Globalization is a contested thematic in popular discourse, as well as in the academic literature. In both forms, however, the broader arguments with regard to globalization tend to take two basic argumentative lines of thought. Some will claim that globalization is a golden opportunity, allowing for an unprecedented development of economies, which the world has historically not seen. Others will claim that globalization continues social systems and structures which encourage inequality and a radical disparity between the haves and the have not’s.
Arguably, the respective essays by Robert Reich and Thomas Friedman encapsulate precisely this difference. In the case of Friedman, he sees globalization as an immense opportunity for what he terms “integration” (2002), as opposed to the previous world order, which he believe was founded on “division.” (2002) In the case of Reich, what is occurring in globalization is the exact opposite movement, in so far as the wealthy class that preexisted the globalization era are becoming more wealthy, seizing on the opportunities of globalization, since this model of globalization is essentially of their own creation.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Contrasting Views of Globalization".
Phrased in this manner, the differences in opinion between Reich and Friedman are quite radical. Friedman, in essence, by praising globalization, seems to assert that an entirely new world order has suddenly been inaugurated. In his essay entitled “Globalization – the Super Story”, he views globalization as we have overcome all previous social differences, to the extent that there is now a focus on integration. Namely, historically, the world was divided into a multipolar world, with various centers of power. Each power acted in its own best interests. With globalization, this world order, according to Friedman, has disappeared. What Friedman instead views taking place is the inauguration of a schema where “the world has become an increasingly interwoven place, and today, whether you are a company or a country, your threats and opportunities increasingly derive from who you are connected to.” (2002)
To the extent that integration defines the world, this means traditional differences, such as national borders, economic restrictions, communication limitations, are no longer of significant effect. The globalization model, in so far as it promotes “integration”, means that relationships as opposed to restrictions become the defining feature of the new world order. In so far as establishing connections as opposed to creating boundaries defines this process, this means that the world, in other terms, has become increasingly more democratic, closer to an equilibrium and a balance between state actors as well as non-state actors, such as private businesses. Hence, the global marketplace, for Friedman, in essence means that these traditional centers of power have vanished. A young entrepreneur in India, for example, has the opportunity, if he or she has created a compelling product, to sell this product to the world. In other words, for Friedman, there are no more privileged sites of power in the world marketplace and an equilibrium has been created.
Reich creates a much more nuanced picture of events. Arguably, two ideas, which at first glance may seem contradictory, inform his interpretation. From one perspective, economies on the national level were more closely related, irrespective of class differences between, on the one hand, owners of capital, and, on the other hand, laborers. From another perspective, the previous economic system, pre-globalization, was also founded on a difference in class, between those who have capital and those who have not. The consequence of the first characteristic of pre-globalization was that, for Reich, in the context of the United States “All Americans used to be in roughly the same economic boat. Most rose or fell together, as the corporations in which they were employed, the industries comprising such corporations, and the national economy as a whole became more productive – or languished.” (13)
This nationalization as opposed to globalization of the economy implies that, in the pre-globalization model, nations defined the economy and classes were equally affected by good times as well as bad times. This nationalization meant its own form of what Friedman terms connections and relationships: in essence, since everyone was, to use Reich’s cliche, “in the same boat”, there was a greater social cohesiveness that meant what was better for, for example, an owner, was also good for a worker. What has happened in globalization is that this is no longer the case, in so far as a factory owner can clearly move to a new country, increase his own profits, while placing an entire community out of work. What has happened in globalization is not the sudden erosion of class differences. Rather, what has happened is that the wealthy class now has seen that their power has actually expanded. This is because they now have access to a global marketplace, without any previous borders, for example, in the form of trade. Reich, in other words, critiques the naïve view that suddenly all the previous hierarchies have disappeared; rather, these hierarchies now exist on a global scale. This means that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” in so far as the rich now have even more opportunities to expand their hegemony, while the poor around the world must now suffer under this oppression.
This is why the apparent contradiction of Reich’s thesis — that there was previously a higher integration as well as strict class difference – is ultimately not contradictory. The notion at stake is that whereas class differences existed before, these class differences were in a sense mitigated by the interrelationships of different classes on the nation-state level. Now that these boundaries no longer exist, the class differences are thus radicalized: an affluent owner of capital will not only abandon workers in a certain part of the world because they demand too much compensation, but now, he will, on the one hand, increase his products by moving to a new country, and, on the other hand, increase the gap between rich and poor, since his new workforce is making substantially less than the previous work force. This means that, for example, “the salaries and benefits of the United States’ top executives, and many of their advisers and consultants, have soared…even as those of other Americans have declined.” (22) This empirical data reflects the deepening of class difference in the globalized world, as opposed to, in Friedman’s view, its disappearance.
Interpreting the two articles in this manner, Reich’s position seems more authentic with regards to what is really happening in the new marketplace of globalization. Namely, those who have held power before globalization have not suddenly lost their power; rather, they have seen their potential for power and hegemony increased, in as much as they are no longer subject to previous limitations such as national boundaries, which may have limited their profits, but also provided a decent living for the working class within these same countries. Certainly, with globalization, these owners of capital are now open to more diverse forms of competition. But the very reason why the existing forces of capitalist power encouraged globalization is because they realized this would augment their power. For example, they would have a greater labor market to exploit based on phenomena such as outsourcing. For this precise reason, articles such as those of Friedman’s must be viewed as propaganda for the ruling elite, which promote the opportunities of globalization, whereas in reality an existing power structure has now realized, through globalization, an expansion of power on a greater scale, such that it is the potential of this dominant class which is ultimately fulfilled on a global level within globalization.
