Module 7 Lecture 1 Globalization

okay we’re going to start module seven which is about globalization and I want to talk about globalization and use the environment as an example of the issues related to globalization and globalization is best understood by referring to international political economy or IPE so if we think about environmental issues they have becoming increasingly important in recent years just like the pace of economic development and population growth has quickened and all of this is going to test the nature or the limits of nature and the environment and globalization are both going to speak to human rights so environmental problems have always existed but they’re just different now because today’s ecological and environmental problems are increasingly global in nature and the problems of things like deforestation and global warming are much larger than any one single nation’s ability to solve them so the problems of the environment involved States as well as markets throughout the globe and so international political economy therefore must expand to accommodate these green issues of today and tomorrow and for our purposes the environment has a huge impact mainly on subsistence rights but also on other types of rights security rights in particular and we saw that in Katrina as well as other issues around the globe that you might not be as familiar with and so for example on the right there’s a picture of an environmentalist disaster where a barge bear that had two hundred two thousand tons of toxic waste was sank and so Greenpeace revealed that the ship was carrying toxic ash taken from thermal plants in Spain and from that time on Greenpeace has repeatedly demanded to have Spain re repatriate if you will that particular waste and that hasn’t occurred so if we think about what all is being dumped in the oceans in particular what that does to food sources and many countries are very reliant upon food from the ocean for their food security so if we think about the environment and international political economy there is a the impact on sustainable development in particular but any type of development of in population growth and this mainly impacts less developed countries countries that are already susceptible to human rights concerns and so there is a conundrum that has developed around the goal of sustainable development and so the primary question for IPE regarding the environment has become how do nations and other political actors create wealth for today’s generation without the same time depleting a spoiled and depleted environment for future generations so how do we maintain wealth create wealth today without depleting the earth resources resources for the future and a depleted environment that will have dire human rights circumstances so far there’s an indication that most political actors States NGOs ideas are an agreement that in fact this is the most important question to ask about economic growth in the environment the issue of sustainable development however the international system has not witnessed much progress in reconciling the goals of not destroying the environment at the same time of creating wealth and just like we had theories of international relations there are theories of international political economy that I want to briefly talk about so from the realist perspective that international political economy theory that’s most aligned with that is mercantilism liberalism economic liberalism and Marxism social class theory and so while I don’t want to go into too much detail about these theories it’s important to realize that from a mercantilist perspective this is really for the state’s perspective the economy is a additional tool in their toolbox to accumulate wealth and power order to enhance its independence and national security so the state is going to intervene in the economy because of security reasons or the state is going to be an actor in the economy – and certainly their security which was a odd phrasing I know and to ensure their security they need to increase their wealth and their power so there’s lots of different mercantilists thought and policy but you can kind of think of mercantilism as a philosophy it’s a period of history if you recall and

there’s also a set of economic policies that go along with it so in in terms of philosophy history mercantilism was that period of time in European history roughly from the 16th to the 19th century where those European states acquired wealth and helped raise armies to otherwise secure themselves so wealth and power tended to generate this vicious cycle where states gained wealth and power and and they believed that they were enhancing their security but in doing so they created conditions where other states were first threatened by that state’s added wealth and power so you got into this race for colonies if you will so classic mercantilism accounts for that type of historical period where European states work trying to accumulate wealth first at home and then abroad to enhance their power and security and so mercantilism and realism are very complementary perspectives because realism is a political philosophy that views a nation-state as a primary actor and so the primary job of the state is to acquire wealth and so we have these policies of economic nationalism if you will where the state is focusing on gaining wealth and power through trade through other types of internal development in order to promote the security of the state and many ldcs and Nick’s less developed countries in newly industrialised countries today subscribe to this mercantilist idea that emphasizes production power and national and political national political and economic security so developing countries really want to use their economy to bolster their security and so we have mercantilist States today Japan is a prime example of a mercantilist state because they’re always feeling insecure about certain types of resources because they have known for example oil of their own so they have to use their economy to bolster their position in the international community so today mercantilist favored a strong or active state role in the economy viewing state action as necessary to gain wealth and power or if we think about liberalism coming along and it was really an assault on mercantilist thought with the advent of Adam Smith and his book on the wealth of nations and so a free market is one element of the liberal view which sees individuals as best equipped to make certain decisions about their economic future and so liberals focus on the range of human activities that are going to reveal their their cooperative side and so the best interest of society it’s argued is served by rational individual choices that want to observe from afar appear as an invisible hand that guides the economy and promotes the common good and this is the writing of Adam Smith and it’s based on the principle of the freedom of the individual and he comes up with the philosophy of the absolute advantage which I have there for you on the screen well David Ricardo comes along and extends this liberal perspective to international trade and says that instead of winners and losers there’s a positive son game and where all players can win so we’re all going to have benefits from trade for example so liberals don’t just fear the state intervention they’re suspicious of power generally including excessive concentrations of power in the market so from the liberal perspective they want less government intervention in the economy okay so they think the free market is going to provide benefits for all and all boats will rise for example as opposed to the mercantilist realist perspective of winners and losers and then of course we have Marx’s and Marx understood history as this dynamic process this is also referred to a structuralist perspective or social class theory and so Marx argued that capitalism evolved to overcome feudalism and this didn’t turn would be overcome by socialism and eventually communism so Marx sees the economy as a class struggle between the bourgeois class the owners and then the proletariat who is the wage laborer who lacks any power and don’t own the means of production any more and he sees this as an exploitation you can start to see how this is going to have a human rights component so Marx saw capitalism as a as a form of the economy that’s going to go into a crisis mode at some point because of unevenness due to competition capitalism is going to become more unstable the proletariat are going to become even more alienated from their work and this is going to produce a revolution in the crisis of capitalism in capitalism therefore contains the seeds of its own demise in

the form of private ownership of capital of waves labor and competition that Marx sees as destructive so in terms of competition if we think about mercantilist view competition as a zero-sum battle winners and losers Adam Smith and economic liberals believe competition prevents any one class or group becoming too powerful or too weak that it’s really all boats will rise again Marx believes all parties lose due to this competition and he argues that competition drives down the wages of workers which decreases their ability to purchase as many goods as before and this is going to hurt business and so you can start to see in this very Marxist socialist view the concerns of the workers and this is where we get that split in the human rights field with individuals from socialist communist backgrounds more concerned about these issues of subsistence as opposed to political rights so if we think about these particular views or the revolution of course didn’t occur but what you have is Lenin coming along who makes an argument that the revolution didn’t occur because the capitalists use their money to invest abroad in these colonies and so you have international concerns between the north and the south the haves and the have-nots and that evolved into what’s called world Systems Theory where capitalism of the world with a capital rich in digital course states dominate the world system and you have these exploited smaller states in the periphery and semi periphery and it’s these smaller states that are weaker the less developed countries that bear the brunt of much of the subsistence rights violations that we see so if we look at the environment and how this is going to impact human rights from a mercantilist perspective you have competition for the resources and so whether it’s oil or water or whatever other resource we don’t know exist yet mercantilists believe you have to find some monopoly on that particular resource because it’s a component of national interests and security liberals think the market is going to take care of the the process or the use of resources and those resources are going to be redistributed based on the market and it might be that the hegemon steps in to try and lay down some rules for the international community to adhere to when it comes to resources and for liberal is the best way to deal with issues like clean air like environmental issues is simply to privatize because people care more about things if there’s ownership involved and then structuralist or Marxists are going to believe that there’s always going to be this strain or tension between economic development and sustainable development because in the past and history has shown that the first world the developed world developed first and now they’re expecting those individuals in developing countries to develop at the same rate without destroying the environment like the people did in the first world so there’s an environmental regime just like there is Human Rights regime and so the same types of organizations that are dealing with human rights I also deal with issues of the environment so you have the UN instead of the human rights program they have an environmental program you have international economic institutions that deal with the environment you also have NGOs such as Greenpeace and there’s a whole lot of NGOs but we also have multinational corporations that are at play when it comes to the environment all right well there’s a concept in the International environmental world called the global Commons and we should think take a few minutes to think about what the environment is it is basically a common area for all of us but the problems become that we all use it but none of us are directly responsible for the environment the dilemma then comes is there going to be enough resources to sustain the growing levels of population so we have the twin problems of a growing population and a depletion of scarce resources so Thomas Malthus came along and made an argument that population grows geometrically whereas food production grows arithmetic aliy and if you do the math the prediction was that famine and disease was going to become commonplace and lead to social and political unrest because at some point you read a point that crisis where the population outstrips the amount of resources that are available so how do you overcome this problem well for Malthus Wars and natural disasters will take care of some of the population for you but that’s not very good social

policy we can’t just expect to kill off people because we don’t have enough resources so the historical record tells us that the population is going to continue to grow but this this particular issue assumes lack of innovation there’s been revolutions in farming techniques and technology in reality what we have is food production has outgrown populations so it’s really not food production that’s the problem but rather food distribution but there’s still some concern not about population growth in general but the distribution of growth so for example in Europe there’s a zero growth and population it’s just maintaining and even decreasing it’s in the developed world that you have growth approaching 5% in terms of population and so this leads to concerns about what is called the tragedy of the Commons in 1972 a report entitled the limits to growth was published it contained a set of projections for the world based on economic and environmental trends since world war ii and argued that if previous pattern continued there’d be an environmental damage and that would start to constrain global progress and so we have what is called the tragedy of commons which was coined by Garrett Hardin and he uses the term tragedy of the Commons to illustrate that people act in the short term for selfish gain so one way to think of this definition of the tragedy of the Commons is to think that the Earth’s stock of resources is limited there’s finite sources of things such as oil that can be used up living resources such as forests and fish runs that can be overused and depleted for the most part the environment is a collective good one that is shared by everyone but owned by no one so the chart the tragedy of the Commons explains how and why communal goods are overused or depleted it’s in the each user’s self-interest to use up more of the goods since the cost is largely borne by others and that doesn’t occur when a good or resource is privately owned this is why liberals like to privatize when many people in states follow their self-interest depletion of environmental resources results this is kind of like the free rider problem projected into the future so Hardin uses an analogy of over grazing a Commons to explain the relationship of population to the availabe Villa bate excuse me the availability of food he argued that the world was much like the Commons whereupon only so many animals could graze without eventually destroying it well that’s a natural inclination of individuals is to use things to their advantage people act in the short-term and continually produce ever-increasing number of say livestock which eventually required more and more of the Commons and all the people acting this way in concert eventually used up the Commons dooming the individual and then society at large so for Harden certain freedoms and liberties must be restricted or people would destroy the environment so what do you do if you’re Garrett Hardin do you encourage smaller families well this is private behavior while the social consequences of trying to legislate procreation for example give tax relief for having smaller families you know this is reminiscent of the China one-child policy and we know the devastating effects of that in terms of human rights should we eliminate international food programs we have too much food because famine believe it or not is a sign of overpopulation repeated famines signal that states have failed to address problems of population growth so what we really have is the resource puzzle guard Herot Garrett Hardin argues that international aid says– serves as a lifeboat that allows people to perpetuate the cycle while feeding starving people is the moral thing to do the long-run result is overpopulation and famine so we can see how this resource puzzle it creates an environmental issue that becomes political and economic as well as human rights issues I mean can we really stop feeding starving people is that really the answer so again this book our common future was a report actually by the UN EP that was published in 18 1987 that shifted attention to the connection between the environment and the survival of developing nations in particular and the report linked hunger debt economic growth and other issues to environmental problems and so this is

