of globalization and the ‘rise of the new individualism.’ Both groups have shared skepticism of the ‘state.’
Interestingly, it was pointed out by Putzel (2005) that ‘there are no historical examples of development occurring under the conditions of openness and liberalization as promoted by the international development community.’ Accelerated growth has required state involvement, control over the allocation of foreign exchange, and subsidies and protection for infant industries’ (Chang in Putzel, 2005).
Putzel (2005) discussed further the ‘relationship of liberalization and the processes of state collapse.’ Along with the spread of globalization are the conflicts within countries such as what happened in Africa. To control territories through patronage, repression is used by many state leaders. This resulted to economic crises. Due to pressure for structural adjustment and liberalization, states were forced to change centralized forms of economic management as they were confronted by demands to private assets, open import markets and create conditions for democratic governance. This is not an easy task considering the historical conditions but needs to be done to maintain a semblance of state authority.
‘The removal of trade barriers combined with the relaxation of state control over foreign exchange in the developing countries provided sub-national and non-state actors access to international markets’ promoting the sale and purchase of illegal goods and promotion of ‘expanded smuggling leading to declines in revenue’ (Putzel, 2005). This pattern leads to increase violent conflicts with the ineffectiveness of the state to impose regulatory measures. Apart form state weakness that leads to state collapse, it was also pointed out that conflicts are reinforced by the unequal distribution of income and political power between groups.
However, there is some unease in concluding collapsed states in the onset of globalization patterns and liberalization. Discourse between ‘state collapse’ and ‘state in crisis’ were tackled in consideration with the ‘wider prospects for political change.’ The author went on to discuss examples of what he refers to as ‘crisis states’ to have a better understanding on the ‘impact of liberalizing trends on politics in the developing world.’ In the event where the state collapses, reconstruction is engaged to start reform. The author suggested that ‘attention to problems on horizontal inequalities through semi-democratic or semi-authoritarian means’ is to be employed.
Views and Reflections
Globalization is, indeed, inevitable. Yet in some ways, it became an instrument for capitalism. It widens the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations in terms of economic growth. Those who are technically and industrially capable equipped to raid the resources of developing countries do so. In the end, even its own resources are owned by the developed countries. Examples are the mineral mines managed by transnational corporations in our country. Another is of indigenous knowledge patented by bio-prospectors for their own gains.
The discussion on ‘horizontal inequality’ or unequal distribution of income and political power between groups are glaring in the Philippine context. Those who are in power are also those who have the means to exploit resources intended for all and use their authority to amass wealth and maintain their positions.
I would like to relate the discussion of Putzel (2005) in his article to the decisions made by governing authorities of our country. Using it as a basis, it questions the promotion of the government on de-regulation, importation of products, open market and free trade. With these features of capitalism accelerated by globalization, small industries and entrepreneurial businesses of our country cannot compete with the deluge of import products. As a result, they die. Economic profit gains go to foreign corporations. Taxes imposed by the government are just minute of the bulk of transnational corporation profits from the lower wage, rents and abundance of local resources.
Another point to consider is the rise of influence of religious organizations in the Philippines is not an advantage. In fact, it has a ‘corrosive effect’ as Putzel (2005) puts it. Politicians are elected because of endorsements from religious sectors, from the Catholics, the El Shaddai, to the Iglesia ni Cristo. They try to convince these groups to vote for them. In the end, who are being placed in power are politicians who are not supposed to be in the office and incapable to reform and boost the socio-economic state of the country. This is also true when it comes to the passing of laws such as the recent uproar on reproductive health care bill.
What I gained from the article is that, the state should have the backbone to take charge for economic transformation in the changing global world. This can be done by, first, ‘examining the political requirements for economic reform’ and, second, to consider the potential impact of reforms on the structural practice of politics. As a reflection, there were blunders in approving ‘detrimental’ bills and discarding ‘useful’ bills over the years. These include executive orders that were proven to be defective. They were not examined thoroughly in terms of economic and socio-political implications.
If and when our country and the leaders of this country want to achieve economic growth and poverty alleviation of its citizens, the state should be involved. What I mean with the involvement of the state is in terms of the changes in policies that promote poverty and economic stagnancy or impede economic growth, control over import-export system, protection and subsidies for small industries or businesses. However, this can only be realized when the government is strong and able to exercise its legitimacy accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment