David Held y Paul Hirst On Globalization

Globalisation: the argument of our time
Pubshed on openDemocracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net)


Submtted by Anonymous on 22nd |anuary 2002
Subjects:
gobasaton |1|
nsttutons & government |2|
vsons & refectons |3|
Davd Hed |4|
Pau Hrst |5|
Orgna Copyrght |6|

Everyone s now argung about gobasaton. But who reay understands ts andscape, from
protest to the WTO? Davd Hed and Pau Hrst, authortes on the sub|ect, engage n a vey and
nformed argument.
About the authors
Davd Hed s professor |7| of potca scence at the London Schoo of Economcs, co-drector of
Poty Press |7|, and genera edtor of Clobal Policy |7|. Among hs many books are Clobal
Covenant: The 5ocial Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus(Poty, 2004); Models of
Democracy |7| (3rd edton, 2006); Clobalization Theory: Problems and Controversies |7|(Poty,
2007); and Cosmopolitanism: ldeas and Realities |7| (Poty, 2010)
Pau Hrst was a profc democratc nteectua and teacher. He served as professor of soca
reatons at Brkbeck Coege, Unversty of London and academc drector of the London Consortum.
1: What is globalisation7
Thurs 24 |an
Davd Hed and Pau Hrst expan ther contrastng vews of gobasaton. How does t reate to the
naton-state? What s ts hstory, and s a new knd of word order arrvng?
2: ls globalisation new7
Fr 25 |an
Davd Hed argues that the revouton n communcatons, rocketng fnanca fows, mut-ayered
governance and envronmenta rsks are reay new; the cautous potcs of today fas to confront
them. But Pau Hrst sees ths as a transformaton wthn famar, resent structures. They agree on
the frghtenng newness of some rsks. How to engage wth these probems?
3: Are the protestors right7
Sat 26 |an
Hed and Hrst respond to Pau Kngsnorth, and offer dverse vews of the counter-gobasaton
movement. Pau Hrst thnks Kngsnorth s frtng wth voence: Davos and Porte Aegre must
communcate, not poarse.
4: Does the World Trade Organisation work7
Sun 27 |an
Hrst and Hed agree wth Peter Sutherand that free trade s mportant, but exchange vews over
why the WTO s fang to dever. Free trade woud be better than protectonsm. Yet uneven
deveopment has ed to wdenng goba nequates and asymmetres of nfuence, as wth the power
pay n Doha.
Page 1 of 19
5: Toward a new approach
Mon 28 |an
Davd Hed sets out hs programme for nternatona coaboraton: truy free trade, reframng and
reguatng markets, and new goba tax and spend systems. Pau Hrst argues for commodty cartes,
and for productve peasantres as the bedrock of deveopment. He agrees wth Mara Cattau that
wthout an effectve naton-state, deveopment s near-mpossbe.
6: ls the European Union an alternative7
Tues 29 |an
Davd Hed fnds promse n EU regonasm, especay n contrast to a US _neo-bera_ mode. For
Pau Hrst, Europe s stuck, unabe to wden and deepen smutaneousy, and facng a democratc
crss.
7: ls global democracy possible7
Wed 30 |an
Hrst and Hed debate democratc egtmacy n a gobased word. Davd Hed offers _cosmopotan
democracy_ as a souton _ potcs must be renvented n dverse assocatons on mutpe eves. For
Pau Hrst, mut-eve governance s compex and hard to democratse. Can accountabty ever be
acheved outsde the naton-state?
8: A different future
Thurs 31 |an
Davd Hed concudes wth nternatona aw as the baance to economc gobasaton. He sketches
approaches other than goba representatve democracy: a second chamber n the UN, transnatona
pos. Pubc ssues must be rescued from the experts and become truy pubc. Pau Hrst argues that
whe the word s so unequa, ths w never happen. The rch hod the power. How w they use t?
1: What is globalisation7
openDemocracy _ What s _gobasaton_ and s t new?
David Held _ There s nothng new about gobasaton as such _ Mara Cattau |8| was rght about
that. If you thnk of the spread of word regons, the huge deveopment of empres n the eghteenth
and nneteenth centures, the stretch of the Brtsh Empre: goba cutura and economc phenomena
are not new. But there have been dfferent hstorca forms of gobasaton, and the contemporary
con|uncture s new.
I thnk of gobasaton as the ncreasng extent, ntensty, veocty and mpact of word-wde
nterconnectedness. Such nterconnectedness has exsted for some hundreds of years. But f you
trace ts ncrease, I thnk you can argue that there s now an ongong transformaton, from
economcs, potcs and mgraton to cuture and aw, whch s creatng a new knd of word order.
The events of 11 September nstanty rcocheted across the word. But more mportanty, ther
causes and consequences show that n the fabrc of everyday fe, as Immanue Kant |7| sad, we are
a _unavodaby sde by sde_. He coud not have known how profound that statement woud
become.
We are unavodaby sde by sde not |ust at moments of catastrophe, but n tradng and tradng
arrangements, n the nature of fnanca markets, n the nature of envronmenta change from ozone
depeton to goba warmng, n areas that are fundamenta to human heath such as wefare,
Page 2 of 19
sexuaty and AIDS, rght the way through to new questons posed about genetc manpuaton. The
fact that Kant sad ths n the eghteenth century shows that the process s hstorcay rooted. But ts
truth today s far greater than anythng he coud have conceved.
Gobasaton s not an end state, or a snge thng, any more than s democracy or ndustrasaton.
These are processes, nvovng changng reatons of human affars _ whch means t s wrong to say
that the oca doesn_t matter any more. It matters n a dfferent way. It s beng re-contextuased n
a more compex word of economcs, potcs, cuture and mgraton.
Paul Hirst _ What most peope mean by _gobasaton_ s ncreasng fows of trade and nvestment
between parts of the word and between countres. If you scratch a potcan, a |ournast, a busness
eader, that_s what they mean.
The hstory of ths gobasaton can be summarsed as foows. In the 1920s, peope tred to restart
the pre-1914 bera word economy. And they faed. In the 1930s t mpoded. Brtan and Germany
both ost about forty per cent of ther foregn trade. The word economy reay dd shrnk, and
peopes competed for what was eft by budng autarchc tradng bocs.
After the 1939-1945 war there was the creaton, outsde the Communst boc, of a managed
mutatera order. Peope were so anxous to get back to the bera word economy they ddn_t need
a new term for t. Goba tak started after the _73 and _79 o-prce hkes and recessons, to regster
that goba nterconnectedness was growng qute rapdy.
More mportant, the word _gobasaton_ took over from monetarsm. It stands for _There s no
aternatve to ths_, or, _Don_t magne you can foow dstnctve natona poces, abour standards
or wefare rghts, because there are chaps n |akarta who woud have your |ob_. It s shorthand for
gettng peope to accept ther ot fatastcay. There s a hstory to the term, and hopefuy we_re at
the end of the hstory whch wanted the term.
We need to fnd a word other than _gobasaton_ for the nternatona system and the nternatona
economy, and t needs to ncude n ts scope a consttutve roe for the naton-state. The word
tradng system started when state socetes were created. It was not unt the creaton of state
soveregnty and state contro of socety _ meanng a country wth a government, a fag and so on _
that word trade, as we understand t, started to exst. Wthout soveregn states and some degree of
contro over ong dstance trade through ther naves, t was otherwse too perous.
It may seem ke a paradox, but terrtoray excusve government and word trade grew together.
Some of the more nave peope who tak about gobasaton magne that ts word processes are
aen to tradtona, oca socetes. Whereas n fact state socetes have never been oca. From
Hoand to Span, they were goba from brth.
