A first attempt at defining globalization

Considering the large number of volumes I could write on this subject, I will start by addressing the two questions you raised: 1) What is globalization and what are the putative harms and 2) How do you intend to stop it.

In answer to (1a), most anti-globalization activists are referring to corporate globalization--more specifically, the excessive control that large companies have over labor, resources, and government policies. The fear is that companies which make decisions based on the bottom line are not being held accountable in a world where regulations on their activities are at a minimum (in some places more than others). Another variant is globalization that allows wealthy nations (and the corporations housed therein) to abuse their less well developed neighbors, through trade and restrictions on the types of loans that developing nations can receive.

One of the key points of the globalization debate is For What Are We (Americans, Trans-National Corporations, the corner grocer) Responsible? Does a Major League team owner have a responsibility to keep his ballclub in the same town year after year? Can a company close up shop in Detroit and set up a new factory in Mexico? Should an international organization such as the IMF tell a country how it can spend a loan, even if it means less money for schools and hospitals and more money for investors from other countries who may pull out their capital at any moment?

With the increase in international investment comes a distancing of the decision makers from the people directly affected by their policies. The CEO of Coke may feel upset about the murder of union workers at the Coca-Cola plant in Colombia, but he doesn't feel upset enough to change company policy. Obviously, the Coke CEO did not pull the trigger, but it does seem like his company should have policies that protect workers for engaging in legal activities, even in foreign countries.

Another danger of corporate globalization is the ability of companies to exploit resources in other countries, at the expense of people who live there. There are numerous examples of companies mining, forresting, and polluting and not cleaning up after themselves.

Here is a short article about a Dow Chemical PR spoof that illustrates some of these concerns:

It briefly appeared at http://www.dow-chemical.com for about 72 hours before Dow shut it down. The site mimicked Dow's real site closely in design and content, but contained some uncharacteristic honesty about such things as sustainable development and the Bhopal disaster, which departed from Dow's normal spin.

Regarding the Bhopal disaster, the parody site said: "We understand the anger and hurt," said Dow Spokesperson Bob Questra in the fake press release. "But Dow does not and cannot acknowledge responsibility. If we did, not only would we be required to expend many billions of dollars on cleanup and compensation - much worse, the public could then point to Dow as a precedent in other big cases. 'They took responsibility; why can't you?' Amoco, BP, Shell, and Exxon all have ongoing problems that would just get much worse. We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way."

"But what about Bhopal? It was an accident that occurred far away, one whose victims have few resources to ensure Dow is held responsible for Union Carbide's mistakes. Do we have a moral responsibility to make sure the site of the disaster is cleaned up and its victims compensated fairly? Of course we do. Would we be likely to do so if we faced consumer pressure, a major stockholder resolution, or a significant brand attack on Dow's good name? Of course we would. Once profitability is on the line, our moral responsibility becomes clear."

While we would hope that companies like Dow do not make their decisions based on maximal profitability and minimal concessions to those who claim to be hurt by their practicies, this is not the reality. A major question for globalization activists is "How to make companies responsible for their actions?" This question is a very tricky one to answer, especially since companies are not people, but have many of the same rights as people (presented here as a very simplified, but brief overview). How do you make an emotional appeal to something that doesn't have emotions? (I don't care what the ads say, all that Nike wants is for you to buy shoes, if you could consider Nike wanting anything at all.)

One strategy would be to convince the shareholders of the corporation that they need to vote in some changes in company policy, although there are a whole caboodle of problems with this, given the way that your average American invests in stocks. Check out Power and Accountability by Monks and Minow as an introduction to this subject. Barring that, lobbying legislators to create regulations so that corporations have to clean up their own messes would also appear to be a feasible option (given that you have enough funding and the ear of enough legislators). A final approach would be to appeal to the public to encourage change, through anger toward the company or the government (or both). The problem arises when 100% of the people in a small town (or even a large city) in another country are angry about a company's or foreign government's practices in their region, but the people in the country where the company is chartered or the government has its day-to-day operations don't really see a problem or take very much time to be informed about it.

I have barely touched the tip of the iceberg here (although if I wait 50 years it will probably be melted), so feel free to lead me back in the right direction.