America is not the land of the free but one of monopolies so predatory they imperil the nation...

Click HERE to read the article from The Guardian!

Revealed: Disney's £35 Ariel doll earns a Chinese worker 1p

Click HERE to read the article from The Guardian

Who are "les Anglo-Saxons"?

Sutton Hoo helmet

> Click HERE to read an article from AEON!
> Click HERE for the translation!

French "rockeur" legend Johnny Hallyday dies...

Fats Domino, Johnny Halliday, Ray Sugar Robinson (1962)

Click HERE to read an article from The Guardian!

Questions on the article from The Guardian:

1. What is “the tragedy of Johnny Hallyday”?
2. Why should he “have sung Piaf, not Presley”?
3. What does “purveyor of pastiche” mean?
4. Why was he “mercilessly teased by French satirists and despised by the many tribes of French intellectuals, both of the right and the left”?
5. Are there aspects of American culture that French intellectuals do admire (why)?
6. Do you agree he was “one of the most remarkable of all rock stars”?
7. In what way is he “a symbol of French cultural resistance”?
8. Do you, like De Gaulle, condemn him as a fifth columnist for “American cultural imperialism”?
9. Do you agree “France is a grown-up country that does not have to rely on US missiles or US pop stars”?
10. Why is France so afraid of cultural colonisation by the US do you think?

Costco comes to France...

 

A) Read the article: An American Mastodon in Paris (The Atlantic) (note that there is a translation of the article in the "comments" section of this blog post!)

B) Answer the following questions on the article from The Atlantic:

1. Why do the French like Jerry Lewis, Burger King and "anything très Brooklyn" do you think?
2. Why do the French like less Uber, Netflix and Skippy peanut butter do you think?
3. Was Le Parisien pleased Costco opened its first warehouse in France recently?
4. Do you think Doug Stephens is right?
5. How different from a North American Costco is the one in Paris?
6. What kind of people shop at the Paris Costco?
7. In what ways is French life "segregated"?
8. Why is the Paris Costco so popular do you think?
9. Would you shop at the French Costco (why/not)?
10. Will Costco open more warehouse stores in France do you think (why/not)?

C) Carry out research on The Atlantic magazine (history, types of readers, influence, political bias, etc.).

D) Carry out research on Costco (YOU MUST TAKE NOTES!)

You need to find out:

• who the people concerned by Costco's expansion are;
• what "flows" of goods and finance are involved;
• what types of networks are needed;
• what issues are raised (such as the possible impact on French consumer habits.

E) List the reasons for and against the following proposal in preparation for a debate in class (be sure to use Costco as an example!):

"The French state should limit the number of foreign retail stores in France."

The USA and the world, now and tomorrow...

To watch the TED talk by Ian Bremmer "How the US should use its superpower status...", click HERE!

Ian Bremmer, global research professor at New York University, teaches classes in the field of political risk. "G-Zero" (i.e. no G20 or G7) is a term used by Bremmer, and widely accepted by policymakers, for a global power vacuum in which no country is willing and able to set the international agenda...

Summary of the TED talk by Ian Bremmer:

Is the USA, “large and in charge”, still in fact the world’s “n°1”? We are increasingly in a “driverless world” (i.e. the USA no longer “drives” the world). Americanization and globalization were, up to now, the same thing (WTO, IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods Accord, etc., were “American” institutions).

US view: President Obama (USA) in charge of the world. The reality: US now has little impact on G20; Putin, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel, etc. are now “calling the shots”. The problem is it's a G-Zero world that we now live in, i.e. a world order where there is no single country or alliance that can meet the challenges of global leadership.

Globalization is continuing. Goods and services and people and capital are moving across borders faster and faster than ever before, but Americanisation is not.

What are the implications of the end of Americanisation for the whole world, and what do we think about it in the United States?

Why are we in this situation? It’s because:

> the USA spent two trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that failed and we don't want to get involved in (expensive) wars anymore;

> large numbers of middle and working class Americans feel they've not benefited from globalization, so they are rejecting it;

> we don't need OPEC or the Middle East because we now produce most of our oil in the United States.