Ths basc nk between naton-states and word trade w contnue. To thnk of nternatona trade
means thnkng about governance between the natona and the nternatona. What we are seeng
today s a new confguraton of a system set up n the seventeenth century.
I_m not sayng that nothng has changed. What I_m sayng s that there are certan fundamenta
foundatons whch reman. Of course, today supranatona processes are stronger than they were
before. But t s a mstake to over-emphasse ths. To put t crudey, dsease was supranatona ong
before there was a modern word, whe the Seven Years War (1756-63) was fought n Europe, the
Amercas, n the Carbbean, n Afrca, and n Inda.
Snce the teegraph we have aso had a goba meda. Today_s meda technoogy makes possbe
dfferent voumes of actvty, and has speeded thngs up. But I_m not sure that we have passed nto
a _new word order_, to use the ovey phrase. So much of t |ust remnds me of the past. Very
crudey, f you thnk of the Dayton agreements, they are ke the Congress of Bern |7|: the great
powers mposng a settement.
2: ls globalisation new7
Page 3 of 19
DH _ I thnk there s a rsk that Pau throws the baby out wth the bath-water. In makng such a
strong argument that tte has changed, he doesn_t recognse what has. Hs crtque of the
hypergobast poston, deveoped n the book |7| he wrote wth Grahame Thompson |7|, s reay
fundamenta. It destroyed the rhetorc used to consttute the neo-bera economc agenda. It s that
agenda whch uses the most exaggerated anguage of gobasaton and whch taks about the
mpossbty of potcs: _et the markets sort thngs out_. There are echoes of ths n some of the
prevous partcpants_ contrbutons to the openDemocracy debate.
But the revouton n communcatons, meda, and transportaton systems are not |ust add-ons. They
are re-creatng the nfrastructure of the way the word does busness. Not ony do more countres
trade wth each other more than ever before, and tradng a bgger proporton of ther GDP, but they
trade much more qucky.
In the area of fnanca fows, we now have word fnanca markets tradng twenty-four hours a day.
In 1979, for every doar turned over n rea trade, thrteen doars were turned over n word fnanca
markets. Snce then the rato has rocketed to 1:65. We ve n a word of extraordnary movement of
goba capta and a growng dsconnecton between the rea trade and fnanca systems.
If we ook at the changng structure of company fe n deta, t s not |ust arge companes that are
reconsttutng the nature of trade and fnanca fe. The changng nature of the goba market aters
a sma company_s approach as we.
For Poty Press |7|, my pubshng company, the way we do busness has been uttery transformed n
the ast ffteen years. The nature of the market has changed. We used to ve n a word wth
reatvey segmented natona markets, now they are ncreasngy nterconnected. The way we
dstrbute, as a resut of eectronc access to Amazon.com and so on, has changed. In every sma
deta of the way we do busness there has been a change.
So even on Pau_s own terms of trade and fnance, actvty has been reconsttuted fundamentay
and de-terrtorased to a sgnfcant degree. It goes beyond that. If we ook at potcs, or the
envronment, thngs have atered fundamentay.
Pau s rght to say that you can ook back to the nneteenth and twenteth century and see great
smartes. But n the mdde of the nneteenth century, your average state potcan had |ust two or
three nternatona meetngs they coud go to per annum. Today they coud go to four or fve
thousand. Potcans today can barey montor t a, et aone be effectve n ths terran.
There s a shft gong on to mut-ayered governance structures: from a centre of potcs defned
through states, to a much more compex potcs whch nvoves sub-natona regons, states,
supranatona regons, nter-regona actvty: the EU, NAFTA, Pacfc Asa, and now new mechansms
of goba governance. A reconfguraton of potca power s takng pace as sgnfcant as the
changes to the underyng word economy.
Or take the envronment: Pau s absoutey rght to say that dsease has been goba before. Thnk of
the Back Death. The dsease came wth rats and boats and trave. But ony n the ast one hundred
to one hundred and ffty years have we ved n a snge, human-made goba envronment. Now we
are faced wth phenomena that are truy new. Ozone depeton s one, goba warmng s another.
Pau has warned branty about these and reated envronmenta ssues n hs most recent book,
War & Power in the 2Jst Century.
PH _ What you are descrbng s a transformaton takng pace wthn nsttutona structures that
reman resent.
Three exampes. We have seen a huge wave of securtsaton (the converson of assets and debts
nto tradeabe fnanca nstruments ke futures and dervatves), but t_s the atest of severa waves.
You sad that the rato between trade and fnanca transactons has rocketed, but ths coud have
been sad by a trader n the 1870s n Chcago about the exponenta growth n wheat futures. That
too saw a ggantc securtsed fnanca Laundromat rong on a tte pn of a rea economy.
Page 4 of 19
Ever snce peope securtsed tups n the seventeenth century, there have been penty of such
exampes. I am not sayng that, therefore, t doesn_t matter now. On the contrary, I_m sayng that
we already know that very hgh eves of securtsaton can ead to fantastc dangers.
You guys se books, you don_t securtse them yet n book futures markets. I hope you never w, or
you end up ke Enron where dervatves tradng payed a arge part n the crss that a but
annhated the company. Some of the technques are new. But there have aways been such
dangers assocated wth the acceeraton of market growth.
Aso, the goba economy at present s st reay a game of two-and-a-haf payers. What_s reay
remarkabe s that when you dssove the goba economy nto what t s, t remans the European
Free Trade Area, NAFTA and |apan. To make a crue pont: n 1914 there were eght great powers,
now there s the G8. The dfference between then and now s that now the Russans turn up as poor
guests and Austro-Hungary has been repaced by Canada. The word s st concentrated around the
same reatvey rch countres.
On the envronment: I_m terrfed of the goba consequences of what s happenng. It w ead to
frghtenng goba outcomes. But the causes are oca. It_s not nternatona nterconnecton that s
causng the probems, but everybody sttng at home, burnng coa and usng cars. What t w ead
to n terms of nternatona potcs seems to me new and qute frghtenng. I_m not totay of the
beef that nothng has been nvented snce the seventeenth century.
My vew, therefore, s that the changes Davd descrbes are rea, but they take pace n structures
whch are persstent and robust, and whch we mustn_t gnore. Too much _gobasaton_ tak whsks
them away. In fact most of our governance probems depend on gettng these government
structures to work n a new drecton. And recognsng ther robustness s an mportant step toward
achevng ths.
DH _ And I am sayng that the growng extent, ntensty and veocty of change s so new that t s
producng a new knd of rsk. Take the ncrease n the voatty and qudty of fnanca markets that
Pau has descrbed. It makes the rsks of market reacton very, very great for potcans. Ther
potca soveregnty and economc |udgement s not overwhemed; but they ve n a much more
rsk-aden envronment than before.
One response s potca cauton. Thrd Way potcs, for nstance, s an attempt to respond to a word
of growng uncertanty and market voatty. Because of the danger of upsettng the markets,
potcans seek to pre-|udge, pre-empt and meet ther requrements.
The new rsk envronment s a huge conservatve pressure. That_s not to say that pressure has to be
accepted. But resstance cas for new forms of potcs, not |ust emphass on the robustness of the
od forms.
Yes, Pau s rght to stress that the word economy s domnated by a few key payers. But what s
most strkng about the EU, NAFTA, |apan and Pacfc Asa, s not ony the growng ntensty of
regonasm wthn these three areas, but that they reman open to nteracton and trade across
them. So whst two thrds to three quarters of economc actvty remans concentrated n these
regons, nonetheess these regons are not cosed. They are open, wth sgnfcant effects. We are
st n the eary stages of the emergence of a word economc order, herarchca and regona as t s.
Even f you ve on the margns of ths herarchca economc order, you are st profoundy affected
by t. I was n Zmbabwe some years ago, when the IMF and the Word Bank few n to renegotate
oan structures. Zmbabwe refused to sgn the renegotated packages on the grounds that ths was a
new form of coonsaton. They eft. No agreement sgned, no oans.
