The problem is......

Not everyone gets an equal share of the benefits of globalization. Because, most of
the time, the proportion of the society that actually get most of the profit and the
benefits of globalization is relatively small, some people increase their income in
a very rapid pace, while others stay in their current condition, or begin to change
in a very slow pace, increasing the gap between the have and the have-not's.
This problem of inequality is the major criticism of the consequences of a
globalized world.

But the truth is....

The growing economic gap is rather increasing because technology is advancing at every second
while people are being left behind. People around the world are not able to catch up with the
constant technology advance, and thus, those who are able to actualize themselves are the ones
progressing.

Seems unfair? ... Not everything is lost ... yet

The solution to this gap has to be found in a strategy that combines a new
educational policy, health care and benefits. That will provide
each countrys citizens a degree of knowledge to compete in this
globalized era. A better education would allow less-skilled and
lower-income groups to benefit from the opportunities that
globalization and the new technologies brings. If the country
remains poor and closed to international trade, how could they possibly give their
citizens a high degree of education needed to compete with other countries, when the

opening
the doors to globalization through trade and education
come together and they are the key to lower, if not close, this wide
gap between the rich and poor, and give us all, a more equal share. And
only thing they are thinking of is how to survive everyday? For that reason,

not only that, with globalization allowing new technology and therefore, easy access to

global information, citizens from any country learn how other people around the world
live, and that creates a strong incentive for them to strive and fight for the right to control
of their own life, to make their own decisions, to have, what we all call, Freedom.
Globalization is changing the health of the planet, in the long run; it minimizes the
environmental damage that massive production might produce. Citizens that have their
basic needs fulfilled will demand higher environmental standards, and thus new
institutions and laws will be created to manage environmental issues. In sum,

Prosperity, Human Freedom and, a better

and cleaner world to live in
globalization brings:

I would like to thank the organizers of this event, particularly my co-awardee of the Right
Livelihood Award for 2003, Nicky Perlas, for inviting me to speak at this event. Nickys
optimism, as many of you know, is infectious, and I do hope all of us will be infected by it today.
I think our previous speakers have already alluded to the mood of dispiritedness that shrouds the
country today. Perhaps more than at any other time, self doubt has become a chronic collective
neurosis. For some the way out is to emigrate, an option that according to the polls is preferred
by one out of five Filipinos. As has often been pointed out, once out of the national milieu,
Filipinos do indeed excel, and one can hardly keep track of the numbers of Filipinos who have
become prominent as entrepreneurs, professionals, NGO leaders, and intellectuals in their
adopted countries. Yet one can never really leave the homeland. Even if one is a success abroad,
one never really feels complete knowing about the collective failure at home. Many in my
generation that left for the US in the late sixties and became successful in their fields do not
relish retiring in California or Florida but are now seeking ways to contribute their skills to the
task of collective upliftment of the nation.
Let me address the crisis of spirit in the Philippines by sharing a witty statement about China that
I came across recently: China has had a few bad centuries, but its now back on its feet. To be
a Chinese from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century was to share in a communal spirit
prone to despair and a sense of collective disintegration. To be Chinese at the beginning of the
21st century is to share in a sense of pride in a country that is not only back on its feet but well
on the way to becoming an economic superpower.
I say this to underline the importance of having the long view, of putting our current travails,
both material and spiritual, in perspective. We can say, similarly, that we Filipinos have had a
few bad decades, but, dont worry, well get back on our feet. Why should we be this confident?
Because at various times in the past, we not only pulled together but also became a shining
example to the rest of the world.
Take the Revolution of 1896. This was the first modern national liberation movement in the
whole of Asia, one that served as an inspiration to so many other peoples. Read the novels of

Pramodya Ananta Toer on the making of modern Indonesia, and you will see how Rizal and
Aguinaldo and our struggles against the Spanish and the Americans helped spark the nationalistic
imagination of Indonesia. Go to Malaysia , and you will come across people, including former
Malaysia Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim, who regard Rizal as the first giant figure in the
making of the modern Malay consciousness.
Yet the Revolution was not our only finest hour as a nation. We also had the four years of
tremendous collective sacrifice that brought together our country against the Japanese invaders.
Then we had the 16 years of struggle against the Marcos dictatorship that climaxed with the first
EDSA Revolution, which became an inspiring model of a largely nonviolent struggle based on
people power for many other people in the world suffering under the yoke of dictatorships.
The causes of our discontent
Since EDSA I in 1986, the Philippines seems to have traveled steadily downhill. How could we
have squandered such a golden opportunity to take a new course after the disaster that was the
Marcos period? The answer, to paraphrase Shakespeare slightly, lies not in the stars nor in
ourselves, but in our ever short-sighted elite. I think it is important to stress this, that our failures
have less to do with our culture or our so-called personality as a nation but with the failure of the
institutions and policies established by our national elite post-EDSA I to deliver both genuine
democracy and development.
It is fashionable to denounce corruption at the top as the reason for our failures. Of course, we
must condemn corruption, but its much too easy an explanation since there have been other
countries, among them South Korea and China , that have had levels of corruption similar or
even worse than the Philippines but have achieved impressive records of economic growth. We
must do a more hard-nosed analysis of the structural causes of failure in order to forge a pathway
out of it. Allow me to share some possible insights into our national failure over the last 19 years.
Some say that the promise of the post-EDSA I political and economic system was killed early on
when President Corazon Aquino made two historic compromises. First, in protecting the family
estate Hacienda Luisita, she failed to put her moral authority behind land reform, resulting in a
land reform law with a thousand and one loopholes. Second, she chose to make repayment of the
foreign debt the national economic priority, thus starving the country of the investment necessary
for development. The combination of the lack of structural reform and capital starvation doomed
the country to stagnation in the period 1986 to 2004.
President Fidel Ramos tried to take another path, that of triggering growth by liberalizing trade,
deregulating the domestic economy, and privatizing state or state-run enterprises in line with
neoliberal, free-market doctrine. Social reform was placed on the backseat, behind so-called
market reforms. The Ramos saga ended with the financial crisis of 1997, which was brought

about by the panicky exit of the speculative capital that Ramoss technocrats had courted,
precisely by eliminating many controls on their volatile movements and liberalizing the financial
sector.
Lower class disaffection with conservative social and economic policies resulted in the election
of Joseph Estrada. Estradas populism, however, transmogrified into a mafia capitalism in which
the president became the apex of an engine of capital accumulation that linked the underworld
and the state. The more established section of the elite allied itself with the middle class to
overthrow Estrada and displace the new rich faction during EDSA 2. The disaffected nouveau
riche tried to get back by riding the spontaneous lower-class anger at Estradas arrest during the
aborted EDSA 3.
Under Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, all social reform initiatives were placed on the back burner, and
development policy was reduced to a strategy of getting US aid and investment by allying the
Philippines with Washington in the so-called War against Terror. The administrations overriding
preoccupation became that of getting Arroyo elected. After elections in which the opposition
candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. was widely perceived as having been cheated of victory, the
administration has been overtaken by a fiscal crisis and has had little to offer the country in the
way of vision except more and more indebtedness to foreign banks.
It is important to provide this survey because if we talk about the Philippine crisis, we are saying
that one of the causes is a failed democratic state, failed in the sense that over the last 18 years,
what I have referred in other writings as the EDSA State has not lived up to its promise of
being a mechanism of achieving more democracy but has been employed by our elite utilized
mainly as a mechanism for succeeding one another in office, as an engine for personal and
familial capital accumulation, and as a defense mechanism against comprehensive social reform.
The tragedy of market fundamentalism
But the institutional failure of the EDSA system is only one cause of our crisis. The other equally
important source of disaster is the neoliberal or market fundamentalist policies that have been
followed by EDSA administrations from Aquino to Macapagal. Over the last 19 years, we have
had a revolution in the Philippines, in case you did not know it. But this has been a revolution
that has come from the right, not the left. The vanguard of this revolution, which reached its
apogee during the Ramos period, have been economists and technocrats who captured the
highest reaches of the government, academe, and business, who were united in the belief that if
you engaged in free trade, lowered tariffs, enacted more liberal conditions to attract foreign
capital, and reduced governmental regulation of the economy, the result would be growth,
prosperity, and the end of inequality. Let the market rule this was the battle cry of the
neoliberal revolution that reached its climactic point during the presidency of Fidel Ramos.

So confident were our technocrats that they not only pushed us to join the WTO but also adopted
a radical tariff reform program that would bring down tariffs over 10 years to 1%-5%.
The result of this revolutionary policy of liberalization is now clear for all to see: nothing less
than an unmitigated disaster. We have been converted into a net food importing country.
Employment in agriculture has dropped precipitously. Whole sectors of our agriculture, such as
corn, are in the throes of crisis owing to imports being dumped on us. As one of our trade
negotiators told his counterparts in Geneva before the Cancun ministerial of the WTO in 2003,
Our agricultural sectors that are strategic to food and livelihood security and rural employment
have already been destabilized as our small producers are being slaughtered by the gross
unfairness of the international trading environment. Even as I speak, our small producers are
being slaughtered in our own markets, and even the more resilient and efficient are in distress.
The results have been equally stark in industry. Doctrinaire liberalization resulted in multiple
bankruptcies and job losses. The list of industrial casualties is awesome. It includes paper
products, textiles, ceramics, rubber products, furnitures and fixtures, petrochemicals, beverage,
wood, shoes, petroleum oils, clothing accessories, and leather goods. Our textile industry, for
instance, has shrank from 200 firms in the 1970s to fewer than 10 today.
The undermining of our industry and agriculture, however, has not been the only negative effect
of doctrinaire liberalization. By reducing our tariffs so radically, we also drastically reduced
government revenues, thus contributing to the fiscal crisis. Probably, the best estimates of
foregone revenue are provided by economist Clarence Pascual of LEARN, who finds that total
foregone revenue rises from P58 billion in 1998 to P108 billion in 2003, averaging 2.4% of GDP
for the period. These are magnitudes that are, he notes, simply mind-boggling. These are the
magnitudes that led former Finance secretary Jose Isidro Camacho to admit the obvious: The
severe deterioration of fiscal performance from the mid-1990s could be attributed to aggressive
tariff reduction.
The Philippine crisis is not unique
Let me now put our travails in a global context. The crisis of the Philippines brought about by the
combination of failed democratic politics and neoliberal economic policies is not exceptional. It
simply replicates the experience of so many developing countries over the last two decades under
the hegemony of corporate-driven globalization. The successes are few and far between, and if
some countries succeeded in growing in the last 25 years, as was the case with our neighbors in
East and Southeast Asia, this was because they adopted anti-neoliberal policies that protected and
subsidized their industries instead of throwing them open to the massively subsidized
commodities produced by transnational corporations like we did. In this regard, let me share with
you an insight of one Chinese economist on the difference between technocrats in the Philippines
and those in Malaysia and Thailand and China . He said the Filipinos preach the free market and

