Third World Quarterly

Globalization: Captors and Captive Author(s): James H. Mittelman Reviewed work(s): Source: Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 6, Capturing Globalization (Dec., 2000), pp. 917929 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993547 . Accessed: 27/01/2013 06:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Third World Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Third World Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 6, pp 917-929, 2000

Globalization: captors
JAMES H MITTELMAN

and

captive

ABSTRACT Globalization studies are not really global. Rather, globalization research mainly centres on, and emanatesfrom, the OECD countries. To begin to change the balance, it is importantto pose a set of pertinent and penetrating research questions.Animatedby theoretical and empirical research undertaken largely in southeast Asia, these questions call for painstaking analyses of dominant moral codes, various actors' attempts to turn the globalization scenario to advantage, cultural and political struggles to assert some control over market forces, and tensions within a frameworkbased on neoliberal values and policies. The act of capturing establishes a hierarchy between the captor and the captive. This hierarchyis not a dichotomy,but an ordering of power and a division of labour. The captors of course seek to remain on top, and the captured attempt to ascend from the bottom of the heap. Such structural and dynamic relationships must be contextualized and, today, are integral to the epochal transformationknown as globalization. Following a year-long series of seminarson globalization, organized by Institut or Kajian Malaysia dan Antarabangsa (IKMAS, Institute of Malaysian and InternationalStudies) at Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia (the National University of Malaysia), and with support from the Pok Rafeah Foundation, the participantsdecided to undertakea collaborativeproject on 'CapturingGlobaland ization'. The authorsare all affiliatedwith IKMAS, have sought to bring their different disciplines-anthropology, economics, history, political science and sociology-to bear on a set of common researchproblems.Fourteenpaperswere presented at an IKMAS workshop, held in Bangi, Malaysia in April 1999, made and the possible by generous funding from the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung National University of Malaysia. The papers were discussed by fellow authors, other invited scholars, students and members of civil society. Whereas the authors express different perspectives on, and advance diverse interpretationsof, globalization, all of their contributions focus on a central research theme, elaboratedin this paper. Although these articles are not about Malaysia per se, all contributorshave carried out research there. Indeed, the initial drafts of this special issue were written during the 1997-98 Asian economic crisis, which provided a backdropfor viewing globalizing processes. This experience offers an importantpoint of reference,though not the exclusive or even primaryone for the essays that follow. this One of the reasons for undertaking special issue of ThirdWorldQuarterly is that globalization studies are not really global. For the most part, globalizaJames H Mittelmanis at the School of InternationalService, American University,4400 MassachusettsAvenue, NW, Washington,DC 20016-8017, USA. E-mail.jmittel@american.edu. ISSN 0143-6597 print; 1360-2241 online/00/060917-13 ? 2000 Third World Quarterly DOI: 10.1080/01436590020011945

917

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES MITTELMAN H

tion research has centred on the Organizationfor Economic Co-operationand Development countries, not the developing world. An objective of this special issue, then, is to begin to shift the balanceby posing a set of penetratingresearch questions, and providinganswersto them, if only in a preliminarymanner,albeit one that deepens understanding about the nexus of globalization and development. Hence, the purpose of this introductoryessay is to offer a frame for the articles that ensue. This frame takes the form both of questions that orient research and of an elaborationon the implicationsof these questions-a prism through which one may want to take stock of the major dimensions of globalization discussed below. Theme The act of capturingestablishes a hierarchy,an orderingof power and a division of labour,between the captorand the captive. The captorsof course seek to stay on top, and the capturedattemptto ascend from the bottom of the heap. This hierarchyconstitutes a range of social relations in which there is some upward and downwardmovement, and should not be regardedas a binary distinction. Such structuralforces must be contextualized and, today, are integral to an known as globalization. epochal transformation More than a metaphor,the theme of capturingraises questions about largescale historicalchange, and directs attentionto some of the most vexing aspects of globalization:control, autonomyand agency. To what extent and how is the set of processes known as globalizationbeing governed?If it is being governed, or if elements of it are subject to governance, then one would like to know whether there is effective management,what strategiesare employed, and with what results. The tasks of control are both manifold and challenging in different arenas,namely, at the global, regional, nationaland local levels. Then there are the matters of defining the criteria of control, identifying who is doing the defining, and determiningwhich interests are at stake. The problem in historical context Whereasglobalizationhas a long lineage, the last three decades of the twentieth century were a period of rapid structural change. In the 1970s the international economy consisted of a handful of industrialcountries that exported manufactured goods to a multitude of developing countries, which in turn sent abroad their primaryproducts, mainly agriculturalcommodities and naturalresources. Following the collapse of the BrettonWoods system of fixed exchange rates in 1971, a deep recession began in the USA in 1973, the year of the first oil shock, and ramifiedwidely, initially in the West and then in the socialist and developing countries. After the Vietnam War there was oversupply in primarycommodity markets and, by the late 1970s, the hopes of a New InternationalEconomic Order, a package of proposals for internationalreform put forward by leaders from developing countries, were dashed. Marked by the simultaneous fall of commodity prices and the rise of real interestrates, the debt crisis of the early 918

