The proper political response to the New Age
Publius makes the interesting argument that "we are not living in a new, unprecedented era", despite technological difference between now and, say, 100 years ago. Instead, he argues that "all we are living in is the next logical phase of the industrial revolution", which is globalization. The proper political response to globalization, he argues, is not incremental Clintonian policy, but policy that focuses on international responses to the globalized economy.
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem it mistakes a change in kind for a change in degree. This is also the argument that Thomas Friedman addresses in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree". Most political economists know that what we call globalization today pales in comparison to the globalization of the 19th century, when the British Empire provided a gold standard that allowed for the easy exchange of goods, labor, and services throughout the developed world, and led to rapid industrialization of the developing world. The problem is that this was all disrupted by World War I, which led to World War II, and the Cold War. The environment that allowed 19th century globalization to exist - friendly state relations, low trade barriers - resurfaced after the Cold War ended. Thus, the 1990s saw the rebirth of globalization. Thus, most observers of globalization say that today's globalized world is simply a bigger version of 19th century globalization.
However, this is wrong. Today, we have a difference in kind, not of degree. The difference is the global spread of information technology, spurred by the low cost of microchips, spurred by the growth of multinational corporations. The 19th century didn't see MNCs on the scale that we have them today, but the MNCs couldn't exist on today's scale without the existence of low-cost information technology. Today's globalizaiton is a difference in kind, not of degree, because it cannot be stopped by high trade barriers or unfriendly governments. Indeed, today;s globalization makes all regional conflict instantly global, even without a Cold War, because the regional actors can use information technology, and other technology, to affect the entire world.
This is why Thomas Friedman refers to super-empowered angry men, because the state has become largely impotent when dealing with both multinational corporations and multinational terrorist organizations. Both types of groups use the exact same technology: cell phones, satellites, the Internet, etc. Both groups are outside of the sphere of control of local governments. That's why Osama bin Laden is such a challenge to capture, and why Mexico, Thailand, or Brazil, do the bidding of Intel, Ford, or McDonalds. MNCs bring the much needed capital for economic development, and small individuals use the technology provided by this capital and technology to copy the power of MNCs. A person can use the Internet and information technology to become a billionaire, move the funds to secure locations all over the world, and stay out of the reach of local governments and international agencies.
The difference between 21st century globalization and 19th century globalization is that governments actually mattered in the former. They do not matter in the latter. No matter how big or small governments get, they cannot control the flow of international capital, they cannot control the flow of international criminals, and they cannot control the flow of technology and software. This is why Napster and its clones are causing such a headache for the music industry, and why Microsoft caused such a headache for the United States government. The power to control the distribution of resources used to be in the hands of villages and townships, then the power shifted to states and national governments. Now, with 21st century globalization, power has shifted down the to individual. Any individual who is smart enough and wealthy enough to acquire as much, or more power, compared to any government. A government can invade another country. A wealthy individual can bankrupt another country, or create internal disorder.
This gets us to the second problem with Publius' argument. He advocates global political responses to the information age. Indeed, global political responses may come about at some point. However, the information age renders political responses moot.
Politics is the act of uniting with like-minded individuals to pool resources as a response to market failures. When the market is limited in reach, or fails to work as it should, politics is the only possible response because the government must provide a remedy. However, the information age and globalization allow the market to exist everywhere, and they make the market very robust - so much that even governments have to act like corporations and private firms.
Government simply isn't absolutely necesary anymore. It can help in certain situations, but it isn't critical. A government provides something that can now be provided by information technology: shared information. If we are interested in pooling resources, all we need to know is "who needs what?" If individuals can use information technology to identify and address needs, the only function for government is to protect individuals from faud. However, in an individual engages in fraud, the community will quickly recognize it and kick the individual out of the community. Hence, where governments imprison, information technology allows communities to exile. Indeed, exile is the old response of communities to criminal elements, before governments decided to build prisons and police forces.
So, we are living in a new age, and no amount of political response or will is going to change that. Globalization facilitated the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, but it wasn't stopped by it, or by any of the political changes that have resulted from it. No matter where the locus of control is - city, state, national, international - the power is now in the hands of individuals who know how to use information technology. Thus, the only proper political response is to use that technology to enhance communities. Communities are essential because only communities can exile individuals, or put pressure on individuals to change their criminal ways.
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem it mistakes a change in kind for a change in degree. This is also the argument that Thomas Friedman addresses in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree". Most political economists know that what we call globalization today pales in comparison to the globalization of the 19th century, when the British Empire provided a gold standard that allowed for the easy exchange of goods, labor, and services throughout the developed world, and led to rapid industrialization of the developing world. The problem is that this was all disrupted by World War I, which led to World War II, and the Cold War. The environment that allowed 19th century globalization to exist - friendly state relations, low trade barriers - resurfaced after the Cold War ended. Thus, the 1990s saw the rebirth of globalization. Thus, most observers of globalization say that today's globalized world is simply a bigger version of 19th century globalization.
However, this is wrong. Today, we have a difference in kind, not of degree. The difference is the global spread of information technology, spurred by the low cost of microchips, spurred by the growth of multinational corporations. The 19th century didn't see MNCs on the scale that we have them today, but the MNCs couldn't exist on today's scale without the existence of low-cost information technology. Today's globalizaiton is a difference in kind, not of degree, because it cannot be stopped by high trade barriers or unfriendly governments. Indeed, today;s globalization makes all regional conflict instantly global, even without a Cold War, because the regional actors can use information technology, and other technology, to affect the entire world.
This is why Thomas Friedman refers to super-empowered angry men, because the state has become largely impotent when dealing with both multinational corporations and multinational terrorist organizations. Both types of groups use the exact same technology: cell phones, satellites, the Internet, etc. Both groups are outside of the sphere of control of local governments. That's why Osama bin Laden is such a challenge to capture, and why Mexico, Thailand, or Brazil, do the bidding of Intel, Ford, or McDonalds. MNCs bring the much needed capital for economic development, and small individuals use the technology provided by this capital and technology to copy the power of MNCs. A person can use the Internet and information technology to become a billionaire, move the funds to secure locations all over the world, and stay out of the reach of local governments and international agencies.
The difference between 21st century globalization and 19th century globalization is that governments actually mattered in the former. They do not matter in the latter. No matter how big or small governments get, they cannot control the flow of international capital, they cannot control the flow of international criminals, and they cannot control the flow of technology and software. This is why Napster and its clones are causing such a headache for the music industry, and why Microsoft caused such a headache for the United States government. The power to control the distribution of resources used to be in the hands of villages and townships, then the power shifted to states and national governments. Now, with 21st century globalization, power has shifted down the to individual. Any individual who is smart enough and wealthy enough to acquire as much, or more power, compared to any government. A government can invade another country. A wealthy individual can bankrupt another country, or create internal disorder.
This gets us to the second problem with Publius' argument. He advocates global political responses to the information age. Indeed, global political responses may come about at some point. However, the information age renders political responses moot.
Politics is the act of uniting with like-minded individuals to pool resources as a response to market failures. When the market is limited in reach, or fails to work as it should, politics is the only possible response because the government must provide a remedy. However, the information age and globalization allow the market to exist everywhere, and they make the market very robust - so much that even governments have to act like corporations and private firms.
Government simply isn't absolutely necesary anymore. It can help in certain situations, but it isn't critical. A government provides something that can now be provided by information technology: shared information. If we are interested in pooling resources, all we need to know is "who needs what?" If individuals can use information technology to identify and address needs, the only function for government is to protect individuals from faud. However, in an individual engages in fraud, the community will quickly recognize it and kick the individual out of the community. Hence, where governments imprison, information technology allows communities to exile. Indeed, exile is the old response of communities to criminal elements, before governments decided to build prisons and police forces.
So, we are living in a new age, and no amount of political response or will is going to change that. Globalization facilitated the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, but it wasn't stopped by it, or by any of the political changes that have resulted from it. No matter where the locus of control is - city, state, national, international - the power is now in the hands of individuals who know how to use information technology. Thus, the only proper political response is to use that technology to enhance communities. Communities are essential because only communities can exile individuals, or put pressure on individuals to change their criminal ways.
posted by Marriah @ 6:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home