Sx weeks ater the guys come back from Washngton, and Zmbabwe sgns up to the orgna terms.
No choce. They used to thnk that there was a choce: communsm on the one sde wth Sovet
Unon-sponsored deveopment, and partcpaton n the Western economy on the other. Today there
s no choce for such weak economes.
Page 5 of 19
Fnay, on the envronment. Agan, yes, Pau s rght that there are smutaneous oca causes of
envronmenta probems _ the use of sprays and CFC gases, the un|ustfabe patterns of energy use
and carbon emssons.
We have nonetheess created a stuaton where economc, boogca and envronmenta
nter-nkages mean the probems can no onger be soved at the eve of the oca or ndvdua
states. Ths s a new word, of overappng communtes of fate. Ths s why I agree so deepy that
potcs st matters, and can be decsve _ but why I aso beeve that t has to grow nto a new form.
3: are the protestors right7
open _ Pau Kngsnorth |9| has reported for us on the gobasaton protest movement round the
word. He says peope everywhere do not want ther word _to be for sae_. What do you thnk of the
past and present roe of the protest movement, and can one be _aganst gobasaton_?
DH _ The ant-gobasaton protesters are made up of potcay dverse groups _ ant-captasts,
protectonsts, anarchsts, envronmentasts, aternatve fe-styers, traveers, anma wefare
actvsts, ant-fascsts (fascsts) and so on.
They are generay cearer about what they_re aganst than what they are for, athough what they
are reay aganst _ gobasaton, captasm, neo-berasm _ s not aways very cear ether.
But even f ther vews are sometmes poory artcuated, and pro|ected occasonay va dubous and
unacceptabe means such as voence, shoud we regard them |ust as a aw and order probem, as
Tony Bar once put t? Such a vew woud be qute mstaken.
The protesters_ unease about the domnance of the market economy, the freedom to accumuate
amost boundess weath, the prorty gven to consumpton, brands and promsed quck fxes (buy
ths car and the best sex of your fe _ rea or vrtua _ w foow!)_ ths ponts to an ntersecton wth
the concerns of many n the deveoped and deveopng word, from those n the dverse
ant-gobasaton movements to the churches.
What ths unease says, at east as I nterpret t, s that unchecked economc power, expodng
asymmetres of fe chances, weak democratc governments, the sef-nterest of potcans, and the
threatened takeover of the pubc doman by the prortes of bg corporatons _ a voate our most
eementary sense of soca |ustce and democracy. And ndeed they do.
Pau Kngsnorth s rght when he emphasses that one cannot accept the burden of puttng |ustce
rght n one dmenson of fe _ physca securty _ wthout at the same tme seekng to put t rght
esewhere.
If the potca and the securty, the soca and the economc dmensons of |ustce are separated n
the ong term _ as s the tendency n the goba order today _ the prospects of a peacefu and cv
socety w be beak ndeed. Popuar support aganst terrorsm of the knd we wtnessed after 11
September depends upon convncng peope that there s a ega and specfc way of addressng ther
grevances. Wthout ths sense of confdence n pubc nsttutons and processes, the defeat of
terrorsm becomes a hugey dffcut task, f t can be acheved at a.
The ant-gobasaton movement rases hugey mportant questons. It has contrbuted to shftng the
goba pubc agenda away from a crass endorsement of the Washngton consensus and the
neo-bera dereguatory programme.
But t doesn_t answer the queston _ a ta order for us a _ of how we can re-combne the dfferent
dmensons of |ustce, and bud a |ust word order. We need new and dfferent potca narratves for
ths _ narratves whch transcend the cams of both many of the protesters and those who smpy
dsmss them as a pocng probem.
As I understand gobasaton _ a spata category nvoved n the stretchng of networks of soca,
Page 6 of 19
economc and potca reatons across the gobe _ one can_t be aganst t. It makes tte or no
sense. But one can pausby be aganst the domnant form of gobasaton today _ the neo-bera
form. Ths makes perfect sense. The dffcut queston s, how, and wth what means exacty, can one
move beyond t?
PH _ I have rea probems wth Pau Kngsnorth_s pece. The atttudes he reports are rea and
wdespread, but repeent. I thnk hs own response frts dangerousy wth ths aenated opnon, n
order to emphasse the strength of the anger on whch the ant-gobasaton movement draws.
Peope who make a hero out of Osama bn Laden are ether foos or monsters. Foos, f they are |ust
posturng wth hs face on T-shrts. Monsters, f they beeve hs actons are |ustfed and that Amerca
_deserved_ 11 September.
Who deserved t? The waters and ceaners, mosty from very poor countres? The brokers? Are a
prosperous whtes smpy ev then, automatcay deservng of death? That s no better than Nazsm.
And don_t et ths sort of garbage hde behnd Isam. It s theoogca teracy. For both Chrstans
and Musms, t s a monstrous presumpton to |udge others n ths way: that s for the Dety aone.
Ths s monstrous nhsm masqueradng as regous purty, and we shoud have no truck wth t or
gve t any vadty. We shoud have no gut about opposng t.
There s no cash of cvsatons here. Bn Laden_s peope are potca crmnas. And don_t mx ths
wckedness up, even rhetorcay, wth the goba strugge for aternatves. The serous confct s
between peope who are part of the same cvsaton.
Davos and Porto Aegre are part of the same word, and must communcate. In ther dfferent ways,
proponents of the Washngton consensus and the ant-gobasaton movements are both
materasts. Poor peope cannot afford not to be: three hundred doars a year, or even one thousand
fve hundred doars, does not buy the bascs of adequate sheter, cean water, eectrc power,
enough food or medcnes.
To get those thngs, the poor of the word need economc deveopment and a market economy that
can afford pubc goods and the taxes to pay for them. If we are serous, we are argung about
varetes of market captasm and ther forms of governance. The _aternatves_ are not dfferent
forms of socety, as socasm camed to be, but ess unequa and unfar versons of the same
socety.
Those who seek aternatves cannot be the gravedggers of captasm, but ts humansers and
reformers. Ths s a rea strugge, but reform s not acheved by random murder. Soca change s too
serous a goa to become a coatera casuaty of the war on terrorsm.
4: Does the World Trade Organisation work7
open _ In our ntervew wth Peter Sutherand |10|, who created the Word Trade Organsaton
(WTO), he says _name me a country that hasn_t benefted from greater access to free trade_. The
more countres enter the WTO arrangements the greater ther beneft w be. Do you agree?
PH _ Sutherand_s argument comes up aganst so many dffcutes that I want to say n the huge
baance of cases t must be wrong.
Let_s brutay smpfy. The WTO s better than what has gone before. It s a tte ess herarchca,
more open to debate, and t s mprovabe. At the very east t forces the rch to stage an aucton n
front of the poor. I am therefore n favour of t. It s a rues-based organsaton, and t_s dffcut to
see how you can have common tradng standards wthout some sort of far rues. The probem s wth
the noton that somehow ths regme w beneft a, or that t represents free trade.
Let_s be absoutey cear. There never has been free trade. _Free trade_ regmes have aways been
asymmetrca. After t aboshed the Corn Laws |7|, Brtan was the freest trader, and t put up wth
other countres havng protectonst regmes for two reasons. It was a massve capta exporter,
Page 7 of 19
nvestng n the foregn ndustres that were beng protected. And n many cases t had huge
compettve advantage over the countres that were tryng to protect themseves. So t ddn_t care.
In the 1950s, the Unted States practsed a smar asymmetry. It et |apan and Korea have pretty
free access to the Amercan markets, and aowed them to run protectonst systems. Today, the
probem s that the advanced countres do care. They don_t practce asymmetry. None of the
advanced countres w et even the poorest get away wth t.
