World Opinion Supports Globalization
Toro @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:19 pm
Well, global opinion still favours globalization, or at least its instruments.
The composition of the poll
$1:
The poll of 37,572 people was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 32-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed between October 2005 and January 2006.
It excludes China and most of Saharan Africa, but includes Nigeria, Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania Senegal, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Indonesia.
But first, the bad news. World opinion on economic prospects is mixed.
$1:
As the World Economic Forum meets in Davos this week to talk about the international economy, a new BBC World Service poll of 32 nations finds highly divergent economic perceptions in countries around the world. In 15 countries majorities or pluralities see conditions in their country getting better, while in 17 they see conditions getting worse.
Evaluating the global players
NGOs 60% mainly positive v. 12% mainly negative
UN 59% v. 16%
World Bank 55% v. 18%
News media 48% v. 24%
IMF 47% v. 21%
Global companies 41% v. 26%
$1:
Rating of Global Players
The poll also asked respondents to evaluate a number of economic global players and found surprisingly high levels of approval for the World Bank given the level of criticism it has received. On average 55 percent rated it as having a positive influence in the world, while just 18 percent rated it as having a negative influence. Among the 32 countries polled, in 30 a majority (17 countries) or a plurality (13) rated the World Bank as positive. In only one country—Argentina—did a plurality (47%) say it is having a negative influence.
The poll also asked respondents to evaluate a number of economic global players and found surprisingly high levels of approval for the World Bank given the level of criticism it has received. On average 55 percent rated it as having a positive influence in the world, while just 18 percent rated it as having a negative influence. Among the 32 countries polled, in 30 a majority (17 countries) or a plurality (13) rated the World Bank as positive. In only one country—Argentina—did a plurality (47%) say it is having a negative influence.
World Bank
Nigeria 83% mainly positive v. 6% mainly negative
Kenya 81% v. 5%
Tanzania 79% v. 8%
Ghana 76% v. 6%
Congo 75% v. 6%
Senegal 74% v. 6%
South Africa 58% v. 5%
Zimbabwe 43% v. 19%
Indonesia 80% v. 12%
Afghanistan 79% v. 7%.
India 51% v. 9%
Iraq 44% v. 18%
Iran 42% v. 21%
USA 47% v. 28%
Canada 43% v. 28%
$1:
Global companies received the lowest positive ratings (average of 41%) compared to all other global players, and the highest negative ratings (26%). In only 6 countries did a majority rate global companies as having a positive influence, though in another 16 a plurality did. Eight countries rated them negatively—7 by pluralities and one by a majority. Two countries were divided.
The International Monetary Fund is not as well regarded as the World Bank, but still, on average a plurality of 47 percent see it as having a positive influence and just 21 percent see it has having a negative influence. In 29 countries a majority (13 countries) or a plurality (16) views it positively. The only two countries in which a majority views it negatively are Argentina (60%) and Brazil (57%), which have recently paid off their loans from the Fund so as to free themselves from its influence. A plurality of 49 percent is negative in Turkey as well.
Of all the global players examined in the poll, NGOs (“Non-governmental organizations such as environmental and social advocacy groups”) got the highest grades with an average of 60 percent rating them as having a positive influence on the world, just 12 percent negative. NGOs were rated positively across all 32 countries polled, in 25 by a majority.
The United Nations was close behind with 59 percent rating it positively—however, this is down from last year’s BBC World Service Poll in which 66 percent rated it positively. Just 16 percent rated it negatively this year. In 30 countries a majority (23 countries) or a plurality (7) sees it as having a positive influence.
The International Monetary Fund is not as well regarded as the World Bank, but still, on average a plurality of 47 percent see it as having a positive influence and just 21 percent see it has having a negative influence. In 29 countries a majority (13 countries) or a plurality (16) views it positively. The only two countries in which a majority views it negatively are Argentina (60%) and Brazil (57%), which have recently paid off their loans from the Fund so as to free themselves from its influence. A plurality of 49 percent is negative in Turkey as well.
Of all the global players examined in the poll, NGOs (“Non-governmental organizations such as environmental and social advocacy groups”) got the highest grades with an average of 60 percent rating them as having a positive influence on the world, just 12 percent negative. NGOs were rated positively across all 32 countries polled, in 25 by a majority.
The United Nations was close behind with 59 percent rating it positively—however, this is down from last year’s BBC World Service Poll in which 66 percent rated it positively. Just 16 percent rated it negatively this year. In 30 countries a majority (23 countries) or a plurality (7) sees it as having a positive influence.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Econo ... 06_rpt.pdf
karra_redux @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:22 pm
Graphs pour favor el-Toro. . . .
Toro @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:51 pm
Excusa, Srta. Karra
Unfortunately, I do not have the graphs you are so fond of.
But I would like to add, if I may be so bold, that it is a great pleasure to have such an inteligente bonita like yourself in our presence.
Banff @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:27 pm
I can't seem to figure out how globalization does or will change anything in a world of interest and disinterest except in regards to imposing resource supply and demand rights on any given country .
Scape @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:47 pm
The race to the bottom is clearly visible in the job markets.