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATION:CAPTORS AND CAPTIVE

1980s emerged. Althoughthe USA was no longer the world's majorcreditor,but now its chief debtor, it maintaineda position altogetherdifferent from that of developing countries, whose balance of payments reflected deep structural problems. Against this backdrop, the pile-up of large external debts allowed internationalcreditors and donors to shape macroeconomic policy in many countries. Since the early 1980s structural adjustmentprogrammesmandatedby internationalfinancial institutions further opened national economies and oriented, or reoriented,development strategies. Meanwhile, deeply concerned about declining rates of productivity, the emphasis in the US economy changed from the old Fordist system of mass production and mass consumption towards post-Fordism, which allows for a higher degree of specialization,greaterflexibility and faster turnovertime. With the spreadof the post-Fordistsystem, facilitatedby new technologies, especially in transportation communications,the 1980s witnessed a spatial reorganizaand tion of production.While the West and Japanlargely moved from capital-intensive towards technologically intensive industries, some developing countries upgradedtheir manufacturingindustries, initially through labour intensity, and climbed to a higher position in the global division of labour.This coincided with a changeoverfrom import substitutionpolicies to export promotion.Centringon greater integration in the global economy, the Reaganite-Thatcheriteidea of neoliberalismextended from Anglo-Americato other partsof the world, eroding transactions,and allowbarriers,relaxingrestrictiveframeworksfor cross-border ing information, goods and labour to flow more easily across national boundaries.Born in Anglo-America, neoliberalism is a culturally specific formobile and propagatedas a purportedly mula, one that has been extraordinarily universal and moral proposition. But it has encounteredother visions of social justice and the good, such as a universalcode of humanrights and the notion of 'Asian values'. After the Cold War, nonetheless, 'free markets',an ideal and a set of policies, propoundedand monitoredby some states, public intellectuals and international MonetaryFund (IMF), have became an icon agencies, especially the International as well as a matter of faith throughoutmuch of the world. Foreign assistance, loans, credit ratings and foreign investment are conditioned on implementing neoliberal policies, namely, deregulation,liberalizationand privatization. By the mid-1990s there were signs of danger in emerging markets.Financial turmoil, the meltdown of stock markets and in some cases (most notably, Indonesia) political turbulencestruckparts of Asia. The contagion of economic decline threatenedother locales: among others, and in different measure, South Africa, Brazil and Russia. At the turn of the millennium, what had been called 'the Asian crisis' escalated into a possible generatorof global instability. Even if this crisis is a zigzag, not a complete breakdown, and notwithstanding apparent recovery in Asia, one can expect periodicfinancialcrises to be a regular feature of neoliberal globalization. Meanwhile, the power component in the new global configurationhas triggered backlashes. At first, the impetus for resistance seemed to emanate from civil society, which began to scale up and thrustacross borders.The ascendance of capital fragmentedthe identity of labour, and movements oriented to gender,
919

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES MI7TELMAN H

the environment,religion, race and ethnicity asserted themselves singly or in combination. But backlashes against globalization appeared in other guises, including the groundswellof right-wing supportfor populist politicians, such as Pat Buchananin the USA, Jean-MarieLe Pen in France and Pauline Hanson of Australia. Conservatives in the US Congress and renowned neoliberal economists, including Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and Jeffrey Sachs, expressed dismay over the workings of the marketand the role of international financialinstitutions.While not opposing the marketper se, some states, such as France,resisted the Anglo-Americanversion of neoliberalglobalization,instead maintaininga large public sector and generous welfare provisions while only partially deregulatingand privatizing. In another permutation,Malaysia, after widely opening its economy to foreign investors during its economic growth capital controls in 1998, spurt,adoptedselective and, as it turnedout, temporary restrictingoutflows of funds. At issue in this uncertain period are the interactions between globalizing and structures a multiplicityof agents. Marketsare not only arenasof buyers and sellers, but also powerful forces increasinglydetachedfrom a bounded territory and with the capacity to discipline the state, evident in structuraladjustment the programmes, ratings(which can make or breaka developing economy) given by credit agencies, such as Moody's and Standardand Poors, and attacks by currencyspeculators.Increasinglymarketsare becoming dislodged from social and political control. Globally, there is no centralsource of order.No sovereign power can claim legitimate authorityover the world market.Although national economies continue to serve as importantarenas for markets, an upsurge of transnationalflows challenges extant authority in this realm. At issue is not merely what states do to each other, as Realism, the dominant tradition in InternationalRelations, argues. Neorealists reformulate the problematic by delimiting it as a matter of how the state adjusts its policies, without giving credence to the structuraltransformationsunder way in the global political economy (see Waltz,1999). In fact, diverse contenders-both state and non-state actors-seek to capturepolitical and economic power or aspects of it. Capturing globalizationis only partiallya matterof state power. Not only may power be defined in terms of its overt and covert dimensions, but there is a structuralsense of power at multiple levels, which involves both coercion and consent. It was Antonio Gramsci's insight that the mix of the two defines hegemony. From a Gramscian perspective, if consent is predominant over coercion, then a hegemonic constellation prevails. This is of course more cost-effective than is the use of bruteforce, but the question, one that concerned classical writers such as Ibn Khaldunin the 14th century and Niccolo Machiavelli two centurieslater,is: how to use differentcapacitiesto ensure compliance and capture intersubjectiveunderstandings? will be recalled that in MachiIt avelli's view of the world as a thoroughlytreacherousplace, the qualities most useful to a prince, or that a prince should appearto have, are likened to those of a centaur: half-man, half-beast. Both require a capacity to know how to employ them and in what measure:
Thus, you must know that there are two kinds of combat:one with laws, the other

920

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CAPTORS AND CAPTIVE GLOBALIZATION:

withforce.The firstis proper man,the secondto beasts;butbecausethe firstis to 1985: 69) often not enough,one musthave recourse the second(Machiavelli, to This is very much a matterof determiningwhat the positions of authorityare and which prince-collective agency writ large-will hold them. In the spheres of authority in a globalizing world, the lines of legitimate authorityare blurred.This tendency is especially apparentwith regard to licit and illicit activities. As in Russia, states are sometimes in league with organized crime, and criminalactivities, such as drug trafficking,are becoming globalized. In this realm, there is no neat separationbetween the captor and the captive, for novel, complex hierarchical relationships have formed, are fluid and may overlap. Moreover, global hierarchies are manifest within regions, but refract differently from one region to another,and crucial intraregionaldifferences are apparent. Objectives To examine these hierarchies,a preliminarytask is to identify the globalizers, to determine who are the sponsors and champions of globalizing processes. Conversely, one must know who is harmed by-who bears the pain of-this The contributingauthors will probe the interactions parametrictransformation. among the actors. In addition, lurking behind the identities of these agents lies the issue of their interests in the overall configurationof power relations. This points to the question of control: who or what are the arbitersof order?While indicating the arrayof actors engaged in globalization processes, consideration is, above all, given to the ways that they are attempting to capture changing global structures-to direct or redirect presently disembedded market forcesand whetherthey are doing so in a democraticor undemocraticmanner.Posing these questions underlines the importance and urgency of thinking concretely about agency without being unduly voluntarist about large-scale structural change. integration,the Workingamid the salutaryand sordid effects of market-based contributorshave gained perspective on the trade-offs-the opportunitiesand constraints-in the globalization matrix. The trauma associated with environmental abuses that deeply affect daily life in many countries, large fluctuations in the value of nationalcurrencies,and the loss of confidence in some economies has animatedsearching inquiry into underlyingcauses, both regionally and at a global level. Thus, the main objective in this special issue is to explain how different communities try to capture social and political control of the dynamics of conditions in SoutheastAsia and globalization,specifically as they interpenetrate also on an interregional basis. Whereas many researchers in this field have rightly focused on big, abstractstructures,it is also importantto provide tightly packed descriptionof globalization as a contested process. The outcome of this contestation is in no way predeterminedbut open-ended. Furthermore,the playing field is not level; it is tilted in various directions, and firm rules are in flux or lacking. This being the case, one must shift attention to the ways that 921

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES MITTELMAN H

agents seek to maintain or undermine global structures.In globalization research, theories and concepts have largely travelledfrom the West to other parts of the world. Indeed, as argued, globalization studies primarilyemanate from Western intellectualtraditionsand practice.While consideringthe extant literature, the authors contributingto this volume will also draw on non-Western discourses. Whereas this analysis does not purport to offer a fully fledged alternative framework for examining globalization, it does bring to bear the experience of diverse scholars who have carried out extensive research on non-Western encounters with globalization, and points to new directions deemed worthy of pursuing. One of the most promising This undertakingis necessarily interdisciplinary. features of globalizationresearchis that it helps to overcome the compartmentalization of knowledge and calls for a holistic approach.Time has been the province of historians;space, the metier of geographers.Now, the disciplines of history and geography are central to understandingworld order, and political economy also requiresthe expertise of sociology and anthropology.To be sure, the cultural aspects of globalization involve practices and representations, matters long treated in the humanistic sciences. Globalization studies thus bridge diverse fields of investigation. That said, let me offer a point of departureand reference that others can use as a target in their own articles. There is a line of thinking that regards globalization as a compression of time and space (Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1990; Robertson, 1992). In other words, with new technologies that speed transactionsand shrink distances, both time barriersand spatial constraintsare lessened. Anthony Giddens sees this process as partof the inherentunfolding of Elaboratingthe concept of modernityand as a spur towardsinterconnectedness. time-space compression,David Harvey shows the radically different ways that thinking about, and the representations the orderingof time and space have of, changed. Both Harvey and Roland Robertsonview time-space compression as a cultural force and, for Robertson, it is driven by global consciousness. Importantly,one must look at the links between this compression and social relations,for globalizing processes are not socially or politically neutral.Rather, they are both constitutive of and constitute social relations. Of course, the argumentmounted by these theorists becomes entangled with the debates over modernity and the postmodern critique. In my view, it is useful to separate analysis of globalization from any notion that it is necessarily an outcome of a process such as modernity,as if it had its own laws. To think otherwiseruns the risk of positing an end-point, a teleology (Albrow, 1996: 99). Rather, if globalization is a contested and a political phenomenon,then it cannot have a predeterminedoutcome. A political agenda of inevitability overlooks the fact that globalization was made by humans and as such can be unmade or remade by humankind. Also, if globalizationtheoriesoffer the advantageof seeing the partsfrom the perspectiveof the whole, and if the whole global political economy has its own dynamics, then the parts are subject to systemic effects. However, what bears emphasis is that the system affects the components in very different ways. Globalizationis a partial, not a totalizing, phenomenon.Countriesand regions 922

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATION:CAPTORS AND CAPTIVE

are tetheredto some aspects of globalization,but sizable pockets remain largely removed from it. Globalizationcontains a dialectic of inclusion and exclusion. It is worth stressingthat globalizationis not a single, unified process, but a set of interactionsthat may be best approachedfrom different observation points. First, it may be seen as a complex of historicalprocesses. The trajectoriesdiffer in various regions of the world, althoughall are directly or indirectlytied to the central institutions and growth mechanisms of the world economy. Second, globalization may be understood as material processes closely related to the accumulation of capital. It is caught up with the innovations in capitalism, especially the inner workings of competition, pressures that may be called hypercompetition.Third, globalization may be regarded as an ideology-the neoliberal belief in free markets and faith in the beneficial role of competition (Cox, 1996; Mittelman, 1996a) Hence, globalization is an extensive set of interactions,dialectically integratingand disintegratingeconomies, polities and societies aroundthe world. Capital is in ascendance,while labour and nationality-the two major identities of the twentieth century-are fragmented into multiple identifiers,including gender, religion, race and ethnicity. Furthermore, the globalization trend offers gains in productivity, technological advances, higher living standards, morejobs, broaderaccess to consumerproductsat lower cost, widespread dissemination of information and knowledge, reductions in poverty in some parts of the world, and a release from traditional social hierarchies in many countries. Yet there is a dark side to globalization: the integrationof markets threatenstightly knit communities and sources of solidarity, dilutes local cultures, and portendsa loss of control, particularlyin very poor countries. This massive sociohistorical transformation warrantsmore empirical explorationof, and theoreticalprecision regarding,its underlyingdynamlcs.

Research questions Accordingly,the editors of this special issue have posed four researchquestions, though others could be added. The following questions provide a frameworkof considerationsfor critical scrutinyby the authors,each of whom has been asked to respond to some or all of these issues.
* Globalization is rapidly reorganizing people's livelihood and modes of social existence, but without systematic reflection on the values that undergird this set of processes. What are these moral codes? Whose ethics are dominant? What are the results of attempts to balance divergent norms, such as the commitment to sustained economic growth and equity?

The first question, or bundle of questions, suggests that globalization is not merely an economic process, or, to put it differently, that markets are social institutions encoded with normative claims. In fact, the ethics of globalization are understudiedand have been poorly grasped in the social sciences. Clearly, there are values associated with neoliberal globalization-efficiency, competitiveness, profitability and individualism-which form a normative paradigm 923

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES H MITTELMAN

based on instrumental rationality,and may be seen as part of a largerattemptto assert universal truths. The key to the argumentabout universalsis that, throughideas, humanshave access to truths, a universe that transcends time and space. In this universe, knowledge is supposed to be generated without recourse to observation. The logic is pertinentto the realm of numbers(mathematics),beauty as well as the good (philosophy),and the spirit(religion). Measuresof goodness, it is held, can be brought to bear in this world, the here-and-now, through the ideals of universalrights and universalprinciples.When relatedto public policy, these are made use of in science and the logic of rational choice in such realms as environmentaleconomics (Yearley, 1996: 17-23, 125). Critics submitthat the applicationof these universaldiscoursesbecome caught up with power relations and also may result in silences about some ethical issues. Considerthe period of economic ascendancyin EasternAsia in the 1980s and early 1990s. The adoption of free-marketprinciples led to claims that the 'miracle' of rapideconomic growth was relatedto somethingdifferentabout the way that Asians organize their societies, marketsand states. Various commentators praised the high savings rates, job security, low-cost housing for workers, emphasis on education, and religious traditionsthat stress consensus. Whereas some observers trumpetedthe virtues of 'Asian values' others celebrated the alleged fusion of the best practices and values from Asian and Western civilizations. However, when the economic crisis jolted Asia in 1997, attention turnedto the undersideof these same values, namely, crony capitalism,corruption and secrecy-problems that surely are not unique to any region. In Asia, there were immediate calls for bailouts and other rescue packages, redoubling the involvement of internationalfinancial institutionsin the region. The World Bank and the IMFplay a direct role in the drive to universalizethe values of neoliberalglobalization.Respondingto debt crises, the BrettonWoods institutions assist donor countries within a framework that safeguards the internationalmonetarysystem. Their assistance is predicatedon the obligation by borrowing countries to meet repayments by increasing export earnings, attractingforeign investment,decreasinggovernmentspending and diminishing social policy in areas such as health care and education. There is considerable controversyover whetherthis formulaalleviates or hampersdistressedeconomies, and over how the burdenis distributed.An ethical dilemma is apparentin the types of balances struckbetween the rise in environmental harmand the drop in expenditureon environmentalmanagement.In this sphere, hard neoclassical logic brings to light the clash between economic reformand equity. The political decision to emphasize economic globalization coincides, and seems to collide, with the changing capacity of the state, especially in its heretoforeinability to protect, or indifference towards, the most marginalized zones of the global political economy and the poor in other regions. With the restructuring the state, the local level-associations within civil of society, such as families and religious institutions-is generally deemed to be most directly involved in ethical development.Indeed,the agents of socialization are most effective in terms of early childhood experiences, when they shape affective orientation,the basis for later cognitive learning.At first blush, it may 924

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATION:CAPTORS AND CAPTIVE

appear that the globalization scenario is remote from this stage of human development. New technologies in the computer industry, worldwide finance, cross-bordermergers, transnationalcorporations,changes in production structures, and institutionssuch as the IMF and the World Trade Organization(wTo) all seem removed from what goes on day-to-dayin the household. But are they? If both husband and wife are compelled to join the workforce, if a new production system dramatically alters who is at home and who provides childcare,if the media broadcastnew norms directly into the living room, if toys and clothing, not to mention food, reflect the consumer tastes of other cultures, it would appearthat the impact of globalization-including its big structuresand heavy processes-on ethics in the earliest years is a matterthat must be subject to close scrutiny. If so, the effects of globalization on ethics may then be weighed in terms of political accountability,the incidence of poverty and social welfare policy. Yet it is also importantto consider whether globalization opens space for ethical development,especially in regardto influences that emanate beyond the nation-state.The spread of norms across borders takes place through macroregionalism (eg the forum for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)and subregionalism (eg the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 'growth triangles' and 'growth polygons') as well as from the elaboration of internationallaw as it adapts to new conditions (eg the globalization of organized crime). In the areas of human rights, environmentalpolicy and gender, groups within civil society are advocating that ethical standardsbe advanced, monitored and safeguarded. These groups appeal not only to moral sensibilities within the state, but also to putativeuniversalnorms. Globalizationis, in fact, establishingnew openings for non-stateactors-what Sassen (1998: 94) calls 'new sites of normativity'-pressuring the state, transgressingthe authority of the state over its citizens, and thereby eroding the boundaries of jurisdiction defined by the Westphalian interstate system. In the light of these considerations, one of the challenges facing the contributing authors is to assess the balances between economic globalization and social justice. * Inasmuchas communitiesat various levels are not mere objects of, but agents in, the globalization scenario, how do they optimize their positions vis-'a-vis the currentsof globalizationand attemptto use this trendfor their advantage? If globalization is not a universal that can be examined regardless of time and place, then interestsmust be recognized and broughtinto the analysis. The play of interestis one factor that sparksoff the politics of identity. To the extent that at globalization entails a restructuring several levels, there are new winners and losers: neoliberalvalues and policies are not neutralin terms of social relations, but set conditions for the interactionsbetween captors and the captive. Hence, along with the values in the globalizationparadigm,the identitiesof these groups and subgroups-identities based on class, gender, religion, race and ethnicitymust be delimited. Although, as noted, there is not a sharp dichotomy between the captors and the captive, but an arrayof agents in the hierarchyof globalization, captors and captives are still importantmarkers for trying to determine: 925

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES H MITTELMAN

exactly who are the globalizers, and how do they benefit? Conversely, who is harmed by globalization, and how do these groups react? To navigate the currentsof globalization,various actorsdevelop strategies,by which I mean the actualways thatpeople, whose modes of existence (eg through job loss, encroachmenton community lands or threatsto cultural integrity) are altered by new structures,respond in a sustained manner towards achieving certainobjectives. At one level thereis the questionof how the state is managing globalization through its policies in the realms of technology, manufacturing, trade, human resource development, and so on. Clearly, there are major differences in the strategiesadoptedby states in close proximityto one anotherwithin hierarchical and both global and regional divisions of labour and power. Cognizant of state policies, firms, of course, must also seek to position themselves strategicallyin order to capitalize on the opportunitiesof globalization. Although there is no unified strategy, like other actors, corporationshave to adjust to the changing parameterswithin which they operate. Innovativestrategiesspecifically craftedto captureglobalization,or aspects of it, are not merely stabs in the dark at an amorphous phenomenon. In civil society, some-by no means all-groups that are self-organizinghave engaged in self-conscious strategizingabouthow best to respondto globalizing processes. While forms of struggle differ, groups adopt varied means to contest, scale up or down, and link objectively andlor subjectively to their counterpartsin other countries or regions. With sustainedaccess to communicationtechnologies that construct and maintain communities of like-minded individuals, local movements may become transnational global, ie networks of activists that coordior nate their endeavorsin an attemptto harness or at least mitigate the deleterious effects of the market (Mittelman,2000: 179-222).
* Insofar as globalization is a multilevel phenomenon, what are the foremost cultural and political attempts in different contexts to govern the market? With what results?

