refereed section SEEING THE ELEPHANT: The tale of Globalisation and Community Development Narayan Gopalkrishnan Introduction There is an old Indian tale of six blind men who wanted to understand what an elephant was, but by touching one, came up with six different descriptions based on the part of the elephant each had touched. Globalisation tends to resemble the elephant in the tale: it impacts on the individual, the community and the state ina multitude of ways, ranging across ‘the economic, social, cultural, political and technological spheres. Our experiences of the global project depend on how wwe are touched by its impact. This paper presents aspects of globalisation that impact directly on the practice of Community Development and analyses the nature and severity of these impacts in the Australian context. It looks at the present situation of the community worker in Australia and examines the kinds of responses that are available to them. The article also presents some general directions that co-ordinated action ‘can work towards to alleviate some of the negative impacts of globalisation, Perspectives on Globalisation Over the years, an extensive body of knowledge has developed around globalisation, notably models of globalisation that prove useful in any analysis ofits impacts. Wallerstein (1990) discusses the notion of a World System in which everything rust insert and assert itself within a single division of labour. Hee maintains that there is a centre and a periphery where those at the centre hold a relationship of exploitation over those in the periphery. Robbie Robertson’s (2003) ‘glocalisation’ refers to the coming together of local cultures, the content of which has to be redefined when they encounter the forces of globalisation. A process of worldwide re-stratification is ‘occurring, in the course of which a new global socio-cultural hierarchy is put together. He identifies six phases of globalisation starting from the fifteenth century AD and extending to the present day (see also Beck 2000, Bauman! 998). Another useful model is that provided by Arjun Appadurai, who uses a “flow” model to look at the complex ‘movements of people, ideas, images, finances, culture, He identifies these flows as ethnascapes, or the movements of people, technoscapes, or the movement of technology, {financescapes, of the movement of finances, mediascapes, of ‘the movement of the media and finally, ideoscapes, of the ‘movement of ideas across the globe (Appadurai 1990). ‘Though the process of globalisation is not new, there are two key elements at work that differentiate the present situation ‘from any other that existed in previous centuries, the first being the impact of technology. The sophistication and the immediacy of today’s technology enable the time-space continuum to be compressed to a very great extent. Particularly in the case of economic globalisation, this means that the flows of finance across the globe can be almost instantaneous and their impact equally swift (Waters 1995, Beck 2000). 2O newcommunity Quarterly ‘The second key element is the structural nature of economic globalisation as it has emerged through the twentieth and ‘twenty-first centuries. The ‘Bretton Woods’ organisations, such as the World Bank and the Intemational Monetary Fund, are creations of the world’s richest nations and act as the cutting ‘edge of economic globalisation across the world (Soros 2002, Beck 2000). Poorer nations that are hugely in debt to these institutions are forced fo go through a process of Structural ‘Adjustment, or restructuring on market principles, to alleviate some of their indebtedness. Richer nations are caught up in other financial structures, such as Foreign Direct Investment based on credit ratings. In either case, governments are being forced to enter into processes that impact hugely on their citizens, George Soros, who has profited immensely from it, is also a prominent eritic of unbridled economic globalisation. He identifies three key areas where negative impacts are felt. “First, many people, particularly in less-developed countries, have been hurt by globalization without being supported by a social safety net; many others have been marginalized by global markets. Second, globalization has caused a misallocation of resources between private goods and public goods. Markets are ‘good at creating wealth but are not designed 1o take care of other social needs. The heedless pursuit of profit can hurt the environment and conflict with other social values. Third, global financial markets are crisis prone. People living in the developed countries ‘may not be fully aware of the devastation wrought by financial crises because ...they tend to hit the ‘developing economies much harder. All three factors combine to create a very uneven playing field.” (Soros 2002, pp4-5) In effect, the processes of globalisation are actually exacerbating the divide between the rich and the poor. Discussions atthe 1995 