Locating the Global South INTRODUCTION: THE STARBUCKS AND THE SHANTY Where does one ‘see’ globalization? Geo- szaphers, anthropologists, and sociologists ~ those who study the ph.nomenon from the bottom up — tell us that global interconnect- edness is woven into the fabric of everyday life. It is visible to those who observe. ‘One does not need to look far to see mark- crs of global interconnectediness, even global modernity. There are Starbucks branches in both Melbourne and Manila, New York and ‘New Delhi. Alll these branches look more or less the same, and they have similar menus of espresso-based drinks. This sameness repre- sents the cultural homogenization that many critics have associated with globalization. ‘Yet despite the common aesthetic of these cafes, the worlds outside them can be very dif ferent. In Manila and New Delhi, there is a good chance that, upon leaving the cafe, you will find a child beggar in tatered clothes arid wom- ‘down slippers. Walk a block or two and, with your late still hot, you may find a shantytown, Lisandro &. Claudio where houses are built from discarded plywood and galvanized iron sheets. These shanties have poor sanitation; many of its residents are ‘employed in the informal economic sector, its children, some of whom are child laborers, can- not afford to go to school. There is also a good chance tht these shanties’ residents are under threat of being evicted or having their homes demolished to make way for a large commer- cial development, which will service the city’s ‘middle class. Given their lack of political influ- cence within the state, the residents of the shanty have very few avenues for redress. They live in so-called ‘weak states’, where governments are too poor, Weak, COMUPG and Unst ‘Supp Tis citizens Wi 5 —yor are unlikely to Tint New Delhi-type shanties in New York, despite that city also beinga site of large-scale injustice. Harlem may be poor, but it does not have many child labor- cers. There is something more confronting about poverty in the global south, and the north/south divide isa HSIBIE RS the processes OF GIODSTIZA- at The di iS rem ‘that globalization creates undersides.Att siubucks Sa ETE De iba sou IF ee tpn herpes Se of carta ret Sy pears the Cami OC ey Sacet nlow aaoberineccene tutu preset by te Src fre sot sll sh Eee noe canes cess. Poverty is backward. [eis notmodem, It a stent sie DOS ce reg oes pace he ates ache oad any Se gece Se city Sox ceca Sd oleate Be spr oes aly Sicipandy seat marten ser ee Cases Exiing ailhn ot deilend oor ‘nomic paradigms call the forced liberalization, and marketization of developing economics “elobalization™ or neoliberal. This global. eaiety oesonel = Gn) ne me World Bask CH) he Sr Monty Fa (MD, aed the \WStuTisge Ogariaton 770) stile doe Spa Sans wn dtr whle puking pom nemesis Se ot Boblinton a sewive scene, 2 cai ee fed sn gplon wr Set ere mcwer Soe ee reopen on nai word, Conder te double tandrd hn Ge promis of ‘ccs fr alg socmcles Ie ba south In ine of conoic sisi itis common forte WET and tae dominated by economists from the global scrtits dnaod that dovlopin- sano oi srcmat opening en jovernment and raise interest ‘ates 1 reduce inflation. The shrinking of the public sector ultimately means a reduction in Services like healthcare and the increase in interest rates reduces domestic consumption. The results are often catastrophic, and in ‘many cases the cure is worse than the illness. Despite its dogmatic adherence to belt- tightening and austerity, however, the devel- ‘oped world does not apply the same standards ‘ fel ‘THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBALIZATION to itself: After the credit crunch of,2008, the US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a third ond concocted a US$150 billion stims- us, prompting New York Times editorial {Poutes, 2008) to ask: Could the be the same United States that backed fie intewnavenal Monetary. Funds. gettough Strategy during the emerging-market cases n the hao. punting countries trom Asa to Latin Aer th goverment sensing ane ae Fegan acces lending ftom road? From the perspective of ‘anti-globalization’ ities. the contradictions at the heart of neo- hibcralisny cause and reinforce the endemic Fant — ihe enforcement of the noo-Kiberal Consensus - deepens incqualiby inthe word's ‘OOrET sountres. I is thus hat the shanty is Fr inuch a symbol of globalization as the Starbucks. Boverty is lized “The above diptych reveals that globalization creates both affluence and poverty: it pushes ‘peoples and groups into a modernity associated ‘vith Wester culture and capital, while simyl- taneously leaving behind others. Its study, (Geectoerequree an analysis of hace wih a ‘left behind. This chapter explores.the develop- imenvuntardévelopment paradox of global rerio tees eae oie SaiN= concept, which as T show below, panies ner various gis and aul by multiple subjectivities. In what follows, I begin witha brief examination of inequalities between counties, and illustrate how these inequalities necessitate the emergence of cate- ‘gories like the global south. Although globali- zation challenges the dominance of the sat, it nevertheless produces changes on the stucture of states, and, therefore, requires responses fiom states — crucial observation that I will continue returming (0. Second, the chapter siti- ates the historical emergence of the term “elobal south’ and its antecedent forms like the “Third World’ by looking at how inequalities have iced through political projects like colonization and present day neo-Tiberal ‘globalization. It also examines the various.07 LOCATING THE GLOBAL SOUTH jain which people have respontied to these BEET and. nthe proces, eshapod Uv erm: ‘of global political engugemer ‘The chapter ends with « discussion on the ccontempority global south, examining, how contemporary globalization has reshaped some ofits contours und partially prefigured its future, I€ makes un argument concerning the importance of the global south relative to ‘other notions of collectivity sue ax nations for regions. As provisional project, 1 con- tend that the global south is less likely to fall into the traps of static notions of identity, which have inflected other discourses from the margins of world PONTE CONCEPTUALIZING WITHOUT DEFINING Conceiving ofthe global south is of primary import’ those engaged in social and political action against global inequality. Drawing Ties between the global south and the global nom he developed and the developing fst, the fist and the Third World, as power political function: I allows cities and atv= Its to make distinctions between the benef- Clarice of uneven systems of global power Contemporary ees of neo-liberal global {ation ue the slut south as a nest rally Counties victimized by the violent economic “Sure” of fnstiutons ie the Ineradonal Moociary Fund. Previously, eis of cold trae, power polities deployed the term “Third World” of the Togie of nowalignment in their ejection of ‘colonialism from both the USA and the USSR. ‘Changing geopolitical circumstances means these terms each have specific histor Cal suances we cannot disregard, Its tue, for instance, that “Third Worlds’ or “non Tignment i no long tenable in ight ofthe collapse of the Soviet Bloc or the ‘Second Work — an issue 1 discuss below. Despite this, all diese terms point to common phe- nomena: the_undesevelopment_of_ certain states/peoples_and their lack of representa: only for this, the term jlobal south’ and lar categories are relevant to the study of {lobalization, And though the terminology nay evolve. the effects of large-scale political projects ~ from imperialism, to cold war-cra con liberal globalization .- make it necessary Tor scholars and activists (0 use terms like ‘ which serve as, rhetorical anchors in a grammar that repre ents. global difference. As Lovander_and Miynolo (2011: 3) explait juesfion may notb. ths Tht for hom and under wha condons he omc evant Say, fr wre dare tare, located atthe intersection of “entangled political geographies of disposses- sion and repossession Sth global south 1 Thus both a realty and a provisional work-in-progress. It is crucial, therefore, to examine how_actors_on_the ‘ground, particularly. those L South ise mobilize the concept. t should Bee pen at lie ariclated in the context of provisional and mutable processes of political praxis. Ths allows us {o historicize it and remain mindful of its metres Soares ieee eS ee anal is in a better position to document its articu- ‘Jation Father than set fs ontological Tints. But, despite its heterogeneity, what binds the global south and what common experi- fences unite the countries in it? Grovogui (2011: 176) contends that: The Global South s not a directional designation a point Gus south fom # fixed north is 2 Smile des gnotion meant to captare the sem: “Bince of echtiion that emerged wen former “GOGAT anes engage Im GOMES FORT of GeDMTaTCT and tied toward The eahz2007 Of 8 postcoienat international ore. ‘What is necessary to add to Grovogui is that the “former colonial entities are almost all