Many studies (eg Dicken, 1998) centre primarily,though not exclusively, on the geo-economic dimensions of globalizationbecause of the centralityof markets. In this literature (eg Strange, 1998), a great deal of attention is paid to production,finance and trade.At the same time, some globalizationresearchers are wary of an imbalance, with emphasis on economics and technology at the expense of culturaland political globalization. Indeed, if globalization is not a single but a multilevel phenomenon,one researchstrategyis to employ a holistic approachand turn to culturalpolitical economy. Whereas hypercompetition may be a causal element in the rise of globalization, it is caught up with cultural structures.Just as globalization fosters large structuresin the economy (eg mega mergers) and the polity (eg macro-regions such as the EuropeanUnion), it also fragmentscultures.Large marketsand the diffusion of new normserode cultures,in some instancesfostering particularities and contributingto the formationof multiple identities. Hence the fault line in Canada, surely a precariousentity, is between the Anglophones and Francophones, but within Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and other parts of this huge expanse, numerousminorities,includingvery differentAmerindiangroups, 926

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATION: CAPTORS AND CAPTIVE

the Acadians in New Brunswick, and the Inuit in the Northwest territories-in the later case leading to the establishment of a new territory, Nunavut, in 1999-have clamoured for their 'rights'. This persistent debate is about language, region, race and ethnicity. Additionally,the politics of collective identity in Canada also touches on redrawing the boundaries of a country (in one scenario, with English Canadajoining the USA) and transformingthe political landscape. This emotionally charged issue poses a deeper question: in the context of globalization,when the basic units in which peoples have organized themselves since the Treaty of Westphaliain 1648 are increasingly porous and penetratedfrom without, what is the meaning of 'nation', 'country', 'state', and, by extension, 'citizen'? Are there altered meanings, and do the meanings differ in the part of the world that invented the Westphalian system and in the postcolonial regions onto which this system was grafted? To get at these questions, one must grasp the ways that culture becomes an ordering force in globalization. What is requiredis to understandhow culture frames meaning so that people form their convictions, establish a sense of themselves and maintaintheir solidarities (Geertz, 1998). Culturalglobalization operates both as a top-down process, which is promoted by cultural industries (various forms of entertainment,films and television), and as a bottom-up response to these powerful structures. In fledgling form, a new politics is emerging, which manifests as a cultural riposte. Increasingly apparent, to varying degrees in different places, is the rise of non-state politics. While the state remains an important arena, in some cases contesting the neoliberal paradigm (eg France) and in other cases accommodating it (especially the poorest countries,where an acute loss of control is endemic), non-state politics is becoming a more salient venue for devising solutions to problems and with the state, regardlessof fashioning alternatives.Inasmuchas disgruntlement which party holds power, is a widespread phenomenon, reflected in low voter turnoutin some countriesand indicatedin survey research,people are turningto a practical politics of another sort: voting with their feet by migrating to a in differentlocale, participating the parallelmarket(often across the border),and engaging in ethnic politics through family networks which, in the case of the Chinese diaspora (among others), form a translationaldivision of labour and capital. There is a multiplicity and divergence of historically contingent ways that people respond to the tensions generatedby globalizing structures. * Are there internal tensions among the processes subsumed under globalization? What are the social limits to a framework based on neoliberal values and policies? Explicit in the discussion thus far is that globalization involves a series of interactionsamong the economic, political and cultural spheres of life. It also appears in diverse sizes and shapes in different regions. When globalizing structures meet local conditions, myriad combinations are formed. True, in certain respects global capitalism is a national phenomenon,but national political economies are in very different positions, some more or less open, dynamic and vulnerable to captivity than are others. Indeed, it is importantto note the disparate ways that capitalism is organized in various regions and countries 927

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAMES H MITTELMAN

today; however, the proposition that globalizing forces promote diversity, not homogeneity, does not invalidate the globalization scenario. Rather,by historicizing the construct,researchershelp to refine it. Inasmuch as globalization is not a uniform structure,one must attempt to interrelatethe levels of analysis. I will turn briefly to two sets of interactions: politics and economics, and economics and culture (points elaboratedin Mittleman, 2000: especially 223-249). The first tension surroundsthe issue of accountability.The easing of borders as a result of deregulationand the consequentsurge of capital flows from other economies, large-scale transfersof populationfrom some parts of the world to others, the increase in mergersand mega acquisitions,instantaneousmovements of financethroughelectronicspace, and growing concentrationsof capital are all part of the trend whereby the economy becomes disembedded from society, a pattern noted by Karl Polanyi over 50 years ago (Polanyi, 1957, originally published 1944). Flows of capital and labour take place at a horizontal level within the world economy and are only partially susceptible to control by sovereign units. Politically, the globe is organized into vertical compartments that attemptto capturethese transactions.State institutionswith territorial scope, such as centralbanks, are unable to exercise extraterritorial authority-say, over the foreign currencymarket,now a $1.5 trillion-a-daybusiness. State-sanctioned agencies supposed to hold a legitimate monopoly to enforce compliance over their own domain appear to be stymied by increasing deterritorialization in mattersof economic governance.Meanwhile, with globalization,pro-democracy forces in many parts of the world are pressing their political leaders for greater accountabilitywithin the nation-state,but accountabilityin the global economy is elusive and thus far exceeds the grasp of these forces. Like pro-democracy forces, other advocacy groups-varied social movements-are also trying to open political space. Just as some of them want to build largersolidaritiesacross borders,othergroups, often those most threatened by globalizing trends, are atavistic and seek to preserve, or imagine, local and particularistic identities, as is the case with right-wing militias in the USA and anti-immigrant groups from Scandinaviato South Africa. Whereas some wings of civil society attempt to capture parts of the mega phenomenon known as globalization,others are actually sponsoredby its purveyors(large corporations, international financialinstitutions,state-runbilateralagencies, etc) or even hold pivotal positions of state power, as in the Philippines and South Africa today, which perhapsis one form of capturingglobalization,inasmuch as a dependent state is tied to social forces partlyrooted outside the nationaldomain. However, this in turnraises both tacticaland ethical dilemmasaboutthe properrole of civil society and whether it is being co-opted and becoming corrupt.Certainly,civil society is riddled with internaltensions. Civil society has became an importantelement in the globalization matrix precisely because of a tension between a deterritorialized economy and national culture. Commandingnew technologies, the entertainment industry, led by US firms, is beaming programmes and films on to screens around the world. Accompanying the movies, serials, sporting events and newscasts are distinct values, such as individualismand consumerism.Of course, other industriesare 928

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND CAPTIVE GLOBALIZATION: CAPTORS

hardat work, and draw immigrantsto overseas operations,exposing them to new values, which are later transportedback to the home countries when the returneesvisit there or resettle. Both the entertainmentindustry and the labour market are modalities whereby a globalizing economy undercuts national and local ways of life, in some cases helping to ease indigenous forms of social control (eg patriarchy),but often at the expense of cultural dignity. Embracinga neoliberal frameworkof liberalization,deregulationand privatization, the globalization paradigm clearly offers benefits to all who would partake in this process, but in an uneven manner. The higher the level of globalization,the greaterthe degree of polarization.Put differently,there are rips and tears in the fabric of globalization.Enclaves of poverty within the wealthy countries and a multitude of impoverished countries, except for their upper strata,most apparentin, but not unique to, Africa, fall into the breach. At the same time, the neoliberal formula prescribes delinking economic reform from social policy, which places a greaterburdenon women, the primarycare givers and users of health facilities. By all indications, globalization and marginalization are two sides of the same coin. If so, one must consider whether globalization is ethically sustainable. Preview The precedingdiscussion has provided a prism for viewing the issues, concepts and considerationsthat guide the articlesin this special issue. The four questions posed for the authorsto explore bind the individual essays. In addition, I have formulatedspecific questions within these questions, to be revisited in the works that follow. The special issue is thus organized aroundfour aspects of globalization, and responses to the research questions framed above are threaded through corresponding clusters of essays. Following this introduction and that by Clive Kessler, who offers a broad comparativeand historical overview of the norms inscribed in globalization, are two pieces on market forces: Rajah Rasiah examines private capital flows across borders, and Ishak Shari probes povertygeneratingstructures.Next, SabihahOsman explores the ways in which political life is being redefined under globalization:the changing role of the state and with reference to the indigenous people of Sarawak,Malaysia. democratization, Finally, attentionturns to the socioculturaldimensions of globalization-Abdul class relations and globalization, RahmanEmbong on the nexus of translational and Sumit K Mandalregardingdisruptionsin cultureand new patternsin the use of languages-before Norani Othman and Clive Kessler present conclusions about whether any group, or which groups, are capturingglobalization, and the riposte from those held captive.

929

This content downloaded on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:52:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions