World Readings (and writings)

Global Consumption

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:16:00 +0000

The world economic system is based on development, on enrichment. To achieve this, it is necessary to trade by getting materials by extraction of resources to transform them into products for selling or simply by exporting raw materials for the best price possible. The main difficulty is that this obligatory expansion requires resources such as oil, wood, coal and water and the use of land, sea and atmosphere as a deposit of waste. Thus, the problem is that there is an imbalance between the economic demand and our restricted supplies (Snarr & Snarr 2005: 237).

When we put light into �??sustainable development�??, it is clear the presence of two emphases: a) to protect and conserve the resources of the planet and b) to improve technology to enhance growth (with less impact in global resources). There is also who says that there is incompatibility in the concept since to develop is unsustainable in the way it is now (Snarr & Snarr 2005: 237-8).

Having elucidated this, it is possible to analyze if the expansion of global trade is good or bad for sustainable development. To start with, Matinez-Alier states that �??the increase in material flows reveals an increase in the consumption of internal and external resources, some of them causing high environmental impacts during extraction, transport, use or waste disposal�?? (2004: 4).These impacts vary in different countries. It can be the implementation of a new transport system in one country and the extraction of resources in another.

To promote the first sustainable development emphasis mentioned above is practically impossible in the present economical pattern. The use of resources is rooted in the very beginning of trade. Also, there is a huge difference in environmental standards of developed and poor countries. Similar problem occurs in relation to technology improvements (which is the second emphasis in the concept). The capacity for poor countries to develop or invent new technologies is very short compared to the wealthiest nations. More technology in a production system involves more capital investment.

The global social problem caused by the economic system and trade itself is that all countries are willing to reach the welfare state achieved by rich nations. This eagerness leads them to more extraction with very low environmental concern. They want to follow the same model used by wealthy countries. Deepening the issue, the gap between poor and rich countries actually exists because of the inequality in global trade system.

Regarding consumption, it is interesting to see that countries with high economic growth decrease their material consumption within the years. In the other hand, developing countries consume more and world outputs of many materials continue to increase.

Therefore, there is incompatibility between the expansion of global trade and sustainable development, since trade depends on resources exploitation and consumption, and also creates disparities among countries, which go to the opposite direction of �??sustainable development�?? with its conservation of resources and use of high technologies. Being thus, the expansion of global trade is clearly bad for sustainable development.

GUSTAVO MATIUZZI, 2007

Literature

Martinez-Alier, J. (2004). Metabolic Profiles of Countries and Ecological Distribution Conflicts (Short version)
(http://www.junec.gr.jp/report/2004/JIF2004/keynote/Prof.Martinez-Alier(doc)_Nov04.pdf)

Snarr & Snarr (2005), Introducing global issues. Third Edition.

Presentation �??The consequences of ecological distribution conflicts�?? by Karl Bruckmeier to Nov 21st lecture.

Presentation �??Sustainable development and trade patterns�?? by Tom Böhler to Nov 21st lecture.

What about global risks?

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:12:00 +0000

We live in an interconnected world. The implementation of risk and security strategies has become common when it comes to deal with global risks. It can be seen as problematic since it affects many parts of global relations as economic, social, political and cultural exchanges. One single incident can influence many countries at the same time and can unleash different problems or reactions worldwide. A national problem can become global since the country has any kind of connection to another country.

One good example is the policy adopted by the USA after 9/11. The so-called �??war on terror�?? radicalized policies and turned Arabic descendents into probable terrorists and potential killers. These policies created a scenario of distrust and fear and unleashed a series of national borders protection strategies in a way never seen before. These barriers, created to avoid other attacks with the proportions of what happened in New York, feed the extremist sentiment against �??the West�?? or the USA in such a way that even these radical groups are gathering in order to strengthen their power of mobilization and achieve their goals, using the same resources (e.g., common funds and intelligence) employed by countries to protect themselves. Another consequence is that other subjects for global security have been forgotten. The HIV/AIDS epidemic, SA/LW traffic and civil conflicts, for example, are put to second importance level.

Another example is the lack of resources to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, mainly in poor countries. It is known that the African continent is the most affected region and that more and more people are being infected everyday in an enormous scale. What needs to be clarified is that this is not only a scientific problem, a matter of researches, but also (and not less important) what are the economic e social aspects related to HIV/AIDS. This is a problem that needs necessary attention, first from the local governments, and also from the international institutions. Are humanitarian aids missions enough to solve the problem? No. The social and political structures should change in order to contain this epidemic. Education and basic sanitation are important agents to prevent an epidemic to spread more. The strategy needs to be changed. Also, the raising rates of HIV/AIDS resulting problems are many as, �??effects on the labour supply and productivity, remuneration cost increases, demand changes among households, higher government expenditure, as well as instances of severe risk exposure in key sectors of the economy�?? (Fourie & Schönteich, 2002).

Curiously, these two examples are related to each other. Governments usually invest more money in national defense than in health system or basic social structures. The question is that both are matters of Human Security. The importance of preventing diseases is as well high as protecting the country from external enemies. Both will influence the way a country relates to the rest of the globe, and both are related to economy, society, culture and politics. Being thus, the policies and strategies of both should be seen as problematic.

GUSTAVO MATIUZZI, 2007

Literature

Fourie, P & Schönteich, M (2002) Die, the Beloved Countries: human security and HIV/AIDS in Africa. Politeia 21(2)

Snarr & Snarr (2005), Introducing global issues. Third Edition.

US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003. (https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdf)

Globalization: Good or Bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:40:00 +0000

I would be a fool if I would state globalization as simplistically good or bad. Such complex subject must be carefully analyzed. Obviously, for this maybe-too-short paper, it won�??t be possible to examine all the aspects I would like to, but I will make a simpler frame to this issue.

Globalization can be thought as a very intricate game with many gains and losses to all players. However, there are nations and countries that can �??gain more ground�?? than others, whether by better controlling institutions and mechanisms or by using their already achieved positions in this game (i.e. prosperity achieved by colonialism), and take advantage of these positions, manly if we refer to economic globalization directly connected to the advance of global trades. Going deeper, the game scenario is constantly changing, and not only to the favor of the �??riches side�??. Being thus, the most important analysis is not if globalization would be good or bad, but when it is considered good or bad.

Opinions change continually. In Brazil, in the 60s, globalization was seen as something that would keep poor countries even more isolated. Today, Brazilian companies and institutions are obtaining relevant space within the international field. China, as a traditional communist country, kept its doors closed to capitalist influence for years, until it realized a very good opportunity to �??make money�?? with the opening of its market.

In rich countries, we can also identify the changes in opinion concerning globalization. The opening of markets was very much spread by the US in the. But what we can see today is the creation of more tariff walls to protect the fragile areas of their economy.

Watching more carefully, countries can have both opinions about the same aspect of globalization. It depends on if they would be affected or would affect others by it. It is very important to state that I am not talking about individuals�?? opinions, but states, national institutions and governments�?? opinions. Usually, people�??s opinions are based in values, creeds or theories and tend to be the same, even in special situations. On the other hand, governments�?? opinions tend to vary as I said in the beginning of this paragraph. To give an example, I will get �??Brazil versus United States�?? concerning importation tariffs. These states are struggling in the World Trade Organization to achieve better conditions to �??keep playing the game�?? from an improved situation. When questioned about North American�??s barriers for its agro-products, Brazil vehemently states that barriers are unacceptable and prevent the country�??s progress. The same occurs with US when asked about Brazilian�??s tariffs for electronic goods. Looking trough other perspective, when questioned about their own tariffs, the opinion of both countries changes considerably. The protection of the people and the nation are the most common reasons.

This second answer/reaction goes easily against globalization processes. Is it good or bad after all? See that a country (after all, it does not matter if it is a �??developing�?? country or a hegemony) can have not the same views and policies for identical situations when in opposite positions. These attitudes are answers for this question. They show us, in practical ways, what states are thinking about opening their markets, and consequently, about increasing globalization progression.

More accurately, this reactions express that globalization is considered good when the game is in one�??s favor, giving the one prosperity and more power to play. But also globalization is considered bad when there is another scenario, when it attacks on a kind of national feeling, or on a fragile area of one�??s people economy. This also gives additional force to my first statement, which is not possible to say that globalization is good or bad in a simplistic way, but there are many facets that must be considered relevant in this discussion.

GUSTAVO MATIUZZI, 2007

Literature

Bhagwati, Jagdish, 2004. �??Anti-Globalization: Why?�?? in Journal of Policy Modeling.
26:439�??463.

Stewart, Heather, 2006. �??Is This the End of Globalization?�?? in The Guardian, 10 March http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7105

Globalization: Dead or Alive?

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:13:00 +0000

The last years, liberals more intensely stated about globalization as the free movement of goods and capital and stressed its benefits to the world. Very important matters were forgotten in the struggle for opening markets. Besides the exchangeable items and money, there can be also a free movement of people and ideas. Moreover, the way cultures (we can read people(s) also) react to this process differs immensely, and the costs of being engaged in this movement can be too much high to economies, countries and also to globalization itself.

Some countries join to globalization movement with all their capacities, trying to bite off important spaces (i.e. China). Some strive for a better international political voice by integrating forces in humanitarian or peace missions. Brazil, for example, is trying to achieve a permanent seat at UN by leading a peace mission in Haiti. Others, like Iran, try to call world�??s attention trough possible threats of nuclear attacks. And yet others run counter to this economic and cultural expansion using terrorism in all its forms, like some factions of Middle East peoples. I must refer too to forgotten countries which hardly have one or two raw materials to exchange in the international market and stay very much apart of its benefits and consequences, and thus, create a very low impact in global economy, except for the large scale migration waves.

The whole globalization process generates bigger income gaps between the richest and the poorest countries. These gaps stimulate migration from poor countries to wealthier regions. The rapid increase of this kind of migration made rich countries create legal barriers (and sometimes tangible fences) to these peoples (i.e. US and Mexico, West Europe and Northern Africa). Milanovic (2006) says that this gives space to, later, obstruct goods and others factors of production.

Another consequence is that the fact of having prices collapse and unemployment tend to happen in every �??globalized�?? country, according to their weaker production areas, causing the richer countries to create market barriers to protect their workers and products, going in the opposite direction of the international market.

Linking the always increasing income difference between poor and rich countries (which brings a diminution of power of consumption, curiously, not only in poor regions), with more intense migration movements; the creation of tax barriers all over the world, and the growing of radical reactions of extreme groups (which comes with economic destabilization (according to the magnitude of the attacks), as experienced on 9/11), I can say globalization is facing a crisis.

Gray (2002) says that countries should learn how to coexist among different cultures and regimes, and that capitalism can survive and develop itself in a non-free market (he mentions the Cold War period economic development of US). Milanovic (2006) states that governments need to find tools to increase incomes more equally. And still Stewart (2006), based in David Ricardo�??s theories, expresses that the crisis is generated by protectionism, and thus the markets should be open so that globalization keep developing itself. He also defends a kind of spreading of benefits throughout countries (yet it sounds contradictory), as free trade is a �??win-win proposition�??.

Taking all these facts and theories, I say globalization is alive, although facing problems, not only economically, but culturally. If it is to continue, governments and international actors should create new tools and agreements to respect other regimes and costumes and to make the earnings more evenly in order to make the increase of global exchanges possible in the next decades, boosting the number of consumers and calming the impression of the so called overwhelming process of globalization down.

Gustavo Matiuzzi, 2007

Literature

Gray, John, 2002. �??September 11: The End of Globalization�?? in Resurgence, 212. http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/gray212.htm

Milanovic, Branko, 2006. �??Migration Laws May Be the End of Globalization�?? in The Taipei Times, 1 August http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7904

Stewart, Heather, 2006. �??Is This the End of Globalization?�?? in The Guardian, 10 March http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7105

Globalization: new or old?

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:05:00 +0000

After several personal problems, this author is now back to the business! I am so sorry I couldn't advise you in advance. A higher power avoided me to keep writing for this blog for a while, but now everything is all right.

I'll come back to the subject analized before, but to not let the readers with "empty hands" I'll also post many articles about Globalization and its consequences, influcences, trends, etc. , one of the most discussed phenomena(on) (?) in these days.

Globalization: new or old?

The answer for the question of globalization �?? is it new or old? �?? lies on many aspects that should be considered and analyzed. There are various studies that show globalization as an old economic/social/etc. movement but with a multiplication of its effects because of the increasingly technological expansion. However, there are numerous scholars that defend that this phenomenon is new as so as some of its consequences.

Frank and Gills (2000) state that what people call globalization (even they don�??t use the word globalization, but the �??world system�?? expression, which has a much bigger cover, since it�??s related to the human history itself and not only this phenomenon) is merely a Eurocentric vision of this structure. They show, trough a �??humanocentric�?? approach, among other things, that this world system has its existence from five thousand years ago and that it�??s based in long-distance trade relations and capital accumulation. They also affirm that capitalism itself, an important actor of globalization, wasn�??t invented by Western-Europeans, but from North of Africa to the Far East could be found capitalist structures, instruments and techniques even though in embryonic form, but which could be compared to the West Europe�??s newborn economic fabric, since they were being constructed in parallel.

In the same direction, Wallerstein (2000), identifying and analyzing a cyclical movement of capitalism trough the relations among US, Europe, Russia and allies and many other regions of the globe, shows that these cycles tended to bring capitalism back to a state of stability, given that its progression moves away from it. Nevertheless, he shows that the so called globalization in our days is nothing else but an �??age of transition�?? and these others phenomena of this globalization have been happening for 500 years. This transition is a structural crisis of capitalism which, based in the endless accumulation of capital, is facing �??secular trends�?? that are challenging its own endurance, which according to the author, will collapse, forcing the world system to modify the course of history.

In other hand, there are indeed many relevant aspects that can be considered new phenomena, or at least, some of them are presented in new surroundings and so, obtain others significances and produce new results. Eriksen (2007), in his chapter about acceleration, demonstrates the change of speed caused by rapid technological advances and also the change of the notion of time in societies that have access to technology. The time-space compression is achieved by technological changes. Logically, in my opinion, this compression and comprehension about time and space is not a new event if we consider the last century, but analyzing the human history, we come to the conclusion that this velocity was never seen in the times past.

Coming back to the change of the conception of time, Eriksen (2007) states that time, as a notion of distance and proximity, is gone, influencing the manner in which capitalism works, bringing the concept of simultaneity, and this is a new phenomenon that can be easily observed in our daily life.

Being thus, I say that the global movement regarding long-distance trade relations and the accumulation of capital as so as the progression of the capitalist system (or the development of the process of capital amassing, if you prefer) are aspects that can be considered old in our history and it�??s not a consequence of globalization progress, but some results and changes must be considered new, principally concerning the areas directly reached by technological expansion. As a result, it isn�??t possible to settle the question about globalization being new or old, but it is possible to recognize aspects of it as new or old, identifying or maybe predicting them in order to make changes for a better future.

Gustavo Matiuzzi, 2007

__________
Literature

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 2007. �??Acceleration�?? in Globalization: The Key Concepts.
Berg.

Gunder Frank, Andre and Barry K. Gills, 2000. �??The Five Thousand Year World
System in Theory and Praxis�?? in Robert A. Denemark, Jonathan Friedman, Barry K.
Gills and George Modelski (eds.) World System History: The Social Science of Long-
Term Change. London, UK: Routledge.

Wallerstein, Immanuel, 2000. �??Globalization or the Age of Transition? A Long-
Term View of the Trajectory of the World System�?? in International Sociology, 15(2):
251�??267.

Sovereignty

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:48:00 +0000

The Treaty of Westphalia led to a revolution in the notion of sovereignty and made possible to develop the concept to what we understand as sovereignty in contemporary international relations. Much of this expansion of the perception about this important theme is found in the writings of Jean Bodin, an important French philosopher from 16^th century.

In Bodin�??s 1576 treatise Six Books on the Republic, sovereignty is presented as the �??absolute and perpetual power vested in a commonwealth.�?? This power resides in a state and not in an individual; thus is perpetual. It does not expire with its holder. To him, sovereignty has limits although it is absolute. Its exercise is only in the public sphere, and not in the private sphere. The sovereign is a ruler beyond human law and subject only to the natural or divine law. The ruler is also limited by the type of regime �?? �??the constitutional laws of the realm�?? �?? be it a monarchy, an aristocracy or a democracy. Discussing about Bodin�??s treatise, Karen A. Mingst also presents the relation of the rulers with his people, which is limited by covenants and contracts �??with promises to the people within the commonwealth�??. About the relations among states, Bodin declares that the treaties with one another limit the power of each state, although there is no supreme arbiter in relations among them. That was the foundation which the Westphalian agreement emerged.

All it was analyzed until now gives the idea of the construction of the notion of sovereignty. The Treaty of Westphalia put into the practice this �??brand new�?? concept, originating the development of the European states-system trough three expressed principles. The first one was the king is emperor is his own realm. The second principle was the ruler determines the religion of his realms, and the third was the balance of power: that was intended to prevent any hegemony from arising and dominating everybody else.

Being thus, the Peace of Westphalia was the first explicit expression of a European society of states, which served as a precedent for all subsequent developments of international society, based on sovereignty.

Gustavo Matiuzzi

Bibliography

BAYLIS, John; SMITH, Steve, The Globalization of world politics. 2005. New York: Oxford. 3^rd ed.

EVANS, Graham; NEWNHAM, Jeffrey. The Penguin dictionary of international relations. 1998. London: Penguin Reference.

MINST, Karen A., Essentials of international relations. 2004. New York: Norton. 3^rd ed.

The Treaty of Westphalia

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:27:00 +0000

If you study, work with or just like to read about the International Relations (IR), you know the importance of the Treaty of Westphalia for the contemporary concepts in IR, and not just for that, but also for the strengthening of many institutions of our days.

The Thirty Years War (to know about the war, click on the link) devastated Europe from 1618 to 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia ended this conflict and had a profound impact on the practice of IR.

There are three key developments caused by the treaty:

1) The notion and practice of sovereignty;
2) Growth of centralized control of institutions under military;
3) Emergence of capitalist economic system.

This week I am opening a discussion window to make knowledge exchanges possible about these three points, so we can understand how the notions that we have as core concepts in IR were "born" and how they are presented to us today.

Please, don't hesitate to comment and give your opinion about this subject.

Regards,
Gustavo

READ HERE THE COMPLETE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA

International Relations & this blog

noreply@blogger.com (Gustavo) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:13:00 +0000

International relations (IR), a branch of political science, is the study of foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs).

It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive or normative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states.

Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, law, philosophy, geography, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It involves a diverse range of issues, from globalization and its impacts on societies and state sovereignty to ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, terrorism, organized crime, human security, and human rights.

By developing all this fields (at least the most of them), I intend to share contemporary texts and discussions and also to present the basic theories about IR and the world politics. To open this channel of discussion, I'll need your participation to debate ideas and share writings (and readings) of yours, so WE can make this blog a forum to analyse the world changes that are to come.

Yours faithfully,

Gustavo

(Student of the GU Master Programme in International Conflict Resolution )