However, the great argument n favour of free trade s that generased compettve protectonsm
stnks. It s economcay terate to advocate pure ocasm. Peope ke Con Hnes and Andrew
Smms of the New Economcs Foundaton mean we, but ther arguments are too thn to convnce. In
effect, they oppose an extended nternatona dvson of abour, whch s the ony way a deveoped
word economy can operate.
But at the same tme, no ma|or country ndustrased under the present open tradng system.
Germany ddn_t. The US ddn_t. |apan ddn_t. Korea ddn_t. Chna sn_t gong to, and nor w Inda.
Chna may or may not ndustrase, but t certany won_t ndustrase by throwng open ts borders.
Whether or not t w be successfu, t s gong to be aowed to get away wth an awfu ot under the
WTO rues, because t_s such a bg country.
The probem comes wth the medum and sma-szed countres. Here some of the goba crtcs such
as George Monbot |11| are qute rght. Take a country ke Braz, now eghty per cent urbansed. A
vast proporton of ts popuaton s paupersed, ves n dsgustng condtons and s at best
sem-empoyed.
Tawan or South Korea, by contrast, started off wth an ndustrous peasantry who as a resut of and
reform actuay benefted from ther and. These peope then saved. Ther economes were not but
on nfows of capta. They were but on hgh rates of oca savng, and ndustrasaton behnd tarff
barrers. It_s very dffcut to see how such savng coud be reproduced n today_s crcumstances by
Braz or other such socetes. Nobody s gong to et deveopng countres have a favour through a
dfferenta trade regme, whe the sort of peasantres that can save are dssovng.
Can we rey on huge eves of foregn drect nvestment (FDI) to fow nto these countres to sove
ther deveopment probems? No. The vew that f you berase your fnanca system and your
capta contros then a necessary nvestment w fow n the form of FDI s, franky, baderdash.
So I have a probem. I am n favour of free trade because I am aganst protectonsm. But I thnk the
routes to deveopment are desperate n many countres, whe the free trade remedes proposed by
many deveopment theorsts, economc beras and WTO advsors are ceary nadequate.
DH _ Three mportant ponts need to be emphassed. You have to favour free trade f the aternatve
s outrght protectonsm. A retreat to protectonsm today woud unrave the word economy, and
frst and foremost those who woud be worst off woud be the word_s poorest.
Second, Pau s rght to stress that most countres who have successfuy ndustrased ddn_t begn
by beng equa partes n a word tradng order. If you ook at the deveopment of the Asan Tgers, so
often hed up by Margaret Thatcher as the eptome of free tradng naton-states, t s cear that she
|ust ddn_t understand the nature of the state-drected economc change that was takng pace.
Mara Cattau n her openDemocracy ntervew goes some way to recognse such needs, n her ca
for more government n deveopng countres.
Thrd, many of the poorest countres, wth vrtuay no physca nfrastructure or sks, cannot begn
to fnd an entry pont nto our unequa word economc order.
On the other hand, the word tradng system snce the 1970s has created new patterns of wnners _
not |ust osers. Many countres that have engaged wth the word tradng system have ncreased
ther prosperty, f n a skewed way. In deveoped countres, sked workers have often mproved
ther economc poston, whe the poston of the east sked has become weaker. There are
compex patterns of wnners and osers wthn, as we as across the North-South dvde.
Page 8 of 19
The word economy has been re-shaped. By the ate 1990s amost ffty per cent of tota word
manufacturng |obs were ocated n the deveopng economes, whst over sxty per cent of
deveopng country exports to the ndustrased word were manufactured goods, a tweve-fod
ncrease n ess than four decades! Contemporary economc gobasaton has embraced a
contnents and regons. Countres that are we postoned w mprove ther overa standng.
But havng sad ths, t s mportant to emphasse that huge asymmetres and nequates have
emerged as part of ths deveopment. We can_t easy unrave the causa reatonshp between
gobasaton and nequaty, though Robert Wade |12| comes cose to dong so wth hs champagne
gass artce n ths seres. However, we can certany chart the growth n goba nequaty that has
accompaned neo-bera dereguaton. Reatvey speakng, the rch have got rcher and the poor
have got poorer.
Has there been any _trcke-down_ to the word_s poorest? In practcay every deveopng country,
the numbers vng on ess than a doar a day have ncreased over the ast two decades. There has
been a rse n nequaty, and word weath dstrbuton s becomng more asymmetrca.
What happens when we are faced wth a word of extraordnary weath on the one sde, and
extraordnary desttuton on the other? Pau and I have both stressed that, hstorcay, countres
ddn_t grow by openng the foodgates to goods and servces. The market aone s not gong to sort
ths out. There are huge asymmetres of economc capacty, deepy embedded n unequa power
reatons.
You saw ths payed out n Doha. The word_s rchest and most powerfu socetes came wth
deegatons of hundreds. The EU had over fve hundred. Some of the word_s poorest had |ust one or
two representatves. Even f the agenda at Doha was open to a partes to shape (an unkey
proposton n tsef), the abty to work t through was heavy santed toward weathy and powerfu
countres.
And the power pay gong on before Doha was aso very cear. Some smaer countres (Hat and the
Domncan Repubc, for exampe) were tod that uness they voted n a certan way on some ssues,
they rsked havng ther ad wthdrawn.
Gobasaton has ts advocates ke Sutherand _ for whom gobasaton nherenty works _ and ts
detractors, the anarchst protesters _ who cam that gobasaton s nherenty contamnated and
beyond redempton. Both are serousy wrong. We need a dfferent approach.
5: Toward a new approach
DH _ Three thngs are cruca n thnkng about new approaches to gobasaton. Frst, free trade. We
don_t have t, and one of the most mportant obstaces to t s the deveoped word tsef. Take
agrcuture. The EU must end ts protectonsm of agrcuture and permt the poorer countres to use
ther compettve advantage to deveop ther agrcutura producton and exports.
Second, t s not enough to open the doors to trade smpy by pushng harder. That s desrabe, but
not suffcent. There can be no freer and farer tradng system uness we re-frame market actvty.
We need to rethnk gobasaton wth new soca, wefare and envronmenta rues attached to the
tradng system tsef. The ssue s not beng for or aganst markets. The ssue s, how do we frame
and reguate markets?
A brdge has to be but here between nternatona economc aw and human rghts aw, between
commerca aw and envronmenta aw, between state soveregnty and transnatona aw. What s
requred s not ony the frm enactment of exstng human rghts and envronmenta agreements, and
the cear artcuaton of these wth codes for partcuar ndustres, but aso the ntroducton of new
ground rues or basc aws for the free-market trade system. These must address heath, chd abour,
trade unon actvty, envronmenta protecton, stakehoder consutaton and corporate governance.
Is ths smpy pe n the sky? No. We have precedents for t. The Soca Chapter of the Maastrcht
Page 9 of 19
agreement. The attempt to attach envronmenta and abour condtons to the NAFTA |7| agreement.
We aready have ega, potca and nsttutona precedents to bud on. But ths cannot happen
through ndvdua states actng aone. The agenda of ockng wefare and envronmenta condtons
nto the tradng system s utmatey goba, f t_s anythng at a.
But thrdy and fnay, because _trcke-down_ doesn_t work, none of ths can work wthout a new
goba redstrbutve system. Wthout ths commtment, the advocacy of the frst two ponts I have
|ust made can easy become a form of hgh-mndedness, whch smpy fas to pursue the necessary
soco-economc changes.
We must nk the progressve mpementaton of free trade wth efforts to reduce the economc
vunerabty of the poorest countres by emnatng debt, reversng the outfow of net capta assets
from the South to the North, and creatng new economc factes at organsatons ke the Word
Bank, the IMF and UN for deveopment purposes.