practice what they preach while the others preach the free market but proceed to adopt exactly
the opposite policies.
So let me recapitulate my main points so far.
Our national failure is largely a failure at the elite level.
Corruption is certainly a factor, but far more important in accounting for our stagnation is a
failed democratic state and a disastrous policy of market fundamentalism.
The crisis of the Philippines is not unique. It is the typical crisis of a developing country in the
period of corporate-driven globalization, which has been marked by the rise in the absolute
numbers of the poor globally, more inequality both between and within countries, and economic
stagnation.
The countries that escaped stagnation did so because, on almost every point, they followed
policies that were protectionist, restricted the market, and put development ahead of the free
market.
If this analysis is correct, then the way to climb out of the whole were in is to adopt an approach
with three key prongs: making the political system more democratic, adopting radical social
reform measures aimed at making income and asset distribution more egalitarian, and making a
360-degree turn in economic policy to counter the negative thrusts of corporate-driven
globalization.
Other awardees will speak about the first and second dimensions of this comprehensive program.
Let me limit myself to addressing the third, that is proposing an alternative set of economic
policies that could create the basis for the resurgence of our country.
Elements of a program of economic resurgence
High up on the list is adopting the dictum that what we need for development is not less state but
more. The Philippine state must be given a greater relative autonomy vis-a-vis the elite. It must
be able to discipline the private interests that have constantly hijacked it for particularistic ends.
In this regard, the problem with protectionism as it has been practiced in the Philippines is not
protectionism per se but that it has been opportunistic one simply oriented to promoting narrow
vested interests and without reference to a strategic plan to deepen the economy.
Yet this prescription must be taken in the light of the experience of the newly industrializing
countries with a strong state. In Korea and Taiwan, development was accompanied by
authoritarianism, by regimes whose lack of democratic accountability resulted not only in human
rights abuses but in the adoption of strategies that resulted in the degradation of the environment

and the sacrifice of agriculture. In any future arrangement, both the private sector and the state
must be checked by the participation of civil society in both political and economic decision
making. Owing to its recent history, in particular, the struggle against dictatorship, a not
insignificant organized civil society has developed in the Philippines. It is now time to
institutionalize its participation in any future political arrangement. Democracy does not
contradict the development of an effective state. Indeed, democracy promotes an effective state
by endowing it with legitimacy.
A second element of a post-EDSA development strategy is focusing on the internal market as the
driver of development. Export-oriented growth of the kind that was pursued by NICs is no longer
possible in an era of tremendous manufacturing overcapacity and the resulting protectionism in
developed country markets that this has spawned. And even if developed country protectionism
were not a problem, export-oriented manufacturing would not be an advantageous strategy today,
given the tremendous advantage that China has in labor costs. Given the renewed centrality of
the internal market, the imperative for massive income distribution to create consumers with
purchasing power becomes very critical. Concretely, this means renewing the drive for effective
land reform. It would also mean effective programs of taxation of the richer parts of the
population, in order both to increase mass purchasing capacity through transfer payments, as
well as to accumulate the capital necessary for strategic investments.
Creating a viable internal market is one priority. Protecting it from artificially cheap imports that
stem from subsidization or overexploitation is another. However, protectionism can longer
remain opportunistic, an incoherent policy that is simply dictated by vested interests.
Protectionism must be strategic, one that is linked to deepening the countrys industrial and
manufacturing structure through selective tariffication or selective liberalization. Building up
capital intensive industries such as steel, transportation equipment, and computers will
necessitate a flexible tariff policy, coupled, of course, with investment incentives and statesponsored technological development.
A fourth important dimension of a post-EDSA economic strategy is sustainable development.
The pillage of our natural resources has proceeded to the point where the economic future of
future generations of Filipinos has been severely threatened. The high 6%-8% growth of the NIC
model simply is not possible to replicate without inviting more environmental dislocations. The
key lies in opting for a strategy of lower, sustainable growth rates, which is only possible if there
is much more equitable sharing of the fruits of a sustainable economy (meaning, you cant have
sustainable development without radical social reform), a reinvigoration of agriculture along the
lines of smallholder systems producing mainly for local and national markets with
environmentally friendly agro-technology, and the greening of manufacturing technology. It will
also mean reinvigorating local manufacturing and agricultural industries through flexible
application of the principle of subsidiarity, meaning whatever can be produced at least cost at the
local level should be undertaken at that level. Strong central leadership of the strategic planning

process must be coupled to decentralized, sustainable production in key areas like agriculture.
This is the challenge of development in a Philippine context in the 21st century.
A fifth critical element is coordinating our national development strategy with those of our
neighbors. The reality of international economics in the 21st century is the existence of large
economic blocs, the most important of which are the European Union, the United States, and
China . It is difficult to see small and medium nation states being able to effectively develop or
participate in the international economy without becoming part of a larger formation, whether
this is based on common interests as developing countries for instance, the Group of 20 or
being part of a regional bloc such as a reformed ASEAN that is marked by comprehensive
economic cooperation.
Let me explain briefly. The problem with ASEAN, however, is that its most important economic
project, the ASEAN Free Trade Area, or AFTA, is one that is strategically directionless. The aim
of AFTA is to reduce and eliminate tariff barriers among participating economies, but whether
this is for the purpose of serving as a step towards global free trade or as one towards a regional
market protected by tariffs and quotas to serve as base for regionally coordinated import
substitution has not been decided. This indeterminacy has left the regional formation unable to
effectively undertake planning, technology sharing, and institutionalizing a division of labor at a
regional level. Without such a program, the different national economic actors will see tariff
reductions as leading to a zero-sum game in which the more advanced industrial elites will end
up dominating the regional market.
An even greater concern is the democratic deficit in ASEAN. This regional formation was a
creation of government elites that was done with no consultation of peoples in the region. Not
surprisingly, being part of an entity called ASEAN is not in the consciousness of the peoples of
ASEAN. This means that projects that technocrats agree to in the name of ASEAN unity such as
AFTA enjoy little legitimacy and binding power. Democratizing ASEAN is essential if it is to
become an effective participant in a world marked by the dynamics of big economic blocks.
Participating in a reformed ASEAN regional bloc should just be one of several cooperative
initiatives the Philippines must engage in. The Philippines is already part of the Group of 20, a
larger formation that also includes India, China, Brazil, and South Africa. The potential of this
group in terms of coordinating the policies of its members beyond the immediate issue that
brought them together in Cancun opposition to agricultural subsidies maintained by the
developed economies is great and can extend to technology sharing, transborder industrial
policy, shared investment policies, and common environmental strategies. The organizational
framework for what has been called, in the language of development economics, South-South
development cooperation, is present in the G20. A forward-looking Philippine government can
make an invaluable contribution in translating this potential into reality.

Finally, national, regional, and South-South initiatives must be coupled with Philippine
leadership in restructuring the system of global economic governance, which is today dominated
by the powerful developed economies. The key institutions that have institutionalized the
hegemony of the North are the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World
Trade Organization. Reform of these institutions has proven to be extremely difficult, while
dismantling them seems to be a political impossibility. A coalition of developing countries can,
however, aim at reducing the power of these institutions and work to gradually supplant the
current system of global governance with a more pluralistic system of institutions and
organizations interacting with one another, guided by broad and flexible agreements and
understandings. In other words, this strategy would aim at turning the current multilateral giants
into just another set of actors coexisting with and being checked by other international
organizations, agreements, and regional groupings. It would include strengthening diverse actors
and institutions as UNCTAD, multilateral environmental agreements, the International Labor
Organization, and regional economic blocs.
The aim of such a strategy is to create space in the global economy for developing countries like
the Philippines to put together unique strategies for development that respond to their values and
rhythms as societies, something that is not now possible owing to the one-size-fits-all neoliberal
model promoted by the IMF-World Bank-WTO complex.
There is an alternative
In sum, there is an alternative to the political economy of anti-development that currently reigns
in the Philippines. A hard, unromantic analysis is the key to a viable program for change. We will
not get anywhere unless we accept the fact that the interests of our elite and the Filipino people
diverge, and it is time we put the interests of the people ahead of that of our elite, which is
distinguished by the fact that it is one of the most unenlightened in Asia. We will not get
anywhere unless we accept the fact that corporate-driven globalization is part of the problem,
indeed a major part of the problem, not the solution. We will not get anywhere unless we adopt a
policy framework that consistently puts national development in command instead of free trade
and the free flow of corporate capital. We will not get anywhere if we continue to be seduced by
false doctrines such as that of market fundamentalism peddled by such institutions as the UP
School of Economics . (Incidentally, contrary to popular perception, I come not from the UP
School of Economics but from the UP College of Social Sciences and Philosophy. The
difference, friends, is night and day.)
Let me end by telling those who call us the sick man of Asia , those who talk about our
damaged culture, those who say that our best chance is by adjusting ourselves to the demands
of corporate-driven globalization: the best years of this country are still ahead of us.
The project called the Philippines is not over. Its barely begun.