Americans don't want to be the global sheriff for security or the architect of global trade any more. They don't even want to be the cheerleader of global values.

Europe:  transatlantic relationship is now weaker than it has ever been (crises: Brexit, French vs Russians, Germans vs Turks, Brits vs Chinese, etc.).

China: wants leadership only in economic sphere, hence competition with US.

Russia: wants more leadership (cf. Ukraine, Baltic States, Middle East), hence competition with USA.

Middle East: now very unstable because US and allies no longer provide military security, oil revenue has gone down, and populations are rebelling against corrupt despots (hence failed states, terrorism, refugees, etc.). Will entire Middle East fall apart? No, Kurds, Iraq, Israel, Iran will do well.

Russia: antagonized by US and Europe expanding NATO right up to its borders; also threat from China which is going to dominate (economically) every country around Russia.

Asia: political stability in most important economies (Modi in India, Abe in Japan, Xi Jinping in China). Problems: South China Sea, Kim Jong Un. But most leaders want to avoid xenophobia and escalation of geopolitical and cross-border tensions because they want long-term economic stability and growth.

Europe: suffering from refugee crisis (> Brexit, populism across all of European states). In G-Zero world, Europe will get smaller (because Eastern Europe and Turkey are too different from “core Europe” and NATO will be weaker without US dominance). Germany and France and others will still function, but peripheral countries (Greece, Turkey, others) will not.

Latin America: populism and opposition to USA > economic downturn. Hope for Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil? Not for Mexico (cf. Trump)…

Africa: in G-Zero world  > extreme segregation between winners and losers across Africa: the few countries that are well-governed, urbanized, with entrepreneurship and women in workforce vs other countries (with extreme climate, radicalism, poor governance, border wars, forced migration, etc.).

United States: elections have highlighted loathing of Washington (the “establishment”), the media and globalization. Americans now have to compete with the rest of the world (it can easily). Protectionism and isolationism are not good options. NAFTA is a good thing for USA. Terrorism and refugees are not as big a problem for USA as for Europe or Middle East.

USA no longer wants to be global cop, architect of global trade, cheerleader of global values. But, in G-Zero world, USA should lead by example. Clinton wants to go back to the '90s (i.e. US dominating the world), Trump back to the '30s (i.e. US rejecting the world). But, in G-Zero world, though the US will not be in economic decline, America will no longer be able or willing to control the world.

Are we prepared to be a model country, one which the world will emulate? We need to change first! Another crisis (global financial crisis or economic depression or terrorist attack) could force us to change... We, individually, need to force our leaders to deal with the inequality in our country; this is urgent.

(Click HERE to watch a September 2018 interview of Prof. Bremmer!)

How to boost employment, productivity and growth, and make globalization enter a new era...

Click HERE!

Summary of the TED talk by Olivier Scalabre:

Our global economy has stopped growing. This creates tensions (more people, less to go around).

Manufacturing revolutions (mid-19^th century steam engine, beginning 20th century mass-production model, 1970s first automation wave) lead to big growth thanks to improved productivity (i.e. the efficiency of a person, machine, factory, system, etc., in converting inputs into useful outputs).

Offshoring factories has not worked because cheap labor didn't stay cheap for long.

We've made our factories larger, making a lot of one product, stockpiling it to be sold on demand. This helped productivity for a while, but it introduced a lot of rigidities in our supply chain. 

Innovation in the tech sector hasn't done much for productivity either.

A fourth manufacturing revolution is underway: major technologies are entering the manufacturing space; it will boost industrial productivity by more than a third and create growth. It will change globalization.

By 2025, advanced manufacturing robots, programmed to perform complex, non-repetitive tasks, will result, compared to today, in an increase in productivity, output and growth of 20%.  Plastic and metal manufacturing (25% of global manufacturing production) is being improved by 3D printing (e.g. aerospace companies are now using 3D printing, resulting in 40% more productivity, output and growth).

Imagine a world where you can buy the exact products you want with the functionalities you need, with the design you want, with the same cost and lead time as a product that's been mass produced, like your car, or your clothes or your cell phone. The new manufacturing revolution makes it possible.

Not only will manufacturing become more productive, it will also become more flexible. Our factories will be smaller, operating on a multi-product, made-to-order basis. It will create a macroeconomic shift: our factories will be relocated into our home markets. In the world of scale customization, consumer proximity is the new norm.

Globalization will enter a new era. The East-to-West trade flows will be replaced by regional trade flows: East for East, West for West. The old model was insane: piling up stocks, making products travel the whole world to reach consumers.

The new model, producing just next to the consumer market, will be much better for our environment.

In mature economies, manufacturing will be back home, creating more employment, more productivity and more growth.

We'll have to massively re-train our workforce. We need to teach manufacturing again at university. Only the countries that will boldly transform will be able to seize this growth.

China and other emerging economies won't be the factory of the world anymore. It was not a sustainable model; it is already as expensive to produce in Brazil as to produce in France. By 2018, manufacturing costs in China will be on par with the US. The new manufacturing revolution will accelerate the transition of those emerging economies towards a model driven by domestic consumption, creating growth there.

The fourth manufacturing revolution means more wealth distributed to all of us and a better future for our children.

For further reading, click on the "comments" below!

The web spreads ideas, good and bad, across the globe...

Why do transnational extremist organizations succeed where democratic movements have a harder time taking hold?

Click HERE to watch a TED talk!

In a globalized world, where is "home"?

Click HERE to watch the TED talk!

Extracts of the talk by Pico lyer:

“… The number of people living in countries not their own now comes to 220 million (…)  And the number of us who live outside the old nation-state categories is increasing so quickly, by 64 million just in the last 12 years, that soon there will be more of us than there are Americans. Already, we represent the fifth-largest “nation” on Earth. (…) in Canada's largest city, Toronto, the average resident today is what used to be called a foreigner, somebody born in a very different country (…) Many of the people living in countries not their own are refugees who never wanted to leave home and ache to go back home. But for the fortunate among us, I think the age of movement brings exhilarating new possibilities (…) And home, we know, is not just the place where you happen to be born. It's the place where you become yourself.”

Globalization: good or bad for our future?

Click HERE to watch the TED-Ed talk!

Describe and comment this 2005 editorial cartoon by Jeff Danziger entitled "The world according to Nike"

Inequalities caused by globalization : the forgotten countries

Baku

The recent colour photo above illustrates in a stricking manner the social and spatial disparities within Baku: the ultra-modern high-rise buildings (flats and offices) of the wealthy dominate the dilapidated low-rise inhabitations and workshops of the poor. The document shows that there is wealth in this city (thanks to globalization) but that it is unevenly shared. Globalization has made the disparities that already existed in Azerbaidjan worse. Perhaps, over the long-term, globalization will raise everyone's standard of living to a decent level?

Cf. pages 78 and 79 (Lesson 4) of your textbook.

“Heterogeneity in the South” (cf. "A. Heterogeneity in the South" on page 78) means that many of the regions that make up the “South” (i.e. the LEDCs which are found mostly in the southern hemisphere) have not benefited equally from globalization: there are disparities of income within and between regions.

The impact of globalization on poorer countries can be seen as positive: it has brought them greater wealth.

The impact can also be seen as negative: it has only brought wealth to a small percentage of these countries’ populations, creating or exacerbating social and spatial inequalities (within the growing urban areas and between rural and urban areas).

Document 1 is a photo of Baku, capital of Azerbaidjan, in Central Asia. The urban landscape has been transformed by the impact of increased wealth. After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in the early 1990s, Azerbaidjan started to profit from the international market for oil. The country's infrastructure started to be improved. However, poor housing still exists (note the slum-like dwellings) and not everyone has equal access to the city's amenities. This photo illustrates the fact that globalization results, at a local level, in increased wealth only for a privileged few (or the fact that “trickle-down” of wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy is very slow…).

Document 2 is a World Bank graph showing gross capital formation (i.e. spending to improve a country’s infrastructure) in the South from 1980 to 2003. East Asia and Pacific countries show the greatest increase (especially since 2000) in investment. Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean increased slowly. Investment in South Asia was low in 1980 and only increased a little by 2003 (it has increased much more since). There has been virtually no investment in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. These figures are a good indication of a region’s integration into the globalized economy. We can say that South Asia has, up to recently, been excluded from the globalization process, and Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be excluded (it has been “forgotten” according to the lesson title). LEDCs have little money to invest in improving their facilities (e.g. factories) and transport networks (e.g. roads) and this results in an inability to exploit natural resources, transport and sell goods abroad.

TNCs prefer to invest (FDI) in countries which are not too risky (i.e. that are politically stable, with an abundant and competent workforce, not subject to extreme weather conditions, etc.). For example, a company will probably choose to invest in India rather than Pakistan. The result is that some LEDCs develop faster than others, hence the heterogeneity of the South.

Map showing that the South is less well served by air routes than the North

Document 3 is a table that illustrates the unequal benefits to destination countries of international tourism. The flow of international tourism has virtually doubled since 1990. All regions of the world are now tourist destinations, but it is the areas that are safe, easy to get to, and with decent tourist facilities that are preferred (tourists prefer Europe to Africa for example). Globalization includes the movement of people (for work, tourism, emigration), but the statistics show that the flows of travellers are concentrated between wealthier parts of the world with efficient transport hubs; poorer countries are not primary destinations and therefore do not benefit from increased immigration or from tourist money as much as the wealthier countries, thus accentuating income differences between the countries of the world.

Documents 1, 2 and 3 show that globalization has succeeded in increasing wealth generally (especially for those countries that have something to sell abroad), increased investment by TNCs in foreign countries, encouraged increased investment in infrastructure, and increased population flows. However, disparities between the MEDCs and LEDCs, and between rich and poor areas within regions, notably in the South, still remain.

There is a North-South divide still in the world (“North” means “wealthy countries”, most of which are indeed in the northern hemisphere, and “South” means “poor countries”, mostly in the southern hemisphere). Is it possible to balance this divide and if so, how? After all, the globalized economy is controlled by the powerful economies of the world to their advantage…

Document 4 is a cartoon which illustrates the absurdity of “free trade” between the North and the South. The man on his pallet truck carrying big boxes overflowing with consumer goods (symbolizing the great wealth of rich countries) seems very satisfied, whilst the woman, carrying a cooking pot on her head filled with fruit and vegetables (symbolizing the subsistence economy of the poorest countries) is at a loss as to how to react; she does not have anything with which to “trade”… The cartoonist is condemning the so-called “free trade” of the globalized economy which favours rich countries and excludes the poorest countries. Free trade is not an economic system that benefits countries that have insufficient resources with which to compete on a worldwide market. The differences between North and South rests on economic strength (the MEDCs are able to produce and trade vast amounts of goods, unlike the LEDCS) and political power (international trade agreements rarely favour poorer countries and TNCs can exploit the resources of poorer countries mostly to their advantage, cf. as an example the practices of several TNCs in Africa).

Document 5, a 2003 article from The Guardian, demonstrates how the “rules” of the globalized economy are biased in favour of the wealthy and powerful countries. The farmer in Benin produces plentiful crops of good-quality cotton. The Texas farmer’s cotton crops are poor because there is not enough rainfall. However, this is not a problem for him because cotton production is subsidised by the US State (he is guaranteed an income even if he does not manage to produce any cotton). Surplus American cotton is sold on the world market more cheaply than the African cotton. The result is that the African cotton farmers are put out of business (they do not get any help from the State) and the economy stays poor.

The USA is a proponent of “free trade”, in other words it is supposed to be against protectionism. Direct government subsidies to farmers are, however, a protectionist policy; it would appear that the USA is not playing by its rules… The WTO is also supposed to favour free trade but is still very much controlled by the most powerful countries to their advantage; the poorer countries are not so much “forgotten” but excluded from the global marketplace. Anti-globalization activists point to these unfair practices as proof that globalization actually creates poverty…

Documents 4 and 5 tend to prove that the globalization process is biased in favour of the rich and powerful countries, with little hope of breaching the divide between the North and South because poor countries are too weak to compete and are even excluded.

Conclusion

Not all countries have so far benefitted equally from increased global GDP; some have been "forgotten" (left trailing) by globalization. The world is still divided because some countries have greater advantages than others: they have a fairer socioeconomic system, are more stable, are wealthier, are good places for foreign investors, are more attractive to tourists, have greater resources, are more powerful, and use protectionist methods to maintain their advantages on world markets. Wealthy and powerful regions become more powerful and wealthier thanks to a globalized economy because they exploit their advantages mostly for themselves. The poorer regions find it difficult to compete on a world scale. The North-South divide will not be closed easily or soon...

The new Asian powers in the globalization process

The above 2015 editorial cartoon by Rodriguo De Matos entitled "China is out front" can be seen as a satirical warning to the USA that China is becoming a threat to US economic (and geopolitical?) domination. China, symbolized as a dragon in the colours of the Chinese flag, has beaten Japan (shown as a sumo wrestler turned into a ridiculous roast chicken by the dragon) economically. The dragon is pointing towards a small, fat (i.e. morally compromised?) and scared-looking Uncle Sam (symbol of the USA). The dragon threatens Uncle Sam: "You are next!", meaning that China intends to surpass the USA as an economic superpower.

Cf. pages 76 and 77 of your DNL textbook (Lesson 3).

The new Asian powers are: India, China, and South-East Asian nations like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines, plus China since the early 2000s. They are becoming more and more economically important and contribute largely to globalization. They are disrupting the balance of (economic) power (the dominance of the Triad is being undermined). Greater integration into a global economy, however, is not without consequences for these countries...

Documents 1 and 2 concern China and Singapore, two key players of the Asia Pacific region and of globalization.

Document 1 is an optimistic article from the New York Times which highlights the impact of the Chinese economy on that of the USA. The trade deficit of the USA (meaning the USA imports more than it exports) is greatly due to its import of cheap goods from Asia. The fact that China is now the dominant economic power of the region (even more than Japan) is, according to the journalist, actually beneficial to the US economy. Because China makes consumer products more cheaply than the USA, the USA actually makes savings by importing them from China (it would cost more to the USA if it made the goods itself). This makes China a privileged trade partner for the USA for goods such as shoes, toys, electronic and numerous other consumer goods. In fact, the USA trade deficit has actually gone down because it now trades with China rather than more expensive Asian countries (South Korea, Japan).

China’s economic growth since 1979 (and especially 2001 when it finally joined the WTO) has been staggering. It has become the “workshop of the world”, overtaking other Asian nations in the amount of goods produced and pushing prices down. This is good news for consumers but not for the less competitive nations.

The photo of Singapore harbour (document 2) shows one of the world’s biggest and most modern container port facilities. This harbour is a major global trade hub because it has been modernized and is strategically situated on major sea routes between Japan, China, South Korea and the Middle East, Europe and North America. The harbour facilities have made the city state very wealthy (9^th on the UN HDI 2013 list).

We see part of the modern harbour complex: it is clean, well-ordered and highly-mechanized. Freight is unloaded by giant cranes along the piers. The very numerous containers are stacked along the wharfs. In the middle-distance, close to the harbour, is the CBD (high-rise prestigious office blocks for the headquarters of merchant companies, banks, insurance companies, etc.).

The map (document 3) illustrates the fact that Asia has become the workshop of the globalized economy. It shows where the various activities of Seagate Technology, an American TNC, are situated. Though its Registered Office is actually in a fiscal paradise on the Cayman Islands (which allows it to pay less taxes), the headquarters of Seagate (where the company’s executives and research staff are) is in the TNC’s “home” country (USA). Most of the actual production of the hard drives it makes takes place “offshore” in Asian countries where labour is as qualified but cheaper than in the USA.

Document 4 is an extract from a 2006 The Guardian newspaper article. In it, the journalist explains that the spectacular economic growth in Asia has resulted, unexpectedly, in unemployment and inequality. This is because many (young) people leave the countryside to work in the factories, hoping for better wages, but the demand for jobs has grown faster than the number of jobs available. The result is increased competition for jobs (and so greater job insecurity, unemployment, and poorer working conditions) as well as increased food insecurity in the countryside.

The fact that Chinese production costs are the lowest (though this is likely to change) means that companies move production to China away from other countries of the region, resulting in rising unemployment in those Asia-Pacific countries.

Conclusion

Asian countries, notably China since it adopted “state capitalism”, have become an essential component of the globalized economy, providing cheap and abundant labour for the TNCs and goods for the world via an efficient system of maritime transport (to the benefit of coastal cities like Hong Kong and Singapore that have invested in modern harbour facilities). However, the economic boom has not spared Asia from the problems inherent to globalization and from the risks involved in becoming dependent on a world-wide economic system.

Does inequality undermine growth?

A cartoon disparaging anti-globalization 

> Click HERE to read an article in THE DAY!

Globalisation: a vulnerable process creating economic growth

Cf. Lesson 2 (pages 74 and 75) of your textbook

Comments on the cartoon above: The cartoonist has chosen to show globalization (and the system of free trade it depends on) as a big machine, controlled by capitalists, moving relentlessly forward, over-exploiting natural and human resources in order to produce unnecessary goods to increase wealth (for the capitalists), and causing environmental destruction in the process. The "machine" seems unstoppable, but it will stop if the natural resources run out (or the planet becomes unlivable)... Globalization is not an unstopable process; it is "vulnerable".

The title of Lesson 2 describes globalization as “vulnerable”, meaning that it can be slowed down by events happening in the world (wars, terrorism, natural disasters, increasing costs of natural resources), and that it is facing increasing opposition.

Globalization creates economic growth with new products and new markets. But, the process has not, so far, got rid of poverty (some accuse it of actually causing the widening gap between rich and poor).

Globalization appears to offer more opportunities for the already wealthy MEDCs (more economically developed countries) than for the LEDCs (less economically developed countries) where it is seen as a threat to development.

Comments on document 1: Globalization, growth and poverty: building an inclusive world economy

This graph uses the following criteria: emigration to the USA, % of the world’s GDP that the export of merchandise represents, and Foreign Direct Investment in developing countries (i.e. how much capital rich countries invested in developing countries) to show that globalization since the 1870s has not progressed at an even pace since it is affected by factors such as world events, agreements on trade, and progress in the means of transport.

There have been three “waves” of globalization:

1870 to 1914: The first wave was the “golden age” of globalization, with increased international trade (due to falling costs of transport), free flow of capital (massive investments in colonies), mass emigration (mostly to the USA).

(1914 to 1939: globalization was halted during the First World War and the Great Depression: very little emigration, a down-turn in trade (there were high trade tariffs) and foreign investment.)

1945 to 1979: Second wave of globalization, due to liberalization of trade between North America, Europe and Japan. Most former colonies chose not to take part in it (preferring to produce their own goods rather than importing them). The shipping container and jet travel made transport much cheaper. Restrictions on immigrants were only slowly lifted. Capital flows between rich countries were restricted up until 1971, when the Bretton Woods system (which fixed exchange rates between major currencies) ended.

1980s to today: Third wave of globalization, with increased participation of developing countries (China open-up to the market economy in 1979 and India in 1991). China is today the “workshop of the world” and the biggest exporter. Thanks to Internet, services on a world scale have increased. Outsourcing and offshoring have become the norm. Increased immigration means that the percentage of foreign-born citizens in the USA is now about 13% of the total (the same as in 1913).

The “highs and lows” of globalization are determined by world events (such as the world wars), international agreements, progress in transport and communication, and by US hegemony since the start of the 20^th century (its economy, foreign policy, immigration policies).

Comments on document 2: Worldwide business: the New York Stock Exchange

NYSE is the biggest stock exchange. All global cities have similar financial centres; it is one of the defining features of a megalopolis. The display panels show the Dow Jones index (i.e. of the value of the 30 biggest firms of the USA), the NASDAQ (National Association of Security Dealers Automated Quotations), an index which measures the strength (performance) of shares in businesses which are part of NASDAQ. Both the Dow Jones and NASDAQ measure the strength of the USA and world economy. Financial markets are more and more contested because some see them as part of the cause of the economic downturn which started in 2007 (cf. the Occupy Wall Street movement).

Comments on document 3: Anti-globalisation activists: “Africa is not for sale!”

Cancun is in Mexico. The WTO met there in 2003 for important trade talks. Poorer countries wanted to talk about increasing access to the world market in agricultural products for their products, and about the subsidies accorded farmers of the EU and the US by their governments. The talks failed.

“Africa is not for sale” is a slogan that was shouted by some African anti-globalization protesters during the talks (it is probably what the man in the photo is shouting). The meaning is: Africa is not just merchandise to be sold off by the powerful countries of the world to other wealthy countries of the world (i.e. Africa belongs to the Africans and it is where they live and work; the resources of Africa should belong to the Africans themselves). The banner (streamer) being held up by the man shaking his fist in anger says clearly that Africans should resist the WTO’s liberalization of the world’s economy. Note the slogan on the back of the Tee-shirt of the woman on the banner: “Our world is not for sale”; the meaning is: ordinary people should be able to access the world’s resources and not have them “stolen” by the wealthy (transnational corporations).

What is alter/anti-globalization?

It is a loosely-structured social movement that opposes the negative effects of economic globalization, and supports cooperation between the peoples of the world, environmental and climate protection, economic justice, labor protection, protection of indigenous cultures, human rights. According to anti-globalization activists, the victims of globalization are the poor in Latin America, Asia, and especially Africa. And the WTO is partly to blame. The poor in developed countries (the “4th world”) suffer too from globalization.

A few alter/anti-globalization associations:

• ATTAC (Association pour la Taxation des Transactions financière et l'Aide aux Citoyens), set up in 1998 in France, it is now an international association.
• People’s Global Action, since 1998, international coordinating body for anti-capitalist actions.
• Via Campesina, since 1999, international coalition of peasant organizations advocating sustainable agriculture.
• Fairtrade International, set up in 2004 to promote partnerships between consumers and producers.
• Oxfam International, set up in 1995 by a group of independent non-governmental organizations to reduce poverty and injustice. Oxfam claims that the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent is greater than that of the other 99 percent of people of the world... Cf. Oxfam

An aspect of the work of many other NGOs (Oxfam, CAFOD, etc.) is campaigning against globalization and promoting alternatives to it like Fair Trade (a market-based approach that promotes sustainability and better trading conditions for producers in developing countries).

Comments on document 4: The new division of labour and its repercussions

The “new international division of labour” means that low-qualified workers in developing countries will be used by transnational firms to make their goods cheaply (since the labour force is cheap and plentiful), while high-qualified workers and managers will remain in developed countries. Electrolux (which produces 25% of the world’s household electric appliances) is a typical multinational in that it needs “to move production to other countries to be competitive”, i.e. to Eastern Europe, Mexico and Asia where the workforce is cheaper. The consequence of this on low-qualified workers in wealthy countries is unemployment.

Globalization implies outsourcing (“délocalisation” in French) by companies (also described as offshoring), that is: the relocation by a company of an operational process, such as manufacturing, or supporting processes, such as accounting, to another country.

Offshoring fosters an imbalance in the division of the labour force: qualified personnel in the North, low-skilled workers in the South.

The “law of supply and demand” means in fact that people in the North want a product as cheaply as possible; in order to satisfy our demand for cheap goods, firms (which compete with each other) have to find the cheapest means of supplying these goods and they do so by offshoring to where the cost of production is lowest, i.e. in the South. This fosters an imbalance between North and South in that poor workers are in the South, and rich consumers in the North.

Flows, circulation and connections on a global scale

Cf. pages 72-73 of your DNL textbook (Lesson 1):

Champion of the Seas

Brief and selective history of globalization (cf. document 1 of your textbook):

3^rd millennium BC: trade links between Sumer and the Indus Valley, also the Egyptians traded spices with the Middle East;

6^th century BC: the Greeks start to found colonies;

4^th century BC to 5^th century AD: the Roman Empire;

2^nd century BC: the Silk Route from China to the Mediterranean traced (click HERE!);

1295: Marco Polo returns to Venice after a long sojourn in China, laden with silk and jewels and tales of the fabulous wealth of the Orient. His exploits rekindle a long-dormant interest in trade between Europe and the East;

1492: Christopher Columbus discovers America;

16^th and 17^th centuries: rise of Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and British maritime empires;

1600: the British East India Company, the first multinational corporation, was founded (the Dutch East India Company was set up in 1602);

1854: Donald McKay's Boston yard launches fast sail ships;

19^th century: the transport revolution (rail, steamships, and canals) allowed more goods to be transported quicker and further so that they became cheaper, more diverse and plentiful. The transport revolution, industrialization, and colonization encouraged the creation of many companies with interests throughout the world (dominated by the British);

1914: the outbreak of World War I ends the first great age of globalization, when trade and international investment had boomed;

1947: creation of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), a multilateral agreement to reduce barriers to international trade;

1948: the Marshall plan helps Europe rebuilt and creates dependency on the USA;

1950s onwards: start of the reign of the multinational firms and of free trade on an international scale (except for countries under control of the Soviet Union);

1956: Malcom McLean developed the shipping container which revolutionized international transport;

1970: Boeing 747 jumbo jet makes intercontinental air travel accessible to a mass market;

1980s: improved telecommunications networks (start of Internet);

1991: collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA becomes the hyper power and the free market spreads to all parts of the planet;

1995: the GATT is replaced by the WTO (World Trade Organization);

1999: riots at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle signal a backlash against free trade;

2001: China joins the WTO, hence integrating its economy into international trading patterns;

2007: start of the Great Recession;

2012: Russian Federation joins the WTO.

Comments on document 2 (Purchasing and manufacturing globally: Toyota):

TNCs are the driving force of globalization, its main vector. Toyota is (like Ikea) a good example of a multinational firm. This text, from the company’s website, explains its successful strategy.

Toyota Motors is a Japanese firm set up in 1933. It has been a multinational corporation since the 1950s (“corporation” means a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality and having its own powers, duties and liabilities). Toyota is based (has its headquarters) in Toyota City, Japan, and its production plants in 26 countries.

Toyota Motors is today one of the biggest car manufacturers in the world. There is wide-spread diffusion (it sells in 170 countries) of its mass-produced vehicles. According to the text, which obviously presents the firm in a positive light, Toyota’s strength is due to its knowledge of its clients’ needs all over the world. It produces all over the world, non-stop, and adapts its products to local needs using local labour and materials. Its managers are Japanese and the firm has been able to make local personnel adapt to its production and management methods (the Japanese managers have intercultural management skills).

Comments on document 3 (map of The world archipelago):

This map shows the major transport routes for worldwide trade.

The word “archipelago” is used to describe the continents as if they were part of a group of interdependent “islands”, the suppliers and consumers of the different countries united by globalization. It is a way of describing a world that is highly interconnected and interdependent though trade.

An “oligopoly” is a market in which control of a commodity is in the hands of a small number of businesses which can influence prices and affect weaker competitors. It describes the countries of the Triad (the USA, Western Europe, Japan).

The map shows exchange of goods by air (air freight) and sea routes; exchange is mainly between the Triad regions.

Petrol tankers, giant container and cargo ships go towards Japan and China, and around Africa towards Europe, and to North America from Europe and the Far East.

Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Osaka, etc. are major ports. There are major ports in Europe and the USA. Ports are where most exchange takes place. The Panama and Suez canals are strategic areas, as are the Straits of Hormuz, Malacca and Magellan, and the Mozambique Channel.

The megalopolises are transport hubs (i.e. major centres of transport networks).

Comments on document 4 (Bollywood out to conquer the world):

The poster advertising a Bollywood film poster exhibition illustrates the globalization of culture.

Mumbai (previously called Bombay) is in India. It is the city in which many films are produced (more than in Hollywood, USA). The films produced in Mumbai are called “Bollywood” movies (mixture of the words “Bombay” and “Hollywood”). They are mostly watched in Asia and Africa, but are also becoming popular in other parts of the world (not just because of the expatriate Asian communities).

Films are a powerful means of spreading cultural models throughout the world. The growing popularity of films from India proves that Western cultural products do not entirely dominate the world.

“Slumdog Millionaire” is a British film set in India inspired by Bollywood-style cinema; it won the 2009 Best Picture Oscar.