And such measures need to be combned wth new forms of nternatona taxaton. If t can_t be the
Tobn tax, because t s too compcated to mpement, then t must come n another form. There are
many proposas. The most feasbe are key to be those whch do not tax the weathy ctzens of the
West drecty, but rather ndrecty, through the resources that they burn and consume.
The new money has to go towards fundng goba governance nsttutons (whch woud, as a resut,
no onger be drecty dependent upon the nterests of the most powerfu countres), and towards
creatng and nvestng n the soca nfrastructures of the poor countres. Investment has to be
targeted to the nfrastructure of autonomy: the physca nfrastructures of those socetes that are
poorest, the educatona nfrastructures, the heath nfrastructures. Wthout that, none of the rest w
make much dfference.
open _ So you woud agree wth Mara Cattau |8| about the need to fund government to provde
soca nfrastructure?
DH _ Yes. It has to be _bg government_ n the sense that she descrbes, but aso connected to bg
governance pro|ects at the regona and supranatona eve. It has to be mut-ayered and
muteve.
PH _ When you are takng about free trade, be carefu. The man benefcares of a very generased
reducton of agrcutura tarffs woud be the Carns Group, not the poorest countres. Many of the
poorest countres need somethng ese. They need the equvaent of an OPEC for such commodtes
as cocoa, to rase and stabse prces and gve to peasants n partcuar a return, and to encourage
peope to stay on the and.
In South Afrca, Braz, Inda and Chna, peope are desertng the and. If ths contnues n the present
chaotc fashon, where the ctes cannot provde them wth benefts, there w be a dsaster. So, one
of our |obs n promotng deveopment s aso to hep to construct a reatvey stabe and moderatey
prosperous peasantry. One whch provdes nta demand for domestcay produced goods. We know
ndustrasaton n paces ke South Korea and |apan was hugey fueed by such a domestc market.
But t won_t stop there: successfuy ndustrased countres become exporters and word traders.
It s essenta to brng ths process down to earth: to mprove the condton of peope on the and n
the poorest countres. Not ony because gobasaton requres ncreased food suppes, but aso
because you must try to stabse urbansaton so that ctes can begn to cope wth ther exstng
popuatons. You cannot provde the necessary educaton f three-quarters of your cty-dweers are
sum-dweers. We have to thnk very carefuy about the forms of deveopment ad that w hep
peope to trade and, to the extent possbe, to prosper.
open _ How can moves towards greater equaty be encouraged n the worst-off states f t means
askng poor countres to deveop capactes that even most advanced natons do not have?
DH _ There s no onger a cear separaton between the potca probems we face n the deveoped
word and the potca probems faced n the deveopng word. The pubc goods that we and our
Page 10 of 19
chdren w depend upon for our future securty can now ony be provded by recognsng ths
nterconnectedness. The pubc good of a safe envronment and sustanabe deveopment cannot be
provded by ndvdua states actng aone. We must fnd new forms of nternatona coaboraton
that mprove the oca everywhere.
After 11 September, banks showed that they had earnt somethng that they ddn_t know durng the
Great Depresson: that they had to act coaboratvey to ower nterest rates. We aready have a
goba economc _drectorate_ of centra bankers and pocymakers, actng together to try to secure
another pubc good: goba fnanca stabty.
Further, we know that f we want a tradng system that s far and equtabe, t can_t be devered by
states smpy actng aone. So whatever knd of pubc good you ook at _ whether t s envronmenta
protecton, fnanca stabty or a more radca, goba egataran programme _ t now requres
mutatera acton and mutatera nsttutons to dever t.
Ths requres state-budng, and pubc management capacty at the eve of ndvdua states, and at
the eve of supranatona regons, and at the eve of the goba economy. We need to make the
muteve poty that s emergng work.
Are there any exampes whch suggest a way forward? We, there are no mraces. But I thnk one
sensbe and nterestng one s the New Afrcan Intatve (NAI), under dscusson for some tme,
whch suggests an exchange between many countres n Afrca and the wder nternatona
communty.
The Afrcan countres agree to pursue open and accountabe government, to prevent gross human
rghts abuses, and to try to end war and mpose peacekeepng, n exchange for more ad for
nfrastructure, deveopment and educaton, and more foregn nvestment and the ftng of trade
barrers that mpede Afrcan exports. So there are thngs that the goba communty has to do to hep
the nfrastructures of those socetes mprove.
None of ths s key to work uness the US s more wdey ocked nto the mutatera order. After 11
September, you woud have hoped that the US woud understand that economc, soca and potca
securty are nterconnected, that there s no peace for t under current crcumstances. No msse
defence system w ever protect t from the knd of terrorsm that we have recenty wtnessed.
But we w not get a more mutatera Amerca whst the US poty s so behoden to economc
nterests _ partcuary corporate nterests. So, one of the key ssues for goba governance s the
separaton of the eectora process n the Unted States from the prvate fundng of the eectora
system.
Eectora reform s key to ensurng that when potcans ke Bush come to power, they aren_t smpy
ndebted to energy companes _ see the trashng of Kyoto. That s a potca chaenge n one
country, a deveoped one, whch s cruca to good governance everywhere, ncudng deveopng
countres.
PH _ Let_s go back to the queston about how to bud the governance of the poorest countres. I
was very mpressed by Mara Cattau_s argument about the need to bud state capacty. But n the
poorest countres, how do you get t?
We were very bad at coonasm, apart from the odd success story. What we shoudn_t do s to
renvent new forms of coonasm. But a ot of the paces that were most buggered up, ke Ethopa,
Somaa, Afghanstan, Zare, Angoa, Mozambque, were turned nto cockpts of the Cod War.
Afghanstan s one of the worst exampes.
The cryngy obvous thng about governance s ths: somebody has to have a monopoy of the
means of voence whch the ma|orty of peope are wng to put up wth. The government must be
strong enough to contan at east eementary dsorder. In Afrca for exampe, that form of
governance too often doesn_t exst.
Page 11 of 19
Countres whch are run by keptocratc gangs of thugs who use ffteen-year-od boys wth
Kaashnkovs, who oot what can be stoen and pu everythng backwards, that_s a rea probem. I
don_t know what can be done about that. The exampes go way beyond the Zares of ths word.
Cattau s rght. The poorest countres are by and arge the bady governed ones. You can see poor
countres that are well governed, that acheve spectacuar resuts, for nstance n pubc wefare. In
every case, they are founded on havng a government tough enough that nobody serousy wants to
chaenge t, and whch most peope respect. The exampe of the transformaton n Uganda s
obvous, but even that s now rather frage.
Anythng that NGOs do, or nternatona agences, s reant on good, strong, naton-state
governance. So there are reay ony two thngs that you can say. Frsty, we n the West shoud
ntervene potcay and mtary as tte as possbe, because neary aways we create an absoutey
awfu mess when we do. Secondy, we shoud aways try to provde encouragement to the east bad
regmes.
I am not comng out wth any grand schemes. I am smpy sayng that wthout that bedrock of an
effectve naton-state nothng can be done. Wth t, one has to ook at ways of deveopng a reatvey
wdespread mdde-ncome group _ defned n oca terms, not n terms of watchng Daas. It_s ony
then that you can stop the keptocracy. The curse of Ngera, for exampe, s ts o. Chaotc
governance and easy approprabe o weath have ed to a tota dsaster n what coud have been a
reatvey weathy country.
DH _ Geopotcs has been at the heart of many of the worst probems n the word. And yes, we
have to be both cautous and humbe: t w take a ong tme to bud up potca capacty and
nfrastructura autonomy. The probem s that we don_t have the ong term, n a number of key
respects. Goba warmng s acceeratng now.
