Globalization

Globalization: Ethics, Politics & Economics

This page gives the syllabus for a course I am teaching at Haverford College in spring 2020: POLS161, "Globalization: Ethics, Politics & Economics." The course revolves around one question: What are the clashing values and perspectives that underlie arguments for and against globalization? These questions are back at the center of global politics, since it was their arguments against hyper-globalization that led to Donald Trump's winning the U. S. Presidency and the Brexit movement's triumph in Britain. (For midterm evaluations of this course, please click here.)

(YouTube; fair use)

POLSH 161. Globalization: Ethics, Politics & Economics

Tom Donahue-Ochoa

Spring 2020. Haverford College

tjdonahueAThaverford.edu

M 1:30-4pm

Office Hours: W, 2-4pm, Hall 01B. Or by appointment.

Mailbox: Hall Building Faculty mailroom

Life today seems to be incessantly globalizing. On the one hand, ideas, goods, services, money, and people flow across the globe at rates that seem perpetually to increase. In 2015, the real value of foreign trade worldwide was nearly twice what it was in 2005, and it seems likely that each coming year will see that proportion increase. In 2013, there were 70 million more international migrants worldwide than there had been in 2000, which itself saw 20 million more international migrants than there had been in 1990. From 2006 to 2015, the

worldwide number of yearly international tourist arrivals increased in each year except 2009. From 1970 to 2005, the number of international NGOs quintupled, whereas world population did not even double during that time. Moreover, from 1990 to 2005, the number of transnational corporations more than tripled, whereas world population grew by only about 30%.

On the other hand, we seem to live in a world that has in many ways become truly globally integrated. Today, an important event in Kuala Lumpur can immediately have effects in Kansas City. Almost every country today has a city in which you can find the products of any culture on the planet—these are tellingly called “global cities.” Famously, technological goods are instances of global integration: If you have an iPhone, the chances are good that it has chips made in Texas and California, Gorilla Glass made in Kentucky, panels and

batteries and memory drives made in South Korea and Taiwan, a Gyroscope made in California, and all of these made with rare minerals mined in Inner Mongolia. All of these parts are then assembled into a finished iPhone in mainland China. But it isn’t only high-technology goods that manifest global integration. So too can handmade, traditional goods. With only an internet connection, a credit card, and a stable delivery address, a person in Cochabamba, Bolivia can order from a dealer in Abu Dhabi an Oriental rug of New Zealand wool dyed with techniques developed in Turkey and then hand-knotted in Lahore, Pakistan by refugees from Afghanistan to a design developed in 17th century Mamluk Egypt. Moreover, if the buyer does a bit of homework and uses a reliable courier, she can be reasonably sure that the rug will be delivered from Abu Dhabi to her address in Cochabamba in a few days.

So globalization in these two senses—a process of accelerating and expanding global flows, and the accomplished fact of global integration—seems to be a fundamental feature of our times. What should we make of it? On the one hand, it is frequently argued that the hyper-globalization of the last 30 years has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, that it has massively increased living standards around the world, that it has redressed some of the disparities created by European colonialism by raising the middle classes in East Asia to near parity with the middle classes in Europe and the Anglophone countries, that it leads people to expand their sympathies and show care and concern for everyone worldwide, that it encourages respect and comfort with difference, that it boosts innovation and presents people with new ideas and ways of life, that it gives those stuck at the bottom of their social orders a

chance to pull themselves up and live the good life, that the mass migration it encourages allows individuals to more freely choose where and how they will spend their lives; that it encourages countries to genuinely adopt such good institutions as democracy, the rule of law, free exchange, freedom of thought and assembly; and tolerance of religious and ideological difference; and that it encourages peoples and governments to seek common ground and to share governance. These are widely considered chief benefits of globalization.

On the other hand, it is often argued that globalization is destroying democracy in the rich countries by shrinking their middle classes, leaving those countries divided between a globalized elite and an anti-globalist class of left-behinds; that it is destroying democracy in the poorer countries by forcing them to accept the “golden straitjacket” of neo-liberal institutions; that it creates a kind of tyranny of global corporations and global finance over the poorer countries, in which they, with the collusion of the rich countries, dictate to the poor

countries many of the policies they must adopt; that its encouragement of mass migration to the rich countries destroys national solidarity in those countries, and thereby endangers their welfare states; that its mass migration crimps the chances for future success of the poorer countries, since those who migrate tend to display the grit, determination, and savvy needed for economic success; that it destroys national solidarity in the poorer countries by welcoming into the global elite those who succeed in the globalizing order, while leading them to ignore the claims of their less fortunate co-nationals; that it encourages governments to think that global corporate and financial elites are the goose that lays the golden eggs, and hence that they should look the other way when those elites act irresponsibly in the pursuit of further riches, but that they should ensure that the little guy or gal is punished to the fullest extent of the law; and that globalization is a new form of Western imperialism, by which the Western countries and cultures seek to shore up their global hegemony by advocating a new global order in which the playing field is allegedly level, but in reality is heavily tilted in favor of the powerful. These are widely considered important evils of globalization. What should we make of these arguments? For these are the great arguments that seek to demonstrate globalization’s good and bad points. This course seeks to give students the tools to arrive at well-reasoned evaluations of these arguments. It will do this by considering the ethical, political, and economic aspects of globalization, both as a process and as an accomplished fact. The course will therefore examine past versions of globalization; our current hyper-globalization; the Washington Consensus underlying hyper-globalization; the major political ideologies dealing specifically with globalization; market globalism, justice globalism, cosmopolitanism, and nationalism; the institutions of global production: offshoring, sweatshops, and the global corporation; the institutions of global finance; the institutions of global governance; global civil society and the global justice movement; the regime of free trade and sovereign debt; the moral and political problems involved in mass migration; whether globalization creates systems of global injustice along lines of poverty, race, and gender; and whether global citizenship is possible. In examining these issues, our focus will always be on diagnosing the clashes of values and of perspectives that give rise to them and that lead people to evaluate them differently. Our aim is to bring these clashing values and perspectives into relief, so that students will have the clear grasp of them that is needed for arriving at well-reasoned judgments about the merits of the great arguments for and against globalization. Hence the course will revolve around one question: What are the clashing values and perspectives that underlie arguments for and against globalization? By the end of the course, students should have honed their skills of diagnosing and describing these clashes, and should also have mastered the concepts hyper-globalization, Washington Consensus, market fundamentalism, global governance, cosmopolitanism, national solidarity, the golden straitjacket, sovereign debt, sweatshops, offshoring, the global elite, local masses, and bailout politics, among others.

Course Requirements. To earn full credit, you must:

(1) Participate in class discussion and class activities. Emphasis on think-pair-share, small group discussions.

(2) Submit 6 response papers. On alternating weeks from Week 3 on, you submit a response, of not more than 350 words, that examines some thesis that that week’s reading has argued. The paper should state the thesis and then argue for or against it. If you argue for it, you should provide your own reasons for it--not the author's reasons. Here's an example: "Judith Shklar argues that it was better to proceed with the Tokyo and Nuremberg Trials than to summarily punish the accused, as Winston Churchill had proposed. I shall argue instead that it would have been better to follow Churchill's proposal and summarily punish the accused. My main reason will be that summarily punishing the top leaders while avoiding trials would have given the world the punishment it wanted to see, while ensuring that no one could argue that the Allies were using corrupt and unjust legal procedures to obtain predetermined political results. By contrast, the trials muddied the distinction between normal times and extraordinary times, and thus encouraged people to think that the Allies valued neither legality nor justice." Click here for guidelines on writing response papers. Note that for full credit, you need only submit 6 such papers. Deadlines for having submitted two, four, and six of these papers will fall throughout the semester.

(3) Submit 6 drafts of a final paper: topic and various questions about it, add your question and existing answers to it, add your answer (thesis) and two other answers, add sketch of your argument for your answer, add arguments for and against the other answers, write intro and conclusion.

