Major Kowert

Front 1

List to use

Back 1

Post-Washington Consensus – Birdsall and Fukuyama
Hoffmann, S. (2002). Clash Of Globalizations.
Kaplinsky, R. (2001). Is Globalization All It Is Cracked Up To Be?
Trebilcock, M., & Prado, M. (2011). What Makes Poor Countries Poor?.
Rodrik, D. (1997). Sense And Nonsense In The Globalization Debate.

Front 2

Post-Washington Consensus – Birdsall and Fukuyama – 2011

Back 2

Emerging markets figured out that open capital markets combined with little regulation equals disaster. Consequences of the 2008 crisis: 1. End of foreign finance fetish, 2. New respect for social policy, 3. New discussion about industrial policy, can manage own. China’s bounceback. Little improvement in dev country public sectors. Rise of the rest.

Front 3

Hoffmann, S. (2002). Clash Of Globalizations.

Back 3

Rivalries among great powers have not disappeared (although moderated by nuclear weapons); civil wars are on the rise; foreign policies are shaped by “realist geopolitical factors such as economics and military power” as well as by domestic politics. Globalization is not as simple as Friedman would have us think; it is made up of economic (aggregate wealth, minimum social justice), cultural (uniformization vs. diversity), and political (a product of economic and cultural – institutions and NGOs). Globalization is not inevitable but based on U.S. economic might, has limited reach, does not always lead to democratization, may not improve the human condition, and does not engender automatically international civil society. International institutions are weak, citizenship is still national, and there is regional violence based on resentments.

Front 4

Kaplinsky, R. (2001). Is Globalization All It Is Cracked Up To Be?

Back 4

While globalization has helped much of the world’s population, those living in extreme poverty have remained as distribution of income has become more unequal. Kaplinsky looks at two possible scenarios as globalization advances: a ‘blue scenario’ of full employment and redistribution and a ‘red scenario’ of a reserve of skilled workers (particularly in China) and weak redistribution. Kaplinsky concludes that the red scenario is more likely. A global civilizing process would not be based on a world state but on international rule of law and citizen networks putting pressure on institutions. Cleavages now are in four categories: neoliberal parochialist (national values, neoliberal economics, the new right), cosmopolitan neoliberal (MNCs, internationalist liberals), redistributionist parochial (Old Left, traditional socialist) and cosmopolitan redistributionist (global civic networks). Possible coalitions could be between liberal globalizers and the new right (unequal global system imposed at national level by authoritarian government) or between the liberal globalizers and global civic networks (democratization of globalization and the global civilizing process). The Battle of Seattle was the first stage of this debate. The NGOs there were white, not representative of the Third World.

Front 5

Trebilcock, M., & Prado, M. (2011). What Makes Poor Countries Poor?.

Back 5

The authors focus on institutions (organizations entrusted to make, administer, enforce laws and policies) and development. The World Bank’s Governance Project measured institutional quality (voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption) and found a strong correlation to per capita GDP, infant mortality and adult literacy. Some countries have bad institutions because of path dependency (reinforcement of arrangements over time raises the cost of changing them). Catch-up economies have different institutional demands than middle-income ones. Societal structures affect contract enforcement. Institutions can be used to control ethnic conflict. Corruption can be addressed by limiting payoffs, increasing accountability and transparency, and radical government reform. Richer countries benefit more from privatization than poorer ones; often private sector reform is needed in conjunction.

Front 6

Rodrik, D. (1997). Sense And Nonsense In The Globalization Debate.

Back 6

National economies remain isolated from each other and have more autonomy than is sometimes thought. Capital is not entirely free to cross borders; increased savings in a country leads to increased investment in that country. However, globalization is important and has narrowed the options available to national governments in the name of international competitiveness. There is a strong association between exposure to international trade and the importance of the government in the economy; globalization increases the demand for social insurance while limiting the ability of the government to provide it. A popular fallacy is that low wages are the driving force behind global trade. Another is that export-oriented industrialization has not improved the lives of workers. Dangers from complacency toward social consequences of globalization include potential for political backlash against trade and a new set of class divisions. On the global level, rules that encourage harmonization of social and industrial policies are needed. The complementary forces at work with globalization are marketization (receding government, deregulation and the intertwining of national economies).