$1:
The win-win endorsement of globalization -- that the development of poor countries is a huge plus for rich, developed countries -- was first coined in Davos. There have been anti-globalization protests associated with this event for years. But this year is different. The debate has moved from the outside to the inside. Serious challenges to globalization are now being openly aired in the rooms and corridors of Davos’s fabled Congress Centre.
The reasons behind this shift are not hard to fathom. One of the “wins” in the win-win of globalization has failed to materialize. Job creation and real wages in the mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the developed world to be either jobless, or wageless -- or both. That this shortfall has occurred in the midst of accelerating globalization and surging global trade is all the more disconcerting.
The reasons behind this shift are not hard to fathom. One of the “wins” in the win-win of globalization has failed to materialize. Job creation and real wages in the mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the developed world to be either jobless, or wageless -- or both. That this shortfall has occurred in the midst of accelerating globalization and surging global trade is all the more disconcerting.
The boondoggle of "more jobs through open trade" looks real - in theory. But when people lose their job and have to wait 20 years for a better job to be created, that advantage are hard to explain to them.
Example: A farmer kills his cow. At first it is great: He fires the milkmaid, eliminating his labor costs. He is getting a good price for the meat! But, just about the time the meat is all gone, he starts to notice he is no longer selling milk.
Synopsis: there is no back up plan.
Knoss @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:26 pm
Hey Scape you are aware that this country has both excess slaughter capactiy and record number of cattle in all age groups, including old cows, besides which the cattle industry has dependended on free trade since the first cattle drive from Texas to Saskatchewan and Alberta 120 years ago.
Scape @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:31 pm
The cow was a metaphor for the labour market.
Knoss @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:44 pm
What i belive what we need is a fourth lavel of government. If Canada, USA and EUROPA formed a Union under a President, unilateral parlemetn and a constitution. As well if the African Union united under a constitution, If the another such union combined the democratic nations of the middle east, and a union of Asian nations exhisted then we would be much closer to world peace.
Numure @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:49 pm
Knoss Knoss:
What i belive what we need is a fourth lavel of government. If Canada, USA and EUROPA formed a Union under a President, unilateral parlemetn and a constitution. As well if the African Union united under a constitution, If the another such union combined the democratic nations of the middle east, and a union of Asian nations exhisted then we would be much closer to world peace.
Actually, much closer to world war, civil war et al. If such do not exist, is because such is not wanted.
Knoss @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:53 pm
Why not if France and Germany can be under one union, and if Quebec and newfoundland cne be under one Federation, why can't Canadaand EUROPA be in one nation.
Toro @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:36 pm
Scape Scape:
The race to the bottom is clearly visible in the job markets.
The boondoggle of "more jobs through open trade" looks real - in theory. But when people lose their job and have to wait 20 years for a better job to be created, that advantage are hard to explain to them.
Example: A farmer kills his cow. At first it is great: He fires the milkmaid, eliminating his labor costs. He is getting a good price for the meat! But, just about the time the meat is all gone, he starts to notice he is no longer selling milk.
Synopsis: there is no back up plan.
$1:
The win-win endorsement of globalization -- that the development of poor countries is a huge plus for rich, developed countries -- was first coined in Davos. There have been anti-globalization protests associated with this event for years. But this year is different. The debate has moved from the outside to the inside. Serious challenges to globalization are now being openly aired in the rooms and corridors of Davos’s fabled Congress Centre.
The reasons behind this shift are not hard to fathom. One of the “wins” in the win-win of globalization has failed to materialize. Job creation and real wages in the mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the developed world to be either jobless, or wageless -- or both. That this shortfall has occurred in the midst of accelerating globalization and surging global trade is all the more disconcerting.
The reasons behind this shift are not hard to fathom. One of the “wins” in the win-win of globalization has failed to materialize. Job creation and real wages in the mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the developed world to be either jobless, or wageless -- or both. That this shortfall has occurred in the midst of accelerating globalization and surging global trade is all the more disconcerting.
The boondoggle of "more jobs through open trade" looks real - in theory. But when people lose their job and have to wait 20 years for a better job to be created, that advantage are hard to explain to them.
Example: A farmer kills his cow. At first it is great: He fires the milkmaid, eliminating his labor costs. He is getting a good price for the meat! But, just about the time the meat is all gone, he starts to notice he is no longer selling milk.
Synopsis: there is no back up plan.
I like Roach and I vote for him in the II poll every year. His argument has to be put into context. First, as you can see, the recessions in the 1970s and 1980s had more room to add jobs since less of the population was working.
Employment to Population Ratio
http://economistsview.typepad.com/
He's partly correct when he says that the global labour arbitrage is putting pressure on wages. And my guess is that returns to capital will outstrip returns to labour for some time.