why the environment is such a crucial issue to human rights and there’s really three parts to the resource puzzle first we need to maintain global North Development nobody in the global North wants to give up all of the material possessions or the progress that has been made although there is a movement to have a smaller carbon footprint there’s also the second part which is to increase the global South development and then how do you do all three of that without destroying the environment so there has to be some sort of regulation of resource allocation and usage and so what has the global what has been the global response to that in 1968 you had a meeting called the Club of Rome and it was a meeting of scientists to address the problems of population growth and resources and their findings are published in this book called the limits to growth and the general conclusions of this book is that the world was built specifically I’m sorry that that what they were wanting to do is look at five major trends accelerating industrialization rapid population growth widespread malnutrition the depletion of renewable resources and a deteriorating environment and they said in spite of the preliminary state of their work they believe it’s important to publish their findings and they argue that number one if the present growth trends in world population industrialization pollution food production and resource depletion continue unchanged the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next 100 years the most probable result will be a sudden and uncontrolled the decline in both population and industrial capacity secondly they said it’s possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future the state of global equilibrium they say could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize their human potential if the world’s people they said decide to strive for the second outcome rather than the first the sooner they began working to attain it the greater will be their chances of success ultimately they argue that the world has a certain carrying capacity the ability that is to sustain a population and absorb waste and once breached something is going to give and the usual victim to that is the world’s poor so they argue that there’s renewable and there’s non-renewable resources the renewable food non-renewable is oil types of things so these are just two examples and the limit is called the carrying capacity that compared the carrying capacity is the Earth’s limit and so they argued once again that if this isn’t done the current capacity is going to be reached and the victims of that are going to be the world’s poor so we have two competing visions about what to do you have the neo-traditionalist those individuals such as those who Garrett Hardin and these groups tend to accept a fatalistic view that people are constrained by natural forces and limits and people need to adjust the limits of growth so they’re arguing if we don’t stop our behavior we’re going to be limited modernists on the other hand have faith in people’s ability to overcome more along the lines of necessity as a mother of invention that people have the intellectual and technical capacity to overcome challenges presented by human and economic growth so modernist assumptions are that the global population is going to level off after all we already seen negative population growth in many areas of the world that wealth and fertility are inversely related so you tend to have a smaller population particularly as women’s roles change with industrialization the more educated women are the less number of children they’re likely to have and many of the previously predicted limitations have over been overcome by innovation so societies have been able to increase food production technology or genetically modified food energy sources people argue are they really that scarce what if so what if fossil fuels are depleted as there are other ways to find sources of energy is global warming really a problem these are what modernists these are types of questions that modernists are asking and problems tend to be a function of public bad bad public policies they argue and one other thing to do is try to figure out how to overcome the free-rider problem in the international arena so who should pay for clean air who should pay for water so if we start to look at the major areas of concern if you think

about more talking about the earth pollution deforestation desertification biodiversity and deforestation is an example of the classic tragedy of the Commons tropical rainforests occupy only half the surface of the earth that they did 50 years ago and much concern about deforestation is centered on LDCs LDCs wish to defect from cooperative cooperative solution efforts since they would bear much of the cost and gain from their participation and so we are desperately trying to educate individuals in less developed countries about the necessity of maintaining the the rainforest for for the future and so you have people concerned working through NGOs and other international organizations to deal with the issues of deforestation when it comes to the air we have the issues of global warming scientists fear that global warming will cause decrease rainfall and droughts that will threaten international food security there’s also a fear of sea level rising damaging water ground supplies covering many island nations of producing a large number of refugees and we’ve already talked about the problems of refugees on the other hand you have skeptics of global warming and it’s been argued that the resources required to combat global warming would be better spent addressing issues such as hiv/aids and shirring access to safe drinking water and continuing economic development and then when it comes to the water we have the issues of ocean dumping particularly the issues of nuclear waste dumping and the ocean is again anacost classical communal good and ocean dumping illustrates the tragedy of the Commons and there are many other sources of waste that ends up in the world’s oceans and so this again is a human rights issue because of so many societies and peoples that are dependent upon food sources that come from the ocean I want to just concentrate for the rest of this on this issue of nuclear weapons and the environmental pack impact of nuclear dumping I grew up in the nuclear era on a military base and so I was always afraid of dying in a nuclear holocaust but beyond that we practice the art of Duck and Cover and so this is a cartoon that talks about how to survive if you will a nuclear attack I won’t show you this video but if you google Duck and Cover you can see birth the duck who is walking along and learning to duck and cover as a practice this eventually evolved into the tornado drills that many young children have today so I’ll let you enjoy that at your own leisure all right but the nuclear testing started of course during World War two and at the end of World War two and the Bikini Atoll is where a lot of this testing took place and so atomic bomb tests were done in 1946 this is referred to as operation crossroads and the though famous ones are the able and Baker tests and so this is a video that shows shows that perhaps let me get back so if I can get it on this slide so that you can see it okay here we go maybe all right here we go

