“Well, the typical protestor claims those poor people in thrid world countries would be exploited and would lose theuir culture etc.”
It’s not clear to me from this whether you’ve been following this thread or not–but in either case, can you provide some kind of example of a “typical” protestor–or as may be more helpful, some kind of NGO that takes part in such protests–making such a claim?
As to “antiglobalization” protests–if you’ve read this thread you know that I reject that term as characterizing what most critics of globalization are actually trying to achieve.
Are there protests in developing countries against IMF policies and their effects? Does Argentina ring a bell?
Have you never heard of popular protests against privatization of water, desubsidized social welfare programs, and so forth–i.e., aspects of the status quo that are often singled out by critics?
“The typical person in a poor country is not happy with things as they are and wants more globalization, not less.”
Agreed so long as you’re willing to agree with me that it’s the nature of “globalization” and not simply the degree that will dictate what benefits the citizens of developing nations.
“But kids in rich countries believe that’s not good for poor countries so they go out and riot and destry other people’s property.”
See above for comments on how participation in protests has changed in the years since Seattle. OTOH, I know some students (as well as some older politically active people) who have taken part in recent protests: they neither riot nor destroy anything, and they are pretty well-informed about what and whom they are protesting on behalf of. I think that to some degree you are buying into an artificially generated stereotype of the typical protestor that is deliberately intended to encourage passivity and self-censorship.
SR, Stiglitz is probably the most prominent these days–though I wouldn’t choose to summarize his argument as saying that “the average person has been hurt by globalization.” Also some are grad students who do their own research in development studies and related areas.
(If you read through the whole of this thread, which I’m guessing you haven’t, you’ll find a review of Stiglitz’s book including a summary and some criticism, as well as some links to other economists and journalists.)
I understood your question perfectly, SR. When I said Stiglitz is “probably the most prominent these days,” I meant among the “well-informed” students I happen to know personally.
As to whether you and I will be “pals,” well that remains to be seen ;).
Ah, then I apologize, Mandelstam, I interprited a tone of “you obviously haven’t read the thread” in your reply. I think you give far too much credit to anti-globalization types. You refer to respectable economists, for the most part. In my experience at Duke, that is rare.
Btw, here’s a less flattering review of Stiglitz’s book, from The Economist
Another entertaining link, if not necessarily directly related to the OP: Kenneth Rogoff’s Open Letter to Joseph Stiglitz. It’s his direct reply to some of the criticism of the IMF put forth in Globalization and its Discontents.
And here, to round out the picture a bit is a different review of Stiglitz from Business Week. (You may need to register to read it but registration is free.)
SR: “I think you give far too much credit to anti-globalization types.”
Well, it’s possible I give too much credit to the typical protestor–after all, I really have no way of characterizing such individuals. But I am myself one of those “armchair” supporters to which your Economist reviewer refers. ;). And I really do think that “anti-globalization” misrepresents what the vast majority of involved people–most of whom don’t attend protests–seek to achieve.
“You refer to respectable economists, for the most part. In my experience at Duke, that is rare.”
Again, my knowledge of actual protestors is fairly limited: just a handful of people, mostly students, whom I know personally. OTOH, I have a fairly wide exposure to people who are interested in reforming the status quo but who, for various reasons, don’t attend protests. I even know some people at Duke ;).
I personally really enjoy reading economists and I always advise like minded friends and acquaintances to do likewise. But I do want to add that there are other kinds of specialists with important contributions to make to the discussion. There are anthropologists and “area studies” people who have spent years working in and on areas affected by development policy, as well as people who work specifically in international relations or development studies. As social scientists, such people tend to know a fair amount about economics–that is, I don’t think it would be appropriate to see them as “economically illiterate.” But, more important, the expertise that they contribute in their own right is also crucial to understanding the developing world. And it’s especially important to counter the kind ideology-bound blinkers that, acccording to Stiglitz and others, IMF officials tend to be wearing when they impose general prescriptions onto particular situations of which they know very little.
tiggeril, I haven’t actually had time yet to read your links but I look forward to doing so.
Fair enough, Mandelstam. I think the main difference is that we are looking at different people. You say, “And I really do think that ‘anti-globalization’ misrepresents what the vast majority of involved people–most of whom don’t attend protests–seek to achieve.” But the thread title is “What are the tenets of ‘anti-globalism’?” In other words, I think the OP was referring to the more hard-core of the anti-globalization types.
One more thing, Mandelstam, don’t assume that all pro-globies like myself are trying to defend the status quo; many of us are, in the words of Ayn Rand, “radicals for capitalism.” Not that I’m a fan of Ms. Rand, but that attitude fairly describes many of us.