Neary four thousand peope ded n the 11 September attacks and everyone agrees that goba
terrorsm s a pressng and urgent probem. But thrty to thrty-fve thousand chdren de every day
of poverty, manutrton and reated dseases. These too are huge and pressng burdens we can_t
turn away from.
The prncpe of _|ust me_ underpns the goba economc order. But woud anyone truy choose such
a prncpe of |ustce, f offered a choce? Woud we freey accept as a bass of |ustce that whoe
regons and peopes can or shoud suffer serous harm and dsadvantage, ndependenty of ther
consent and w? I don_t thnk so. Yet, we are asked to accept t, de facto, as a, f not the, prncpe
of dstrbuton n our goba word. As f t does not matter that other peope suffer. But t does
matter. Inequaty ks.
What s the souton? Pau s rght: wthout potca communtes and some knd of monopoy over the
means of voence, you don_t get to the startng ne. The frst stage has to be the budng of a
secure envronment for _fe, berty and the defence of property_. But the creaton of potca
communty cannot take pace ndependenty, t seems to me, of the budng of wder regona and
goba governance.
The chaenge s not |ust to be attentve to pressng natona probems of capacty, but to produce
mutatera responses to them. Deveopng countres have, n the end, to be empowered to sort out
ther own probems.
But the benefts that the word economc order coud provde w reman the excusve preserve of
the rch countres uness peope are empowered to enter that order. That requres new nternatona
nfrastructura nvestment, a new fow of we-managed resources. And that s not beyond us. The
ssue s potca w, ethca concern, and soca |ustce.
6: ls the European Union an alternative7
open _ In hs openDemocracy contrbuton, Erkk Tuomo|a |13|, Fnand_s Foregn Mnster, says
that the European Unon as a groupng has got to confront gobasaton and say what sort of
Page 12 of 19
gobasaton t wants. Harem Desr |14| echoes ths pont. Does the European Unon offer a mode
for how to acheve equa deveopment? It has ensured the growth of formery sem-poor countres
such as Ireand, Greece and Portuga. Can the European Unon provde an aternatve mode of
gobasaton to that of the Unted States n terms of sharng of soveregnty. Or w t be |ust another
vehce for mposng a snge answer, a WTO answer f you ke?
DH _ I_m very sympathetc to what Sutherand |10| and Cattau |8| have sad about the EU: the
achevement of mutaterasm and soveregnty-sharng wthn Europe after the Second Word War,
the creaton of a potca and ega system whereby ctzens can, n prncpe, sue for cv and
potca rghts n the European Court of Human Rghts. These are remarkabe deveopments n state
hstory, enormousy promsng, and I am n favour of ther strengthenng and deepenng. The EU was
a sma group of naton-states, and s now a very sgnfcant and growng group. So, yes, t s bazng
an mportant tra.
Can the mode of the EU work esewhere? MERCOSUR n Latn Amerca and APEC and ARF n Pacfc
Asa have dfferent concepts of regona cooperaton. But regonasm s begnnng to deveop there,
as t s n parts of sub-Saharan Afrca. It_s one potca mechansm that countres can use to earn to
coaborate wth each other, to resove cross-border probems, to poo soveregnty and dever pubc
goods.
Is the EU a mode for the wder goba order? It s possbe to see two opposng modes. On the one
hand, the neo-bera mode of the conservatve Amercan rght, whch has been so successfu n the
ast thrty years n defnng the terms of reference of economc gobasaton. On the other, the
stakehoder mode of soca democratc captasm whch has more typcay been at the heart of the
European pro|ect.
Europe offers a mode of democracy _ the rue of aw, mutaterasm, soveregnty-poong _ whch s
exempary n some mportant respects. It cashes n a fundamenta sense wth the Amercan
concepton of ettng markets fow and keepng states to a mnmum. You see that cash n the
response to the Bush admnstraton_s attempts to turn ther backs on Kyoto and other mutatera
agreements. The Europeans have rghty been appaed.
Europe has embedded wthn tsef a set of soca, democratc and human rghts vaues and
tradtons, whch pushes towards a word where goba governance can be modeed more on the
poong of soveregnty, strengthenng the rue of nternatona aw, and creatng governance
nsttutons whch genuney address wder pubc questons. To the extent that that s true t s very
wecome. However, Europe aone doesn_t provde an adequate mode for the gobe.
PH _ I thnk t s more serous. I don_t thnk nteectuay and potcay the European Unon has a
dfferent mode. Apart from fghtng for partcuar entrenched nterests and ne-by-ne ssues n WTO
negotatons, the EU broady supports the same gans-from-trade, market berasng vew as the
Unted States. You_d be surprsed f t wasn_t so.
I thnk that Erkk has nterestng deas, and t woud be great f there were a factory that turned out
more exceent European potcans ke hm. But there sn_t. Europe s now reay stuck, and t_s
stuck wth two probems. One s that t s mpossbe to wden to twenty-sx countres and deepen ts
sharng of soveregnty at the same tme. The other s that the EU has weak egtmacy. The EU has a
very unpopuar set of centra nsttutons whch are perceved as overbearng, unaccountabe and
undemocratc.
A sorts of revots are takng pace. Denmark has a strong Eurosceptc and now strong xenophobc
streak n t. The fascnatng thng s that the xenophobes are the ones most strongy n favour of the
wefare state _ but wefare ony for the Danes. The same s true of Austra. Austra_s corporatst
system was for a ong tme a very good way of copng wth the rsks of a strongy nternatonased
economy. In ths way Europe_s progressve nhertance can turn aganst the strengthenng of the EU.
Europe has rea probems, and we are at a stage where uness these are resoved, t w at best
stagnate potcay and economcay, and coud at worst start gong backwards. If Europe cannot
reform tsef then t can hardy serve as a mode for the rest of the word. To generase deas about
Page 13 of 19
soca sodarty wthn natons _ the best eements of European soca democracy _ requres new
deas of sodarty between natons.
And for peope to accept those new responsbtes w requre a revouton n potca
conscousness. It may happen. But we haven_t got there yet. We can_t even buy the average EU
country to ncrease foregn ad to 0.7 per cent of GDP.
The probems of word poverty and the envronment are reay ntractabe. And f we want to sove
some of them, peope have got to spend a huge amount of ther GDP on not wreckng the
envronment, and a ggantc amount of t more on transfers to poorer countres. They are not gong
to do t uness somethng absoutey frghtens the pants off them. It hasn_t happened yet. So, you
know, I am reay pessmstc about ths, and don_t see the EU as a ready-made answer.
7: can we create global democracy7
DH _ Pau_s pessmsm s ceary based on a sober assessment of potca trends. But most of the
mportant potca nnovatons of the past were made aganst the backdrop of unpromsng
crcumstances.
The nventon of the dea of the modern state tsef, the work of Bodn, Machave, Hobbes and so
on, took pace aganst the backdrop of Europe-wde cv strfe and severe potca and regous
crses. It took over two hundred years for ths concept of the secuar state to become the domnant
potca dea of modern potcs, frst n Europe and then sowy n other parts of the word.
Potca deas and theory matter. We ve n a word where there ceary s a crss n potca
egtmacy, arsng from the dscrepancy between a gobased word and natona, separate unts of
pocy makng. Ouestons about the system of soveregn states, confuson over who makes decsons
and for whom, are experenced n most quarters of the word, not |ust on the streets of Seatte and
Genoa, but n the IMF and the Word Bank as we.
Part of the pro|ect of chaengng gobasaton s to deveop potca concepts and theores that
create what the anthropoogst Lv-Strauss caed _goods to thnk wth_. It_s the |ob of a peope
who are engaged n the crtca nterrogaton of gobasaton.
Europe certany sn_t an adequate mode. I agree that t has suffered probems over wdenng and
deepenng, and acks democratc egtmacy. My vew s that you can ony wden and deepen f you
sove the probem of democratc egtmacy. You can_t go back to a word of Prnces and Prncesses,
because they suffered an rreversbe crss of potca egtmacy.
Ths ed to a snge, great hstorca meta-narratve _ that of democracy, human rghts, and the rue
of aw. Ths s what we have, as t were, to bnd peope together, and provde the bass for us to
en|oy dfference, cutura dversty and cutura heterogenety. The atter has to take ts pace wthn
a common frame of potca acton, a frame whch, at ts root, respects the ntegrty, mora worth,
and autonomy of each and every human beng.
Now, f we cannot eave the potca word and goba nsttutons to Prnces, we are not wthout other
modes. Sde by sde wth economc gobasaton, we aready ve n a word of potca gobasaton.
Today, t s possbe to vote n the Gasgow oca eectons, to vote n the Scottsh parament, to vote
n the UK eectons, to vote n Europe, and f that sn_t enough n the way of avenues for potca
partcpaton you can aso |on movements that obby n Seatte, Genoa and esewhere.
Peope are aready, n prncpe, members of mutpe dfferent forums of potca communty,
potentay actve n dverse potca words. The queston s: how w these dfferent consttuences,
these dfferent forms of |ursdcton, be bound together n a democratc and transparent potca
system?
Bascay, t nvoves thnkng of the reform of word order as a _doube-sded_ process _ or a process
of doube democratsaton. I mean not |ust the deepenng of democracy wthn a natona communty,
Page 14 of 19
nvovng the democratsaton of states and cv socetes over tme, but aso the extenson of
democratc forms and processes across terrtora borders.
Democracy for the new mennum must aow ctzens to gan access to, and render accountabe,
the soca, economc and potca processes whch cut across and transform ther tradtona
communty boundares n the arger word.
The core of ths pro|ect nvoves re-concevng egtmate potca actvty n a manner whch
dsconnects t from ts tradtona anchor n fxed borders and terrtores and, nstead, artcuates t as
an attrbute of basc democratc arrangements n dverse assocatons _ from ctes and sub-natona
regons, to naton-states, regons and goba networks. The cosmopotan pro|ect, as I ca t, s n
favour of a radca extenson of ths process as part of a commtment to a far-reachng custer of
democratc rghts and dutes.
Probems of democratc egtmacy, n short, w not be resoved by backng away from them, but by
the renventon of accountabty and democracy at wder eves. We had a revouton n potca
deas wth the nventon of ctes, and another one wth the nventon of naton-states, and today we
ve on the edge of the thrd _ or rather the need for a thrd: the re-nventon of our potca tradtons
for a goba, as we as oca, age.
PH _ There needs to be a dvson of abour n goba governance. That s qute cear. There aso have
to be wder forms of mutaterasm. Yet t s very dffcut to see how you can artcuate these needs
n a democratc way, especay f you are gong to have a form of mutaterasm that ncudes
states. Mut-eve governance s dffcut to make accountabe because t s compex, because t
nvoves barganng between dfferent eves, and because some agences have no credbe
democratc consttuences.
Thnk about the forms of prvate nternatona government by trade assocatons. Or the quas-pubc
ones: the Bank for Internatona Settements meetngs are essentay the prvate conversatons of
offcas and bankers. It_s very dffcut to make such processes transparent enough to the word_s
pubcs so that they can care about them, et aone have an effectve say n them.
Reay the queston s: as the dvson of abour becomes a the more compex, how do you make the
dfferent eves answerabe? I st thnk that the best chance we have s through democratc
naton-states. At east wth them we know what we are deang wth. We need to make sure that ther
personne are better controed and more accountabe than they currenty are. But we understand
the natona mechansms of democratc accountabty, and how to mprove them.
On the other hand, there are ntrnsc probems n renderng muteve governments accountabe.
Democracy at the crudest eve means that you know who has made a decson, and the next tme
around you have a chance to throw hm or her out f you don_t ke t.
But n a muteve system t s very, very dffcut to say who s responsbe for what decsons.
Indeed, many decsons smpy get ost n the pumbng. So for the pubc, t s as f nobody made
them.
Ths s why fashonabe deas about budng a goba cv socety from beow, that George Monbot
|11| mentons n openDemocracy w get nowhere.
We do need a system where the rch sten more to the poor. But the dea that t s enough smpy to
gve everyone an equa voce s extraordnary. The forum n queston w smpy be gnored, the rch
w fnd ther way of governng thngs esewhere, under the counter and nvsbe. You cannot gnore
the reates of weath and power, f you want to hod them to account.
So the dea that we shoud have a Securty Counc made up of a random group of states _ the ogca
extenson of Monbot_s argument _ s stupd. It has to be made up of the most powerfu states n the
word. Otherwse there s no pont n havng t. These are the peope who are ether gong to fght one
another, or have the capacty to act qucky to sort out confcts. You want them to be abe to tak to
one another and get on wth t. I thnk these deas comng out of what I woud ca the ant-gobast
Page 15 of 19
movement suffer from the fundamenta probem of the we-meanng eft, whch s that they haven_t
read enough Hobbes.
I have to emphasse that n the goba arena democracy has never exsted. We have never scaed t
up to that eve. Cty-state to naton, we understand the scang. Cty, naton, to compex,
mutnatona, mut-dmensona dvson of abour and governance? Totay dfferent beast.
I do not wsh to see the compex supra-natona system of governance escape from accountabty,
but the probems of achevng accountabty cannot be dsmssed and even ths s a very ong way
from democracy. In the goba arena democratc prncpes have to be ntroduced and made to work.
8: a different future must be possible
DH _ Thnk about our potca hstory. In the mdde of the twenteth century, comng out of 1945,
the sense of what was possbe n Europe woud have been uttery dark and depressed.
Now we face the trends of the growng pace of economc gobasaton and a massve ncrease n
nequaty. If ths was the ony narratve we had about gobasaton t woud be great cause for
pessmsm.
But there s another narratve whch has been growng sde by sde wth t: the growth of
nternatona aw, n response to the Hoocaust and the Second Word War. The nternatona human
rghts regme. The deveopment of regona bocs to ock states nto a more peacefu and
coaboratve potca pro|ect, of whch the EU s the exempary case. The growth of nternatona
courts such as the ICC (the Internatona Crmna Court) _ a shnng exampe, and t w happen
despte the Unted States.
Sde by sde wth the nequates and chaenges of economc gobasaton we are seeng the
ncreasng entrenchment of the dea of the equa worth and dgnty of a human bengs. Ths
provdes the begnnngs for the nsttutons we w need, and the bass of pubc support for them.
Pau_s concerns are mportant. No one mode or one way of thnkng about goba governance can ft
a. The processes nvoved n creatng the ICC are not the same as those needed for the managng of
goba fnanca markets. We have to thnk much more systematcay about the dfferences between
these and how you dever effectve governance n each doman.
And the deepenng of democracy wthn naton-states matters a ot. But the pro|ect of managng
gobasaton by strengthenng the democratc bass of states, whe mportant, s nsuffcent.
Pau s argung that anythng we mght aspre to beyond ths s smpy gong to fa fou of the rch
and powerfu. But the rch and powerfu have never been abe to pay the game the way they wanted
to, unchecked. They have aways been chaenged.
Snce the modern perod, t has been the democratc pubc hodng them to account. Whe we must
acknowedge that any potca pro|ect has to wegh the cams of the rch and powerfu, we shoudn_t
aow entrenched geopotca and economc nterests to defne where we want to go.