the bomb missed its intended target by nearly 800 yards the blast sent five ships including two destroyers to the bottom of bikini lagoon all ships within a half a mile of the blast were heavily damaged but damage was nowhere near that created by the following underwater blast known as shot bigger okay so those testing those were done as part of the ships that were used as decoys if you will out there to see what happened to the ship the u.s. ended USS independence was one of those and we can they showed the wreckage of this took photos well then they decided to just sink it in place and so what we have now is the question of what do you do with and where do you put a radioactive worship you know this is not a debate on whether or not nuclear testing should be or shouldn’t be done the question now becomes what do we do with this radioactive warship and what did they do with it for many of those became addicted that were contaminated they were brought to a Hunter’s Point Shipyard in California to to go through a slant a sandblasting process to try and decant deep contaminate these ships okay others were sank and so now if what’s left of that particular shipyard is obviously off-limits and you see this this is a an area that you don’t want to go into should you see this little sign but there is an attempt now to try and figure out how to do some sort of economic development in that region and so in California there are plans to try and develop this particular area that once was the site of decay decontamination and so this of course has implications for the security of individuals there’s also the Farallon Islands dump which has a lot of nuclear waste and this is where some low-level radioactive waste was dumped into the ocean floors between 46 and 1970 and this is where the marine sanctuary so you can start to see the shipping lanes are where the ships leave the port of San Francisco but this is where some of the dumping signs have sites are and then of course you have the in green the

sanctuary boundaries so you start to see how the contamination of nuclear waste is going to interfere with food supply and marine life in general and you kind of get a sense of how far out we’re talking off the west coast there okay but beyond that the international response oh dear that’s not what I meant to do the international response to the environmental issues deal back with the hole in the ozone it was discovered in 1975 and the hole in the ozone is linked to CFC emissions and so states were able to agree to work toward reductions of CFC in 1987 you had the book again called our common future in 1987 288 you had the Montreal Protocol that dealt with the whole hole in the ozone in 1992 you had what’s called the Earth Summit in Rio and this was where states got together and there was an agreement on the principle that climate change was and should be a concern for humanity and humans played a role in the depletion of the era of the ozone and so this is where we start to see the idea of sustainable development occur then you had the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and this really starts to show the divisions between the global north and global South where the global North and the global South had what are called common but differentiated responsibilities and this is where China and other less developed countries refused to even a weak opt-in measure for participation because LD seas believe that they should be excluded because they were still emitting less the global north particularly the United States and the Soviet Union at the time it was necessary for economic development how would they catch up if they weren’t allowed to admit like the global North had emitted and they needed help from industrialized countries the US wanted reductions they wanted to propose cuts and reductions they wanted a treaty to be market-based the privatization if you will of emission credits and they wanted meaningful participation by LDCs so the treaty was agreed upon where there would be reductions in global North emissions there was a market-based approach however the LDCs booked on meaningful participation and this really killed the deal for the u.s. when common but differentiated responsibilities became part of the plan from the LDCs perspective one official said very many of us are struggling to attain a decent standard of living for our peoples and yet we are constantly told that we must share in the effort to reduce emissions so that industrialized countries can continue to enjoy the benefits of their wasteful lifestyle the US Congress this is in the 1990s Newt Gingrich was the speaker said I find it profoundly wrong that approximately a hundred and thirty four countries were allowed to vote on a treaty by which they will never be bound so you can see the difference between the developed countries the developing countries and at least out of the United States and the result was the Clinton administration did not send the treaty to Congress for a vote and the United States are still not a party to the Kyoto Protocol and in fact the u.s. withdraws and so you see in 2001 George Bush removes the United States from the Kyoto Protocol then of course we have the Inconvenient Truth that was the documentary by Al Gore so what are these solutions as we start to to wrap up here should we limit population growth there is no conclusive evidence that overpopulation itself is a global problem reduce numbers of people in a society does not necessarily that consumption of fewer resources is going to occur okay what about new technology and the environmental regime technology can provide more environmentally sound production processes but it’s often difficult to acquire it’s often not appropriate for developing nations stage of development so we have to move beyond the night the nation-state and international organizations and regimes are important some new global institutions should be created to deal with some of these issues because regimes appear to be effective in dealing with some issues like human rights but maybe not some others what about privatizing eco politics green IPE some global environmental problems may be addressed by establishing property rights to consumer goods or communal

goods allowing markets to create to be created for pollution rights and this may be one way to address a tragedy of the Commons there’s also some new visions new social values and norms might lead to a green IPE some Christian communities for example and emphasize the value of stewardship and trustees ship over the or earth and its resources but many people are relying upon sustainable development this goal is hard to precisely define and needs to be brought into the forefront of both issues of environment and human rights some argue that the lack of political support will make this goal unattainable many believe that the environmental problems are more likely to be solved at the local level than at the international level by international organizations so that’s what will stop this particular lecture and then I have another lecture about the issue of food in particular and how it’s related to human rights