Intemational Forum convened by the Gorbachev Foundation in San Francisco, in which eminent politicians, economists, business magnates, and scientists participated, led to dire predictions for the future course ofthe ‘world population. Itwas felt that, given present trends, 20 % of the population would suffice to keep the world economy going inthe 21" century. This proportion, in whatever country, will actively participate in life, earnings and consumption and to which may be added another 1% who, for example, have inherited great deal of money. The remaining 80% will have ‘no work and will not participate in society as we know ittoday (Martin etal. 1996). Volume Number 2Many other impacts of the processes of globalisation are beyond the scope of this paper, the main point here being that the phenomenal global supremacy of economic processes and institutions is impacting on all societies with detrimental ‘outcomes for social justice and equity. ‘The Community Sector in Australia Australia, being part ofthe Minority World (of economically ‘wealthier countries), has a radically different Community Sector, compared to countries that are part of the Majority World of economically poorer nations). In the Majority Worid, funding for community organisations or Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), derives from a variety of governmental and international aid agencies and is distributed accordingly. ‘The multiplicity of funding tends to allow creativity and can generate action from within communities, instead of relying on traditional and patemalistic top-down forms of government intervention. Whilst this does not always occur, processes and structures — or indeed their absence — often allow for it. The situation is quite different in Australia; the amount of community sector NGOs in Australia receiving government funding number atleast - 1,000 (Industry Commission 1995), ‘with the bulk of funding deriving from Commonwealth, State and Local Government sources. The Industry Commission report shows that, of a combined total annual expenditure of $4.4 billion, government provided more than $2.5 billion, with the rest deriving from client fees, fund raising and tax concessions. Essentially, funding is a very powerful tool in implementing the government’s agenda and raises serious questions about the role of community development and social services as agents of social control or social change in Australia (Dominelli & Payne 1998, Meckosha & Mowbray 1995). While the nation-state and its governments are often portrayed as independent, their philosophies, programs and policies are influenced, if not determined, by the forces of economi slobalisation and their agendas are usually built on the premise of the free market (Rodger 2000). On the one hand, they involve total or partial withdrawal of the state from some of its, traditional roles and demand shifting the onus of responsibility for costs from the state to the individual. In this process, sometimes referred to as de-stating, Australia has witnessed the nation and the states divest themselves from roles in the ‘market, in the social services and even in the provision of the bottom-line safety net (Ife 2002, O'Connor et. al 1998). This, is, however, not always understood or acknowledged by many community development practitioners as relating to economic globalisation (Galligan etal 2001, Meekosha and Mowbray 1995), whilst the commensurate policies have resulted in @ growing inequality and poverty within Australia (Jamrozik etal, 1995, Beitharz et.al. 1992). On the other hand, the State also changes the ways in which it ‘operates, even in the roles it continues to perform. Considine (1996) uses the term “matket bureaucracy” to refer to the changed structures and processes in public institutions in ‘Australia. He describes these as ‘pushing’ bureaucratic services ‘out into the market to face competition or outright sale on the fone hand, while, on the other hand, bringing market ‘mechanisms inside the organisation to structure the internal ‘workings of public programs. Community sector organisations Winter 2003 refereed section funded through such public programs will become part of the ‘market bureaucratisation as well. The National Competition Policy adopted by the Commonwealth Government in 1995 is, the policy framework defining how the community sector functions today and many of the services provided to the consumer" or ‘client’ are channelled through a competitive tendering process, ensuring a multiplicity of (often large) providers (Hoatson et.l.1996). ‘This process can only lead to increasing loads on community services workers, who are already disadvantaged in comparison to other sectors, Wearing (1998) describes the employment situation in this sector, where the proportion of full-time ‘workers is significantly less than in equivalent services and part-time staff at 30 % - significantly higher than the national average of 17 %, The sector is also characterised by poor employment infrastructure such as award conditions, employment benefits and union membership. The processes of ‘contracting out” or ‘competitive tendering’ have made a ‘bad situation worse: many workers in community organisations are not sure of their jobs from one year to the next. The extension of their jobs is not dependent on the quality of their ‘work but on the success of their organisation in tendering for the job a second time. This leads to likely increases in stress levels of community workers and impacts on their capacity to ‘work effectively (Kenny 1999). ‘The primacy of market principles shifts the focus ofthe service delivery from the satisfaction of the person receiving the service to the (often assumed) reaction ofthe person paying taxes, for example). New distinctions emerge ents, consumers, customers and purchasers, with less emphasis on service recipients’ needs, rendering their ‘interests secondary inthe delivery of social services. Ideally, the ‘free’ market and the maintenance of quality depend on a process of feedback from the end-customer/user/eonsumer to the supplier about the service received. The purchaser of ‘community services is more and more distinct from the ‘consumer ofthe service as the State now ‘purchases’ them ‘on behalf” of end-users. The needs of the purchaser, in this case ‘the State, are met to a large extent and if its needs coincide with those ofthe consumer, all is well. Bu, in the economically globalised world, these needs do not coincide. The State often chooses to be more accountable to international players and gatekeepers than to its citizens, who receive social and community services. This can lead to a steady decline in the quality of these services and — in tum - bolsters arguments to fully hand them over tothe private sector, which is envisaged ‘to ‘manage’ them more efficiently (Considine 2000, Farrar & Inglis 1996), ‘The community sector also depends heavily on the efforts of volunteers to provide services. The Industry Commission (1995) estimated that yearly about 95 million hours of volunteer effort were generated through this sector. Processes of economic globalisation impact on this tremendous effort in two ways; first, the increasing hardship, casualisation of workers and income insecurity will reduce the number of voluntary hours contributed, Basic needs will always have a priority over self-actualisation needs or en-acted ‘generosi such as volunteer service. Secondly, it will also occasion a New Community Quarterly 2.1refereed section transfer of work from the paid to the unpaid sector. The services that were provided by public servants or full-time professionals in the community sector will be transfered to volunteers in @ bid to lower the costs of services and win tenders accordingly. This will have negative impacts on the local economy as well as on the quality ofthe services provided as volunteers have a significant role to play in the provision of services but there are limitations to their work, linked to training, motivation and capability. The free market is certainly not supportive of their effective inputs and can manipulate them into a form of free/cheap labour. Volunteerism enables the abrogation of the social responsibility by governments under the rhetoric of ‘active citizens’ participating in their communities of self-help ‘and mutual support. These notions, intrinsic tothe community development sector, have essentially been hijacked and their ‘meaning distorted (McDonald 2000), Finally, what does all this mean in terms of priorities for ‘community action? Increasing class divisions, frustration, poverty, rage and anger often misdirected against minorities are spreading, [tis not accidental that in many majority world ‘countries renewed attacks occur on ethnic minorities and that minority world countries witness the development of parties similar to the One Nation Party in Australia (Stratton 1998, Quinn 2003). Technological development also poses new ethical and social justice issues that change the terrain of the struggles for community development (Babacan and Gopalkrishnan 2001). ‘The challenges faced by social and human services have led to mixed responses by the community development sector. Some groups, on the more conservative side, have engaged ‘with the process of marketisation and have attempted to work ‘with communities within the existing paradigm (Yeatman 1998), Others have adopted a pluralist framework and attempt to protect existing gains and push for more resources. Social action approaches and social movements are conspicuously absent from the Australian community development terrain, This is partly related to apathy, partly to do with stress and exhaustion and - significantly ~ with the lack of ability to take a bird’s eye view of community development. Organisations and workers have to look at the bigger picture in order to focus their energies (Babacan & Gopalkrishnan 2001). ‘New Areas For Community Action? In order to bring about social justice and equality, more effort needs to be devoted by the community development sector to capacity building. Capacity building involves the development of skills, resources and networks towards achievement of common ends. Its about creating awareness about the nature of the problems and enabling social change that moves beyond despair. ‘The key areas for community action are: 1. The mandate of the people it represents: For any action to be effective it must have the mandate of the people it represents. This would mean using clearly defined principles of people's participation to gather information and directions for work. ‘Structures of participation have to be created that empower the individual and the community and enable their concems 22. New community Quarterly to impact on macro-economic policy. The rights of the minorities have to be protected. 2. The effective use of technology: Some of the strengths of technology are its ability to inform as well as to bring similar- ‘minded people together (O’Brien et.al.2001). Television, radio, the telephone and the Intemet provide numerous opportunities that need to be exploited in the pursuit of a more equitable world. An example of how this can be used is the intemationalisation of the strike by the Maritime Workers Union in Australia, which found support across the world, which helped the successful negotiation of their demands. Similar networking across the globe is quite possible, given the wide scope of available technology. On the negative side, it must be noted that some channels of communication, such ‘as newspapers and television, are tightly controlled and in private hands and millions of poorer people around the world have no access to most forms of technology. 3. Global Civil Society: action must not only be geared at the local level but work towards a global civil society bound by codes of global governance and working towards a more equitable global order. Global governance has to function under the same principles that democratic national governments do and has to protect the interests of the less powerful and not just the rich nations, Global movements need to be {nguished from market economics and used to strengthen those initiatives that are already working globally to improve the quality of life of every person. These include the United Nations, environment movements and Human Rights ‘movements; the Bretton Woods Institutions need to be remodeled to reflect more holistic approaches to the problems of individual countries. At present, no one nation-state is in a position to curtail the power of the financial and other markets ‘and regional and global cooperation of nation-states is a key to impose controls to the benefit of citizens rather than corporations. Considering the fleet-footed nature of Trans- ‘National Companies, global governance is needed to bring them under some form of regulation. A common social contract, {guaranteeing basic human needs and regulatory uniformity has to form part of Global Civil Society. “There is no alternative to working together and using collective power to create a better (democratic) world” (Commission on Governance 1995, pe. 5). Ironically, what may hasten the trends towards the achievement of this could be global environmental crises or in food supply (Ramanathan & Link 1999). 4. International Financial Restrictions need to be urgently ‘put in place to curtail the global movements of finance flows tocreate benefits for individual states outof these transactions, A tax along the lines of the one envisioned by American ‘economist and Nobel prizewinner, James Tobin, would provide just this by levying a small fee of I % on all foreign exchange transactions. This would provide billions to the coffers of the individual governments while regulating an otherwise ‘uncontrollable situation. George Soros (2002) suggests a Tobin- type tax on all financial transactions, a measure that would bring financial capital on par with all other transactions. There isabsolutely no reason, other than the power of vested interests for GST/VAT to be levied on al transactions except financial ‘ones. The fact that no country is willing to bring in such a tax Volume + Number 2reflects the weakness of the individual governments and stresses the need for international cooperation to bring in such measures. Another such international measure would be the levying of a discretionary tax structure that comes down more heavily on income through interest earnings rather than income from productive investment (Bhaduri 1998), ‘These major international issues will require strong forces of ‘opposition and resistance (O'Brien et.al. 2000). In an age of globalisation, community action has to be directed towards changing the predicted trend towards a 20:80 society engendered by the transnational economic interests. The imperative isto change the paradigm of global economics and shift the balance to all the other ‘scapes’. Many rewards can bereaped from globalisation, able to benefitall societies; these privileges will continue,however, to benefit the few unless we all strive for a just and equitable global society. ‘We can no longer hide in our isolated comers and ignore the impact of globalisation on our lives. Returning to the earlier tale of the elephant, the time has come to see all ofthe elephant by taking a bird’s eye view... References Appadurai A. (1990) “Disjuneture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy” in Featherstone M. (ed.) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, Sage Publications, London. Babacan H., & Gopalkrishnan N. (2001) “Community Work Partnerships in a Global Context” Community Development Journal, Oxford University Press, Vol. 36(1), pp. 3-18. Bauman Z. (1998) Globalization, the Human Consequences, Polity Press, Cambridge. Beck U: (2000) What is Globalization? Polity Press, Cambri Beilharz P, Considine M, and Watts R, (1992) Arguing About the Welfare State: Australian Experience, Alea and Unwin, Sydney. Bhaduri A. (1998) “implications of globalization for macroeconomic ‘theory and policy in developing countries” in Baker D., Epstein G. and Poll R. (eds) Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our Global ‘Neighbourhood, Oxford University ress, Oxford Considine M. (2000) “Competition, QuasicMarkets and the New ‘Welfare State, Reflections on the Challenges Awaiting Clients, Governments 'and Professionals” in O'Connor, L, Smyth, P. & Warburton, J. Contemporary Perspectives on Social Work and the Human Services: Challenges and Change Longman, Sury Hils, pp.73-83. ‘Considine M. (1996) “Market Bureaucracy” in A. Farrar & J. Inglis, Keeping It Together: State and Civil Society In Australia, Pluto Press, Leichhardt. ‘DomineliL. and Payne M., (eds) (1998) Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, Macmillan, London. Farrar A. & Inglis 1, Keeping It Together: State and Civil Society In Australia, Puto Press, Leichhardt Galligan B., Roberts W., & Trifleti G. (2001) Australians and Globalisation, Cembridge University Press, Cambridge. Hoatson L, Dixon J, & Sloman D., (1996) “Community Development, Citizenship and the Contract State”, Community Development Journal, Vol. 31.No 2, pp.126-136. We. (2002) Community Development: community based alternatives in an age of globalisation, Pearson Educstion Australia, Frenchs Fores. Industry Commission (1995) Charitable Organisations in Australia, AGPS, Melbourne. Winter 2003 refereed section JamrozikA., Boland C. and Urquhart R. (1998) Social Change and Cultural Transformation in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Kenny, (1999) Developing Communities forthe Future: Community evelopment in Australia, Nelson ITP, South Melbourne. Manin Hand Schumann H. (1996) The Global Trap: Globalization tnd the asault on prosperity and democracy, Zed Books Lid, New York, MeDonald C. (2000) “The Third Sector in the Human Services Rethinking Its Role” in O'Connor L, Smyth P. & Warburton J. (cds) Contemporary Perspectives on Socal Work and the Human Services: Challenges and Change Longman, Sury Hil, pp.84- 9%. Meekosha H.& Mowbray M (1995) “Activism, Service Provision and the State's Intellectuals: Community Work in Australia” in Craig G. & Mayo V. (eds) Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development Zed Books, London. O’Brien. GoetzAM, Scholte JA, Wiliams M. (2000) Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (0'ConnorL, Wison J. Setterlund D. (1998) Socal Work and Welfare Practice, 2 ed, Longman, South Melbourne (Quinn M. (2003) “immigrants and Refugees: Towards Anti-Racist ‘and Culturally AfTiming Practices” in J. Allan, B. Pease, and L. Briskman (eds), Critical Social Work: An Introduction to Theories and Practices, Alen and Unwin, Crows Nest Ramanathan C.S. & Link RJ. (1999) All Our Futures: Principles and Resources for Social Work Practice in a Global Era, ‘Wadsworth Publishers, Belmont Robertson R. (2003) The Three Waves of Globalization Zed Books, ‘London Rodger IJ. (2000) From a Welfare State to a Welfare Society, ‘Macmillan, Houndsmills. Soros (2002) George Soros On Globalization, Public Asis, New York. ‘Tomlinson J. (1999) Globalization and Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge Swatton J. (1998) Race Daze: Australian Ident Crisis, Plato Press, Syne. ‘Wallerstein I (1990) “Culture asthe Mdeological Background of the “Moder World System” in Featherstone M. (ed) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, Sage, London. ‘Waters M (1998) Globalization, Routledge, London ‘Wearing M. (1998) Working in Community Services: Management and Practice, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, ‘Yeatman A. (1998) Aetvism and he Policy Proces, Allen & Unwin. Narayan Gopalkrishnan is the Director, Centre for Multicultural and Community Development, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia Email: ngopalkr@usc.edu.au New Community Quarterly 2.3