We smpy must bud new potca capactes, regonay, ke the EU, and aso gobay. There s not
a potca vacuum. But the G8 and the OECD haven_t yet been ocked n to a wder framework of
egtmacy. Can we surrender the goba pubc doman to ther agenda? Can we surrender t to the
rch and the powerfu by vrtue of them aready havng a near-monopoy of resources? My vew s
that we can_t and shoudn_t.
I agree wth Pau that aspects of George Monbot_s ca for a snge goba government are more
rhetorca than reasabe. But the need to extend the strugge for pubc accountabty and wefare
that buds on the achevements of mutaterasm, nternatona aw and mut-ayered governance
can be practca.
Page 16 of 19
We can strengthen democracy n the UN, for exampe, by creatng a second chamber, whch doesn_t
have to be drecty eected by a peope. It coud be a stakehoder, deberatve forum wth cear
democratc egtmacy.
Stakehoder nnovatons n democratc representaton emphasse the sgnfcance of the drect
nvovement of ma|or groupngs affected by a pubc process. New approaches n deberatve
democracy stress the mportance of the way a _statstca mcrocosm_ of socety can represent the
deberatons of a.
We must seek the creaton or enhancement of new knds of effectve pubc assembes at regona
and goba eves, to compement those at oca and natona eves.
We need to open up nternatona governmenta organsatons to pubc examnatons and agenda
settng. Not ony shoud such bodes be transparent n ther actvtes, but they shoud aso be
accessbe and open to pubc scrutny. In addton, there need to be new mechansms and
organsatons estabshed n such areas as the envronment and soca affars, to enforce goba
norms.
The creaton of new goba governance structures wth responsbty for addressng goba poverty,
wefare and reated ssues are vta, to offset the power and nfuence of the predomnanty
market-orented agences such as even a reformed IMF and WTO.
There coud be transnatona referenda on fundamenta pubc prortes. They do not, of course, have
to nvove every person n the word! There can be many dfferent knds ncudng ones for ceary
targeted and sgnfcanty affected groups n a partcuar pocy area, or of pocy-makers and
egsators of natona paraments.
|ust as we need new ways of fosterng democracy and soca |ustce beyond borders, we need new
ways of admnsterng and mpementng nternatona aw, ncudng an enhanced capacty for
peace-keepng and peace-makng.
A proporton of each naton_s mtary coud be seconded to the new regona and goba authortes
or, better st, these authortes coud estabsh enforcement capabtes of ther own by creatng a
permanent ndependent force recruted drecty from among ndvduas who vounteer from a
countres _ such a force to be used ony, of course, as an opton of ast resort.
Ever snce Pato, conservatve potca phosophers have sad that the pubc doman cannot be n
the hands of the pubc. The pubc doesn_t understand the compexty of the ssues, and therefore
potcs must be kept safe n the hands of prnces and ther technca experts.
In The Republic, Pato says of the threat posed to a shp_s captan by a rebeous and shamboc
crew, _What a preposterous dea to put the whee of a shp n the hands of the saors, when ony the
captan has the expertse_. The _true navgator_ means the mnorty who, equpped wth the
necessary sk and expertse, has the strongest cam to egtmate rue.
For the peope (the crew n ths case) nevtaby conduct ther affars on mpuse, sentment and
pre|udce. From ths moment rght through to the present day we hear the same phrase echoed:
_peope cannot understand_. They cannot be empowered to know.
My vew s the opposte: that the narratve of expertse and top-down government has run ts course.
Experts can no onger be eft to resove _expert_ probems, from nucear energy to food producton.
Expertse from genetc engneerng to debt reef s now potcay contested, n the best sense of the
word _potca_. There s no decson framework free of potcs.
A decsons, ncudng the ncreasngy mportant goba ones, have to be evauated openy, pubcy,
n frameworks and forums where a democratc w can form and preva. Many ddn_t thnk t was
possbe n ctes; many ddn_t thnk t was possbe n naton-states; many ddn_t thnk t was
possbe at the eve of regons and now few thnk that t s possbe to re-nvent democracy for the
word as a whoe.
Page 17 of 19
Democracy runs wth the possbe, and aways needs to be re-nvented. There are ways of creatng
democratc transparency wthout aggregatng, et_s say, the mode of bera representatve votng
systems. Cosmopotan democracy requres the accountabty of experts and potcans, but how
ths can be acheved has st to be magned and tested.
We can start wth sma-scae deveopments and demand that Internatona Governmenta
Organsatons, such as the WTO, are sub|ect to greater rues of transparency and accountabty. Ths
woud be a step forward. But n my vew t shoud be a step towards a dfferent pace. It s not an end
n tsef. When the modern era began, we refused to eave |ustce to Prnces. We are not now gong
to eave t to ther contemporary equvaents.
PH _ Davd_s ams are admrabe, but rea democracy beyond the naton-state, a real, popuar power
of decson at the goba eve, s beyond the potca horzon.
Indrect accountabty, yes. Naton-states can hod nternatona agences accountabe. Dscusson
and campagnng, yes. NGOs can senstse pubc opnon to key ssues, ke debt reef.
Goba votng over goba aws and resource dstrbuton? Not whe the word remans so unequa.
The very reasons we need change and reform are the very reasons why democracy beyond the
naton-state s so dffcut.
Modern democracy deveoped n soveregn terrtora states that had made a huge effort to
homogense ther popuatons, to create natona anguages, common tradtons and shared
nsttutons. Democracy needs commtment to democratc vaues on the part of ctzens f t s to
survve. Ctzens need to fee safe even wth a ma|orty government formed by ther potca
opponents. They need to know that t w pay by the rues and respect ther nterests.
Democracy therefore requres a arge measure of soca and cutura homogenety to functon.
Addng competng potca partes and a pebscte to deepy dvded socetes sedom eads to
sustanabe democracy.
And the word s a deepy dvded socety. Dvded by vaues and dvded by matera nterests. The
top twenty per cent of the word_s popuaton have over eghty per cent of word GDP; the bottom
twenty per cent ess than one per cent. Ths s ntoerabe and utmatey unsustanabe, but ceary
the rch w concede hep ony f they decde ts terms and condtons.
Rea goba democracy woud nvove gvng a word demos the rght to vote resource dstrbuton
ndependenty of the potca processes of naton-states. That s unforeseeabe. So potcs w take
pace though naton-states, and through the mutatera and nter-government processes they
partcpate n and sustan.
Ths means that the weathy states, a tny mnorty of the word_s popuaton, w have power and
nfuence out of a proporton to everyone ese. We must start from that fact. The weathy countres,
corporatons, and bodes ke the WTO must a be persuaded to hep construct a more egataran
word _ whch they aone have the power to do. We must work on the mnds and conscences of the
rch.

Ths artce s copyrght |15| Davd Hed and Pau Hrst and openDemocracy.

Source URL: http://www.opendemocracy.net/gobazaton-vson_refectons/artce_637.|sp
Created 0J/22/2002 - 00:00

Links:
Page 18 of 19
|1| http://www.opendemocracy.net/gobasaton/ndex.|sp
|2| http://www.opendemocracy.net/theme_7-nsttutons_government/debate.|sp
|3| http://www.opendemocracy.net/edtora_tags/vsons_refectons
|4| http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/davd-hed
|5| http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/pau-hrst
|6| http://www.opendemocracy.net/copyrght/orgna-copyrght
|7| http://www.opendemocracy.net/http
|8| http://www.opendemocracy.net/artces/Vew.|sp?d=262
|9| http://www.opendemocracy.net/artces/Vew.|sp?d=n
|15| http://opendemocracy.net/cense/c
Page 19 of 19

David Held y Paul Hirst On Globalization

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

David Held y Paul Hirst On Globalization

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Globalisation: the argument of our time

Pubshed on openDemocracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen