Statement by Ms. Danuta Hübner
Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Europe
Economic and Social Council
Geneva, 20 July 2001
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBALIZATION:
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CATCHING UP
OR A RISK OF FALLING BEHIND
IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
1. The term "globalization" is used
indiscriminately to cover a large mixture of statements or beliefs, on the one
hand about how the world economy, and especially the relations between its
component parts, is actually developing and, on the other hand, assertions
about whether or not progress towards a global economy is in fact desirable.
In fact, the term is used to cover such a wide range of issues, ideas and
assertions, that it is virtually meaningless for analytical as opposed to
rhetorical use.
2. Nevertheless, it is clear that globalization is used in
both a descriptive and a normative sense. On the one hand it claims to
describe various processes of international integration which have led - or
are leading - to the point where national boundaries, and national
authorities, become increasingly irrelevant to the decisions taken by economic
agents. On the other hand, the process of globalization is also seen in
normative terms: many governments and policy makers, especially in North
America and Western Europe, as well as large multinational companies, tend to
see it as one which is essentially benign in which open trade and foreign
investment régimes will lead not only to faster growth for the world economy
but also to increasing convergence of national incomes per head across the
world, since developing and transition economies can expect to benefit more
than average from increased openness. The normative programme is therefore to
achieve these objectives by giving as full a reign as possible to market
forces and reducing the role of the state, and of any form of interference
with market forces, to a minimum.
3. In a short note, it is not possible to
"deconstruct" the idea of globalism and examine all the positive and
normative statements with which it is associated, but most of them would
appear to be open to question or at least in need of significant
qualification. Consider the claim that the late 20th Century has
witnessed an unprecedented rate of technical change and, especially, a
revolution in communications and information technology. Without denying that
there has been significant technical progress in recent years, can it really
be claimed that the pace of change is greater than in the late 19th Century when the speed of communication between North America and Europe, for
example, was reduced in the 1860s from several days sailing time to the minute
or so that it took to send a telegraph message? This development, in
conjunction with the technologies of the steamship and railway led to a boom
in foreign investment and to a degree of openness (measured by the ratio of
merchandise trade to GDP) that for many countries before the First World War
was as high or higher than in the early 1990s. The earlier period was still
characterized by generally high rates of protection of merchandise trade; what
was more striking was the considerable mobility of capital and labour.
4. International trade and foreign direct investment, which
are two main vehicles of global economic integration, are greatly influenced
by the activities of multinational corporations. They generate considerable
effects in local economies, but to assess their full impact requires further
progress in overcoming difficulties related to both conceptual and measuring
issues. The common view that multinational corporations are bringing about a
close convergence of national economies through their integration of
innovation, trade and investment has been shown to be wide of the mark, in
large part because "the MNCs themselves are not converging toward global
behavioural norms ... the most strategically significant operations of MNCs
continue to vary systematically along national lines. The global corporation,
adrift from its national political moorings and roaming an increasingly
borderless world market, is a myth". This is not to argue that there are
not important issues concerning the role of MNCs in national economies and
their relations with governments and society at large - but in the main these
concern perennial questions of corporate power and are not new.
5. It is claimed that the process of globalization has made
national boundaries and authorities less relevant to economic agents’
decisions. National boundaries, however, continue to have a depressive effect
on trade notwithstanding gradual disappearance of tariffs, due to high
transactions costs introduced by discontinued political and legal systems.
Contrary to conventional wisdom we are quite far from international economic
integration. It remains remarkably limited.
6. The anticipated benefits of globalization are basically
that, via more efficient resource allocation, world income will not only
increase but will also be more equally distributed – the relatively poor
countries will catch up with the relatively rich. Greater prosperity will
encourage the growth of democratic institutions and strengthen the basis for
peace.
7. However, actual developments do not appear to fit these
benign predictions and we are witnessing growing resistance to the process of
globalization, not only from protestors in Seattle and Prague, but also from
governments in the developing world. International differences in per capita
income have increased over the last 100 years. Convergence of incomes per head
has been confined for the most part to the members of OECD and a small number
of countries in South East Asia. In addition, there are increasing fears that
the increased power of market forces has weakened the authority and power of
the state, and the increased mobility of capital has important consequences
for government spending and the ability to support social safety nets and
welfare.
8. In a truly global economy, complete integration would be
signalled by the presence of the law of one price, and the institutional
underpinnings of the global economy - the protection of property rights, the
enforcement of rules, the conduct of regulation, the maintenance of monetary
stability, etc. - would become the responsibility of supra-national bodies.
This is a text-book model of a global economy, but a much looser description
of globalization is that the increasing volume and variety of cross-border
transactions in goods, services and capital flows is moving in the direction of a global market by increasing the interdependence of national economies on
a world-wide basis.
9. The data on the evolution of the structure of
west European trade from 1928 to 1998, however, shows that far from becoming
more global west European trade has become more and more concentrated on the
European region itself. Well over two thirds of Europe’s exports and imports
now consist of intra-west European exchanges compared with some 55 and 46 per
cent in the inter-war period. Trade with the rest of the world, and especially
with the developing countries, has tended to decline in relative importance.
There was a brief recovery in the share of developing countries in western
Europe’s trade as a result of the oil shocks of the 1970s but this was
quickly reversed with the subsequent shift in the terms of trade against the
Middle East and other oil producers.
10. The extensive trade liberalization which occurred in
eastern Europe and the Baltic states after the revolutions of 1989 has led to
a rapid re-orientation of trade away from the former CMEA towards western
Europe. Longer-run comparisons are difficult because of data problems, but the
basic picture is that the trade of the transition economies had more or less
reverted to its pre-war structure: western Europe in the late 1920s was the
destination for around three-quarters of east European exports and the source
of a similar proportion of imports. These shares fell to between a fifth to a
third under the regime of central planning and the CMEA trading area, but by
1998 they were again in the region of 70 per cent. Trade with developing
countries which, as in western Europe, increased momentarily in the wake of
the oil shocks of the 1970s, is proportionately much smaller than is the case
for western Europe and has tended either to stagnate or to fall in the 1990s.
11. Thus the general evolution of European trade has not
been towards a more global distribution of relationships but instead towards a
more intense integration with close neighbours. Interdependence among the
economies of the region has increased but with the rest of the world it has
tended to weaken. It is of course possible that trade flows have been replaced
by direct investment abroad, but the data suggest that west European FDI, in
the main, is positively, not negatively, correlated with the structure of
trade by partner country. FDI data by provenance and destination are not among
the most reliable of economic statistics, but the basic conclusion is that
outward flows of FDI from west European countries have been increasingly
directed to other parts of the region. In the 1990s some 60 per cent of all
west European FDI has remained within western Europe, a much higher proportion
than in the 1980s, with another 3.5 per cent on average going to the ECE
transition economies. Thus the regional concentration of trade is repeated, if
a little less sharply, in the pattern of foreign investment. In a longer
historical perspective the change in concentration is especially marked. In
1914, at the end of a previous phase of globalization, just under 19 per cent
of the gross value of west European capital invested abroad went to other
parts of western Europe; 40 per cent or so was invested in Latin America, Asia
and Africa, 27 per cent in "western offshoots" in other parts of the
world (the British Dominions, for example), and 14 per cent in eastern Europe.
In other words, west European foreign investment was more globally oriented
before the First World War than in the 1990s.
12. Why should the flows of European trade and direct
investment become more concentrated in the region when the most powerful
forces for integration are supposed to be leading towards a global economy?
Although a number of factors may have played some role in supporting the
regionalization of Europe’s trade and investment flows, the fact that such
concentration has been high and increasing over a very long period, and
especially for trade in manufactures, suggests that fundamental economic
influences are at work.
13. One of the characteristics often claimed for
"globalization" is that international trade in manufactures is
increasingly "intra-industry" as opposed to inter-industry. However,
this is not only a long-established feature of trade in manufactures but it
has also been long dominated by trade among the industrialized countries
themselves and especially among the countries of western Europe. A plausible
explanation for this pattern of trade is that, as the extent of the market
increases, economies of scale and of coordination allow the intermediate parts
and processes required in the production of manufactured goods to be separated
and entrusted to specialist producers who can be spread over a larger area
and, eventually, over national boundaries. This dynamic division of labour
could in principle be extended on a global basis, given the steep decline in
coordination costs as a result of improvements in communications technology,
but in practice it is likely to proceed more rapidly among countries with
similar levels of income per head and hence similar industrial structures -
increased specialization in capital or skill intensive machine tools, for
example, can only proceed between relatively capital abundant countries with
machine tool industries. Since western Europe has for a long time consisted of
a cluster of economies at roughly similar levels of development it provides a
favourable environment for intra-industry specialization.
14. Moreover, since increased interdependence is a cost,
not a benefit, of increased specialization, enterprises will be anxious to
minimize the risks of disruption to their supplies of intermediate inputs and
to remain close to the sources of specialized services; they will therefore
tend to keep their supply lines as short as possible since both geographical
and economic distance are likely to increase these risks. These factors
working towards increased concentration are also likely to trigger cumulative
processes which may reinforce the degree of concentration over time. In other
words, the strong evidence of regionalization in trade and FDI flows is not so
much a sign that protectionism or other policies are obstructing the
development of a global economy but that the underlying theory of an
inevitable globalization is basically flawed. This is the regional level where
the major standardization and harmonization processes take place, facilitating
economic integration and development of common markets. This is also the
regional level where economic policies tend to be coordinated and integration
mechanisms developed. Geography still matters and risks are approached more
efficiently at the regional level. As an increasing number of transboundary
concerns calls for transboundary solutions, subregional cooperation gradually
contributes to strengthening regional linkages.
15. It has been suggested above that although the
integration of national economies has increased, the extent of global markets
has been greatly exaggerated in current policy debates, although this does not
mean that important global developments have not taken place: the
liberalization of the international capital markets is clearly one with
important implications for national economic policy making and for the
stability of the international monetary system. Similarly, the power of
"exit" of international companies and capital is also exaggerated;
if, as suggested, there are fundamental reasons for their regional
concentration there are a limited number of places to which they can flee.
16. In many respects what is more important is not so much
the exaggeration about actual developments as the emphasis on an ever widening
agenda of liberalization to force the pace of development towards a global
economy, an agenda which is accompanied by a rhetoric which insists that the
process is inevitable and irreversible. The rhetoric which proclaims that
"there is no alternative" is effectively an attempt to stifle debate
and criticism, and therefore to undermine democratic processes in both
national and international institutions. Those who complain about the costs of
transition and adjustment, or about increasing inequality and poverty or
falling behind other countries, are judged to have only themselves to blame
for not introducing and maintaining the appropriate policies. Such policies
may hurt at first, but if they are maintained "all will be right in the
end".
17. In ECE we have always insisted on the importance of
institutions (including private property rights) and other socio-political
variables in determining economic performance, and that is why we have
emphasized their crucial role in the transition process in Eastern Europe and
the CIS. The evidence of research into the effect of political variables on
growth and development strongly suggests that growth and productivity are to a
large degree explained by politics, policy and institutions, rather than by
endogenous processes of capital formation. The record of the former planned
economies of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe illustrate the point.
They had high rates of employment, high levels of education, and high (albeit
forced) rates of savings and investment, and apparently large stocks of
physical capital. Yet these resources were inefficiently employed and living
standards stagnated. The institutional arrangements, which embody the
incentive structures of an economy, were unable to produce efficient outcomes
or respond to changes in the economic environment.
18. One of the key lessons to be drawn from this, and it is
one that has already been drawn by the international financial institutions in
the context of capital account liberalization, is that the benefits of
liberalization will not be forthcoming if the crucial institutional framework
for a market economy is weak or absent. In such circumstances, rapid
liberalization can trap countries at low levels of relative income and block
the process of catch-up. In other words, we can have globalization but not
integration.
19. As in the case of any process of grand social change,
there are both winners and losers of globalization. The idea that
globalization is a destructive force is often strongly felt by those who lose
their jobs as a result of restructuring or downsizing – although the causes
may be largely domestic, by those who see their elected governments being
ready to adopt certain policies as the result of perceived pressures from
multinationals or international authorities, or who suffer the consequences of
short-term capital flows. It is also felt as a threat to cultural identity,
leading often to a need of a new cultural self-identification. Language,
ethnic, religious communities get new stimulus to seek of its reassured
identity.
20. What we see is a growing conflict between the
attachment to national jurisdictions, or national policies, and the growing
pressures from increasingly international markets to remove not only
traditional barriers to trade and the movement of capital but also to
eliminate significant differences in national jurisdictions which impede
international transactions. The nationals of each jurisdiction, in turn, see
such pressures as an attack on their legitimate preferences and their way of
life. This is not a minor issue because for most of the residents of most
countries their loyalties are still national or local, and these are not seen
as matters which are purely instrumental for economic ends.
21. This points to perhaps one of the greatest challenges
for at least the first half of the 21st century: how to reconcile national
politics with the demands and opportunities of increasing globalization. One
way forward might be to enlarge the scope of national politics to match the
expanding domain of economic integration – in other words, to expand the
domain of international federalism. For some this implies a world government
of some sort, but for the moment this is just a dream of a few idealists –
and also a dangerous one if it implies postponing any serious attempt to face
the challenge. But a more pragmatic approach is already discernible in the
growing acceptance of the need to control disruptive short-term capital
movements, in the increasing international co-operation to deal with money
laundering, tax heavens and international economic crime. What was dismissed a
few years ago as impossible and futile interference with the irresistible
force of the financial markets turns out to be quite feasible when governments
decide to co-operate in achieving shared objectives. The growth of
international standards, rules and regulations, both for individual sectors as
well as for the environment and labour, all point to an emerging rule-based
system in which the interests of particular groups can be articulated and
accommodated. But this process will have to be much more transparent than it
is at present and more open to interests other than international companies or
the companies will have to demonstrate clearly the openness to social
problems. Much of this rule-setting activity takes place behind the closed
doors and with limited participation by the non-enterprise sector.
22. More generally, if the problems of democratic
governance and the social consequence of globalization are not to lead to a
disruptive backlash against the entire process of international economic
integration, perhaps in the form of a resort to national protectionism, then
ways have to be found to ensure that the benefits are more fairly distributed.
It was shown long ago that the crucial argument for free trade, that everyone
could be better off, depended on the winners being prepared to compensate the
losers.
23. In practice, domestic adjustment strategies
incorporating this compensation principle have been notoriously weak. Not only
do they need to be revived but they also need to be extended internationally
in a world where the process of liberalization, contrary to the claims of its
most aggressive supporters, has not led to a convergence of national incomes
per head but to increasing divergence. The major achievement of western
democracies after the world war two was to combine allocative efficiency,
driven by market forces, with a concern for equity and justice. This is the
basic lesson of our history which cannot be ignored. We have to find ways to
make global capitalism socially acceptable in order to avoid a lurch to
totalitarian alternatives. For the social acceptance this is the domestic –
national, regional and local - level that matters.