The Benefits Of Globalization

For some people, globalization is synonymous with world destruction. In the end who knows
maybe this will be true. But in reality there are many good things that have resulted from
globalization. In this section, I will still focus on the economy, but I would also like to touch on
some social advantages, as well. For more information regarding the positive impact of
globalization, check out this blog post on the benefits of globalization in the modern era.

More Efficient Markets

Many Americans do not appreciate how efficient our markets are (efficiency here meaning
supply and demand). These efficient markets allow economies to grow, and in a global world,
when one economy grows, it spurs growth in all the other economies that are connected to it. In
this way, reverberations of success are felt across the world, even when they are most profound
in one area. Needless to say, this is a very good thing.

Wealth Equality

This is partially a result of what I just mentioned, but wealth equality around the world goes
much deeper than that. Perhaps a better phrase than wealth equality is standard of living.
Globalization does several things nobody can deny: it creates jobs, it improves infrastructure and
it allows more people to live at a higher global level every day (access to medicine, clean water,
food production, housing, etc.).

Friends With Benefits

Globalization results in partnerships between countries and organizations. This makes relations
much more stable between both. Agreements are agreed to, and as long as these are upheld, a
kind of world-cooperation is sustained. Having these friends with (economic) benefits provides
both stability and security for countries that wish to remain peaceful and prosperous.
This course taught by Dr. Bentkowska (PhD Economic Sciences) focuses on the research of
legendary economist Paul Krugman and how international trade creates and affects a new
geographic economy.

New Solutions

Globalization allows important processes to happen more efficiently and important ideas to
become reality. There is a certain irony involved in this, however. For example, globalization is
going to allow the world to work together to (hopefully) solve our apocalyptic environmental
predicament; but of course, this predicament is a result of globalization.
Still, it allows the human race to push forward, which at this point we must recognize as a
necessity of our species. Progress is written in our DNA, and globalization has allowed us to

accomplish truly incredible things (the International Space Station being one of the most farreaching)
Yes to globalization

The trend of globalisation is essentially inevitable. The positive effect it has on large
corporations is far greater than any measure which could ever be taken to stop it. In a world of
capitalism and greed, it's unrealistic think such a trend could be halted. And while globalisation
imposes a Western culture, it also saves lives by creating jobs and opportunities for people who
wouldn't have them otherwise. Globalisation helps to increase tax revenue, GDP, and overall
helps to modernize countries which are still developing.

Sharing of knowledge.
If a company moves overseas to different places then more jobs will be created. Also if
companies are moving around a lot then the places they visit they will give knowledge to, more
and more people will gain knowledge from companies moving around. Not only will they get
knowledge but there will be more jobs available.
Report Post
Reply
0

It is just great!!!
Globalization can join the various countries in the world and fuse the different cultures around
the globe. Countries will produce products more efficiently and work together to form happy
communities. Without globalization countries would have to make-do with their natural
resources, restricting the amount of products we have. Globalization is more good than bad!!!!!
Globalization is good!

Globalization is a good thing because technology is involved which allows people from all
around the world to communicate. People can communicate about economics, politics and their
lives. Globalization gave LEDCs countries more opportunities. Almost everyone has job or
money that they can build a life on, which helps them develop a better and safer future.
Globalization also gives people chances to develop and educate themselves.
Boosts other-countries economies

This will help other countries boost up their economy because once they have the factory that
originated from the USA, that would give people more jobs, making more money to the country,
and it also helps out the families that cant even get their own food. Its just that simple.
Yes, Globalization its a good thing Because Phenomena that occur in the modern
world. Have technology involved. Allowing people around the world to communicate
instantly through the border less. And can gather political, economic, social and
cultural relations. The combination into one technology and communication. And
economic profit lead to industry reform. A variety of business options for humanity