(4) Reading check-ins: Did you do the reading?

(5) Submit final paper last day of exams (4,000 words).

Course Assessment. Course marks will be computed on the following distribution: Class Participation: 20%; Response Papers: 24% (4% each); Drafts 24% (4% each): Reading Check-ins 14%; Final Paper: 18%.

Course Objectives. By the end of the course, students should

(1) Have become familiar with the key concepts of the theories and arguments about the good and bad aspects of globalization;

(2) Have strengthened their skills in applying these concepts to current debate about the problems in and caused by globalization;

(3) Have honed their ability to specify how and why specific values clash when dealing with problems of globalization;

(4) Have improved their skills in describing the different perspectives involved in disagreement over problems of globalization;

(5) Have strengthened their skills in stating accurately the claim for which a discourse is arguing, and presenting well-ordered reasons for or against that claim.

E-mail policy. You are welcome to e-mail me with questions about the course. I try to answer e-mails within 48 hours of receipt. Don’t expect an answer before then. Fast generally means shoddy.

Academic Dishonesty: Don’t do it! Here is Haverford College's official language on the subject:

"A Note from Your Professor on Academic Integrity at Haverford:

"In a community that thrives on relationships between students and faculty that are based on trust and respect, it is crucial that students understand a professor’s expectations and what it means to do academic work with integrity. Plagiarism and cheating, even if unintentional, undermine the values of the Honor Code and the ability of all students to benefit from the academic freedom and relationships of trust the Code facilitates. Plagiarism is using someone else's work or ideas and presenting them as your own without attribution. Plagiarism can also occur in more subtle forms, such as inadequate paraphrasing, failure to cite another person’s idea even if not directly quoted, failure to attribute the synthesis of various sources in a review article to that author, or accidental incorporation of another’s words into your own paper as a result of careless note-taking. Cheating is another form of academic dishonesty, and it includes not only copying, but also inappropriate collaboration, exceeding the time allowed, and discussion of the form, content, or degree of difficulty of an exam. Please be conscientious about your work, and check with me if anything is unclear."

I may, at any time, use tools like turnitin.com to detect plagiarism.

Students with Disabilities, Special Needs, or Having Difficulties: Here is the Haverford Office of Access and Disability Services' Statement, which I affirm:

"Haverford College is committed to supporting the learning process for all students. Please contact me as soon as possible if you are having difficulties in the course. There are also many resources on campus available to you as a student, including the Office of Academic Resources (https://www.haverford.edu/oar/) and the Office of Access and Disability Services (https://www.haverford.edu/access-and-disability-services/). If you think you may need accommodations because of a disability, you should contact Access and Disability Services at hc-ads@haverford.edu. If you have already been approved to receive academic accommodations and would like to request accommodations in this course because of a disability, please meet with me privately at the beginning of the semester (ideally within the first two weeks) with your verification letter."

Writing response papers: Here are guidelines on what I’m looking for, and what I’m not looking for, but other teachers might be:

https://sites.google.com/site/tjdonahu/home/writing-response-papers

How to understand and use theories: Puzzled? You're not alone! Even the professionals find this difficult. Click here for some tips on how to do

it: https://sites.google.com/site/tjdonahu/home/using-theories

REQUIRED BOOKS

Kwame Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (W. W. Norton, 2006)

Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economic (W. W. Norton, 2011)

The Globalization Reader, ed Frank Lechner and John Boli, 5th edition (Wiley-Blackwell, 2014)

RECOMMENDED BOOKS

Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work (W. W. Norton, 2006)

SCHEDULE

PART I. INTRODUCTION: PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBALIZATION

Session 1. Introductions. (1) Is Globalization A Process in Which the Ways of the West Conquer the Ways of the Rest? Is Globalization a Curse? (2) Globalization deterritorializes culture: does that mean that it also is Western cultural imperialism? Are all global flows of people, goods, and ideas unobstructed? Are all places on the globe equally interconnected? (3) The World Lets Money Flow Freely Around the Globe, But Not People. What If It Allowed People to Flow as Freely as Money?

Recommended reading:

Anand Giridharas, "Besieged Globalists Ponder What Went Wrong," The New York Times (26 September 2016)

Thomas Friedman, “It’s a Flat World After All,” New York Times Magazine (3 April 2005)

Amartya Sen, “How to Judge Globalism,” The American Prospect (January 4, 2002)

Jonathan Inda and Renato Rosaldo, “Tracking Global Flows,” in The Anthropology of Globalization, ed Inda and Rosaldo (): 3-46; READ pp. 3-7, 12-35

Robert E. Goodin, “If People Were Money…” in Free Movement: Ethical Issues in the Transnational Migration of People and Money, ed. Brian Barry and Robert E. Goodin

(Penn State Press, 1989): 6-19

Session 2. (1) A History of Systems of Economic Globalization, 1500-present: Mercantilist Imperialism (1500-1800), Free-Trade Imperialism (1870-1913), Autarky Attempted (1914-1945), Bretton Woods Globalization (1945-1980), the Hyper-Globalization of the Washington Consensus (1980-?). (2) Is It Really the Case that Economic Growth and Globalization Speed Up When the State Butts Out? Is There a Dichotomy between Trade and Rule? A “No”-Based History

Jeffry Frieden, “The Modern Capitalist World Economy: a Historical Overview,” in The Oxford Handbook of Capitalism, ed. Dennis C. Mueller (Oxford UP, 2012): 17-38

Dani Rodrik, “Of Markets and States: Globalization in History’s Mirror,” The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (W. W. Norton, 2011): 3-23, 67-88

Recommended reading:

Rodrik, “The Rise and Fall of the First Great Globalization,” “Bretton Woods, GATT, and the WTO: Trade in a Politicized World,” The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (W. W. Norton, 2011): 3-46, 67-88

Recommended reading:

Branko Milanovic, “The Two Faces of Globalization: Against Globalization as We Know It,” World Development 31 (2003): 667-683

PART II. ECONOMIC HYPER-GLOBALIZATION AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING: DOES THE HYPER-GLOBALIZATION ADVOCATED BY THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS MAKE EVERYONE BETTER OFF?

Session 3. Does Hyper-Globalization Make Everyone Better Off?

Dani Rodrik, “Poor Countries in a Rich World,” The Globalization Paradox, pp. 135-158

Robert Hunter Wade, “Global Growth, Inequality, and Poverty: The Globalization Argument and the 'Political' Science of Economics," in Global Political Economy, ed John Ravenhill (2017): 319-355, READ TO PAGE 44 OF THE PDF.

FIRST RESPONSE PAPERS DUE

Session 4. (1) The Nature of Globalizations: Just What Is Globalization, Anyway? (2) Justice Globalism?

Robert Hunter Wade, “Global Growth, Inequality, and Poverty: The Globalization Argument and the 'Political' Science of Economics," in Global Political Economy, ed John Ravenhill (2017): 319-355, READ PAGES 44-68 OF THE PDF.

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),” Foreign Policy (2000)

Porto Alegre Call for Mobilization

RESPONSE PAPER FEEDBACK DUE, PAPER TOPIC AND QUESTION DUE

PART III. IDEOLOGIES ABOUT GLOBALIZATION

Session 5. (1) What Are the Main Claims of Justice Globalism—The Ideology of the Global Justice Movement? (2) National Populism as the Major Alternative to Justice Globalism?

Manfred Steger, “Challenges from the Global Left: Justice Globalism,” Globalisms: The Great Ideological Struggle of the Twenty-first Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009): 97-129

Subcomandante Marcos, “The Fourth World War Has Begun,” Nepantla: Views from the South 2 (2001): 559-572

Amartya Sen, “Globalization and Voice,” Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (W. W. Norton, 2006): 120-148

Jonathan Haidt, “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” The American Interest (July 2016)

2ND RESPONSE PAPER DUE

Recommended readings:

World Social Forum Charter of Principles

Session 6. (1)What Are the Main Claims of National Populism—The Ideology of National Resistance and National Solidarity against Globalism and Its Elites? (2) Cosmopolitanism

Manfred Steger, "Antiglobalist Populism," Globalisms: Facing the Populist Challenge (Rowman Littlefield, 2020): 131-162

Kware Anthony Appiah, "The Case for Contamination," NY Times

Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Introduction: Making Conversation,” "The Primacy of Practice," "Imaginary Strangers," "Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (W. W. Norton, 2006): xi-xxi, 69-100, 115-137

Session 7. Global Solidarity and Global Citizenship: What Are the Main Claims of Cosmopolitanism--The Ideology that Our Chief Loyalty Should Be to All Individuals Around the Globe? (2) The Nature of Globalizations

Appiah, "Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?" Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (W. W. Norton, 2006):

Jan Aart Scholte, “What Is ‘Global’ about Globalization?” in The Global Transformations Reader, ed. David Held and Anthony McGrew (Polity, 2003): 84-92

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, “Globalization as Empire,” in The Global Transformations Reader, pp. 116-119

SPRING BREAK

PART IV. GLOBALIZING PRODUCTION AND GLOBALIZING LABOR

Session 8. (1) The Costs and Benefits to Countries and Individuals of Outsourcing. (2) Global Supply Chains and the Sweatshops they Often Rely On

Binyamin Appelbaum, “Simmering for Decades, Anger about Trade Boils over in ’16 Election,” New York Times (29 March 2016)

Alan S. Blinder, “Offshoring: Big Deal, or Business as Usual?" (2007) READ TO P. 24 ONLY

Charles Duhigg and David Barboza, “In China, Human Costs Are Built into an iPad,” The New York Times (25 January 2012)

So you'd like to know more about global supply chains...

Miguel Korzeniewicz, “Commodity Chains and Marketing Strategies: Nike and the Global Athletic Footwear Industry,” in The Globalization Reader, ed. F. Lechner and J. Boli (Wiley, 2014): 175-185

Gary Gereffi and Karina Fernandez-Stark, “Global Value Chains: A Primer,” Working Paper, Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness (2011)

For a map of the iPhone's supply chain: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/20/business/the-iphone-economy.html

Other examples of tracing a supply chain: Behind the Label, PhoneStory, and The Secrets of Superbrands. Also check out Sourcemap, which offers crowdsourced maps of value chains.

Session 9. (1) Sweatshops—the Harms They Do to their Workers. What Sorts of Responsibilities Do Multinational Corporations Have for What Happens in the Sweatshops Whose Production they Subcontract? (2) Sweatshops—The Good They Do to their Workers. Should We Refrain from Criticizing Sweatshops Because the Workers Chose to Work There? Or Because Their Other Feasible Alternatives Seem Worse? (3) What Sort of Responsibility Do Global Consumers Have for What Happens in the Sweatshops that Produce the Goods they Consume?

Denis G. Arnold and Norman E. Bowie, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons,” Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (2003): 221-242; READ SECTIONS I-V ONLY

Nicholas Kristof, “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream,” The New York Times (14 January 2009)

Iris Marion Young, “Responsibility and Global Labor Justice,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2004): 365-388

Optional: Matt Zwolinski, “Sweatshops, Choice and Exploitation,” Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (2007): 689-727; SELECTIONS

PART V. THE INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND GLOBALIZING POLITICS

Session 10. The Institutions of Global Governance: Health, Global Finance, Global Trade

Lawrence Gostin and Emily Mok, "Grand challenges in Global Health Governance," British Medical Bulletin 90 (2009): 7-18

Mark Harrison, "A Global Perspective: Reframing the History of Health, Medicine, and Disease," Bulletin of the History of Medicine 89 (2015): 639-689, READ ONLY THE SECTIONS "DISEASE," "MEDICINE," and "HEALTH"

Optional

Richard Dodgson et al, “Global Health Governance: A Conceptual Review,” in The Globalization Reader, ed F. Lechner and J. Boli (Wiley, 2014): 296-301

Ian Hurd, “The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank,” International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice (Cambridge UP, 2011): 66-91

Ann Capling and Richard Higgott, “The Future of the Multilateral Trade System: What Role for the WTO?” in The Globalization Reader, ed Lechner and Boli, pp. 277-282

Recommended reading:

Ian Hurd, “The International Labor Organization,” International Organizations (Cambridge UP, 2014): 165-184

S. Martin, “International Cooperation on Migration and the UN System,” in Global Mobility Regimes, edited by Rey Koslowski (Palgrave, 2011)

Session 11. NO NEW READINGS THIS WEEK. (Would have been: Globalizing Civil Society and Global Social Movements

Jessica T. Mathews, “Power Shift,” Foreign Affairs (Jan/Feb 1997)

Jennifer Rubenstein, “Introduction,” Between Samaritans and States: The Political Ethics of Humanitarian NGOs (Oxford UP, 2015): READ pp. 1-16 ONLY

Peter Evans, “Counterhegemonic Globalization: Transnational Social Movements in the Contemporary Political Economy,” in The Globalization Reader, ed. F. Lechner and J. Boli (Wiley, 2014): 548-554

Recommended reading:

Michael Shaw-Bond, “The Backlash against NGOs,” Prospect Magazine (20 April 2000)

PART VI. THE GLOBALIZING ECONOMIC ORDER AND ITS CRISES: GLOBALIZING TRADE, GLOBALIZING CORPORATIONS, GLOBALIZING FINANCE (ESPECIALLY SOVEREIGN DEBT), GLOBALIZING RESOURCE-RICH COUNTRIES

Session 12. (4/13-4/17) Global Trade, Global Travel, and Infectious Diseases

Ann Marie Kimball and Jill Hodges, "Risky Trade and Emerging Infections," Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Microbial Threats. Infectious Disease Movement in a Borderless World: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010.

Mary Wilson, "Global Travel and Emerging Infections," Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Microbial Threats. Infectious Disease Movement in a Borderless World: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010.

OPTIONAL: P. S. Goodman et al, "A New Front for Nationalism: The Global Battle against the Virus," NY Times 10 April 2020

(would have been:

When Is Free Trade Fair?

Dani Rodrik, “Why Doesn’t Everyone Get the Case for Free Trade?” The Globalization Paradox, pp. 47-66

Malgorzata Kurjanska and Mathias Risse, “Fairness in Trade II: Export Subsidies and the Fair Trade Movement,” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 7 (2008): 29-56 )

Session 13 (4/20-4/26). Do Global Corporations Have Too Much Power?

Sean Fleming, "How big business is joining the fight against COVID-19," World Economic Forum Agenda 20 March 2020

David Streitfeld, "As Amazon Rises, So Does the Opposition," New York Times 18 April 2020

Joseph Stiglitz, “The Multinational Corporation,” Making Globalization Work (Norton, 2006): 187-197 (198-210 optional)

Optional:

Denis G. Arnold, “Libertarian Theories of the Corporation and Global Capitalism,” Journal of Business Ethics 48 (2003): 155-173

Session 14. Globalizing Population: The Ethics, Politics & Economics of Migratory Flows

Chandran Kukathas, “Are Refugees Special?” in Migration in Political Theory, ed. Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi (Oxford UP, 2016): 249-268

Devesh Kapur and John McHale, “Should a Cosmopolitan Worry about the ‘Brain Drain’?” Ethics and International Affairs 20 (2006): 305-320

Lea Ypi, “Taking Workers as a Class: The Moral Dilemmas of Guestworker Programs,” in Migration in Political Theory, ed. Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi (Oxford UP, 2016): 151-174

Recommended reading:

Michael Walzer, “Membership,” Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (Basic Books, 1983): 31-63

Joseph Carens, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders” Review of Politics 49 (1987)

Christian Barry and Gerrit Overland, 2010, 'Why Remittances to Poor Countries Should not be Taxed', New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1181-1208.

FINAL PAPER DUE LAST DAY OF EXAMS AT NOON