24. Perhaps the real triumph of capitalism in the 20th century was its ability to regain popular legitimacy via the intervention of
governments to ensure low levels of unemployment and more acceptable
distributional outcomes. Another feature of the late 20th century
capitalism is that has developed in many varieties and is supported by
different institutional arrangements. The question now is whether this
tolerance of national varieties is under threat from those who see
globalization in normative terms. Does the approach which seeks to harmonize
policies and to set rules in the areas which have traditionally been regarded
as matters for national policy and national preferences represent a radical
change from the original philosophy behind the creation of the Bretton Woods
institutions. This philosophy was to create an environment of international
financial stability that would underpin the development of the world trade
that would allow countries to develop.
25. Today we face the same challenge – how to ensure room
for national preferences while pursuing the globalization agenda. When
countries established new market institutions there is the necessity to enable
them to become embedded in the broader framework of national political and
social values. If those social and political values and preferences are
attacked in the name of the new global economy, the chances are that there
will be a backlash against that system of the economy rather than a change in
values. Values are universal if you can adopt them your own way. The point of
globalization therefore is not that it is global, the point is that it be
local.
26. It remains to be seen which values will eventually be
shared on a global scale. The question is who will participate in decisions
shaping the global agenda. What will be the role of cultural sensitivity. The
real issue of globalization is how to manage diversity, how to take advantage
of it, how to use it in the world of increasing interdependence.
Globalization, especially in the short and mid term, widens gaps between those
who are better equipped to benefit from it and those who are not. This is true
for any process of a social change.
27. Most of the countries of the world are unable to
exploit the opportunities of liberal markets but are very vulnerable to the
costs of adjustment. To strengthen the capacity to benefit from open trade and
capital movements, good governance, appropriate legislations and institutions,
effective implementation of the laws and rules are required, but also a wide
range of micro-economic reforms are necessary. This has been underlined by the
experience of many transitions economies. But also important is capacity
building through education and especially in creating an infrastructure for
the better absorption and adaptation of more advanced technologies.
Technological change and its diffusion in the South and in many of countries
with economies in transition is very slow. For attracting DI, which can
sometimes provide a vehicle for the transfer of technology and modern
management techniques, the low cost of labour does not compensate for the low
level of productivity and, just as important, the inadequacies of the legal
and institutional structure. In this perspective the brain drain, not only a
consequence of poor opportunities in many developing and transition economies
but also of deliberate policy on the part of a few dominant countries, makes
it even more difficult to close the gap between the embodiment of social and
institutional capital in the transition and developing economies, on the one
hand, and the developed market-economies, on the other.
28. The real challenge for all of us is to get all those
affected, involved and caring into one credible, legitimate, transparent and
efficient framework for consensus building and decision making. This framework
should be sufficiently multilateral to avoid its use for national interests,
making all countries feel they have a say, feel they are an integral part of
the structure and mechanism. The world has changed so much that nobody should
be surprised that there is a need for a new approach to the way we cope with
the matters that go beyond national borders. Only if such a machinery is
efficient and legitimate, the threat of nationalism can wane. This century is
likely to produce more experimentation with international institution building
and integration of political systems than ever before. The political
revolution of the 90s has given us a chance to create a global market economy
and to share the benefits with all of the world’s people. This chance has
not yet been fully exploited.
29. We all need an in-depth reflection on the key challenge
today which is the coherence between globalization and domestic policies. This
relationship goes both ways – global developments affect the directions,
ways and means of domestic policies, the latter should be a building block of
a massive cooperation effort. In this world of today we are increasingly
depending on each other. This creates mutual interest – at home, on the
country level, where the partnership between governments, business community,
civic society is the only way to address major concerns of our societies; at
the international level – both regional, interregional and global.
30. The last 50 years have seen considerable policy
changes, often going towards extremes that many of us thought unthinkable.
Although this is a matter for a debate, it is hardly an effective policy to
move from one extreme to another. It follows that a proper balance is of the
essence. In everything we undertake, a judicious mixture must be found,
combining the best of old and new, hard and soft, global and national.