A government stepping in and putting "experienced" people to work is different than the suggestion that those who work in a shoe factory will somehow be able to start their own factory. Personally I can't imagine that happening, unless developing nations have generations of poverty to endure still and one day in the distant future a family puts together enough pennies from their day jobs to have the capital to start their own factory. Government intervention (like in the China example) seems more likely.
I don't think that globalisation is inevitable in the sense that we will be left with a completely free market global economy. If that were to happen then nations would end up producing a smaller number of commodities that they have expertise/resources to make lots of money. The problem in this vision of the future is that it would result in entire nations being significantly more vulnerable to market fluctuations.
Imagine if Canada (we would likely be better off than most in that scenario I think) were to, over time, produce a smaller number of commodities because we were at an advantage in selling them compared to other nations that had their own products. Say that beef is one of our best selling exports, which is great up until it is proven that there is a strong correlation between red meat and cancer (hypothetically). Now our entire economy suffers a big hit and we have millions of people working in an industry that will never again bring in the kind of money that we need it to. Diversification is an option but it is one that would now be much more difficult because the majority of goods are already being produced in other countries at their advantage.
Globalisation isn't necessarily evil (although it works more to the advantage of developed nations than to underdeveloped ones) but I think its unlikely that it is inevitable or, were it to occur, infinite because it is no more perfect a system than protectionism. As nations lose control over their economies they will start to move away from completely open markets and when that goes too far and economies suffer they will move back.
In case there is a flaming on its way I would like to add that I do not think there is a "corporati-spiracy" or whatever that book was about. Although I do think the article was crap. There are arguments in favour of globalisation that do not require readers to believe that social progress is driven purely by economics... especially when the author lists in the next paragraph quantitative evidence that apparently does not apply to Indonesia.
|