However, his argument must be understood in context. The unemployment rate in the US rose to 6.4% at the height of the recession. At its nadir, it was 3.8%. But that low is an illusion because those jobs were created by a bubble, and would not have been created without the artificial boom. Until the late 1990s, economists thought the natural rate of unemployment was around 5%, and around there inflation began to heat up (like today, for instance). So when you take into consideration that the artificial bubble boom tacked on 1.2% to employment, the "real" job losses were much smaller, and the "real" unemployment rate only rose to 1.4%. In past recessions, the unemployment rate rose 2.5-3.5% from the bottom. So, in a "normal" recession, unemployment would have risen to 7.5-8.5%. But it did not, since the government induced massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. If the government had allowed a "normal" recession to occur, the snap-back would have been much greater and more jobs would have been created as the economy accelerated off the bottom. However, the government chose to alleviate the pain and take volatility out of the economy. Surely, that's a good thing, right? I mean, you don't want to be creating more unemployment now just so you can say that you created more jobs later.
Second, I've posted this elsewhere, and I'll avoid posting the entire data series, but here's the per capita real increase in income over time. (I can post the entire series and links if you want.)
Real per capita wage growth.
1930s 0.4%
1940s 4.3%
1950s 2.5%
1960s 3.3%
1970s 1.4%
1980s 1.7%
1990s 2.0%
2000s 0.6%
Total 2.1%
Real per capita total income growth.
1930s -0.2%
1940s 4.0%
1950s 2.3%
1960s 3.2%
1970s 2.3%
1980s 2.5%
1990s 1.9%
2000s 1.2%
Total 2.2%
Looked at another way, real per capita annualized wage growth
1935-1944 9.3%
1945-1954 -0.5%
1955-1964 1.9%
1965-1974 2.7%
1975-1984 1.1%
1985-1994 1.6%
1995-2004 2.1%
or
1945-1974 1.4%
1975-2004 1.6%
or
1980-2004 1.7%
Real per capita annualized income growth
1935-1944 8.1%
1945-1954 0.0%
1955-1964 2.1%
1965-1974 3.1%
1975-1984 2.3%
1985-1994 1.8%
1995-2004 2.1%
1945-1974 1.7%
1975-2004 2.1%
or
1980-2004 2.1%
You can still see that America is creating jobs here
(EDIT - Ooops! Transfered the wrong number.)
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
2000 ............. 136,891
December (05)............ 142,779
6 million jobs this decade, a bit below average compared to the past.
Finally, personal income was up 9.4% in 2005 and 5.9% in 2004, both well above the rates of inflation
(Table 6 in the excel sheet)
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchi ... pi1205.htm
So there is no race to the bottom. In fact, its a race to the top.
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:50 pm
Knoss Knoss:
Why not if France and Germany can be under one union, and if Quebec and newfoundland cne be under one Federation, why can't Canadaand EUROPA be in one nation.
OK Buddy out of the pool, until you learn how to swim!!!!
Scape @ Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:28 am
David Ricardo and his theory of comparative advantage is the basis of the argument for globalization. The theory is riddled with idealized assumptions has serious flaws as it is based upon a static model. The dynamics and time lags which occur in real economic exchanges have serious side-effects and the process to reach the promised advantages can be decades long. How many are willing to sacrifice their current standard of living on the promise of a better tomorrow that they themselves will never partake in even at the most optimistic time table?
Trade is good and has benefits. But to let it run wild without at least retaining the social wins of the last centuries is pure corporatism. It will have serious repercussions and there will be a serious backlash that will threaten to destabilize the bedrock of the economy because they are the bedrock of the economy. Like it or not a highly educated workforce has needs and the current setup has sacrificed long term gains for short term pay-offs.
Productivityhas reached record levels but personal income has dropped like a stone. Simply put the people who keep the economy running are openly questioning when they will get theirs and their demands will only grow louder . Massive layoffs in the auto industry coupled with the out and out scuttling of pensions in the airline industry has shaken the faith in the American dream.
This is not to say that globalism should be stopped altogether but it has been over sold and it is under performing to the very demographic that it was supposed to raise the standard of living for. If they lose faith the whole scheme may well unravel. This would be more counterproductive than the inconvenience of addressing their very basic concerns.
Lastly we must not dismiss that the peddlers of globalizations have made their own bed.
$1:
But members of staff say that discontent has begun to simmer, in particular at the appointment by Wolfowitz of former US administration insiders to senior positions as he promotes an aggressive campaign against corruption [sic].
Some appointments were uncontroversial, such as his choice of Swedish national Lars Thunel as head of the International Financial Corporation, the Bank's lending arm, and of Italian Vincenzo La Via as chief financial officer.
But other job placements have caused a stink, notably the naming this month of Suzanne Rich Folsom as director of the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity, its anti-corruption unit.
The Republican lawyer, who is close to the White House, now keeps tabs on all of the Bank's 10,000 personnel in Washington and around the world to ensure they are administering funds cleanly.
Rich Folsom, whose husband leads the International Republican Institute, had already been serving as an adviser in Wolfowitz's private office since June.
Wolfowitz has brought in his Pentagon aide Kevin Kellems, who was also spokesman to Vice President Dick Cheney, as his special adviser and director of strategy for external affairs.
Robin Cleveland, Wolfowitz's new counsellor, was formerly associate director of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
The World Bank's staff association, its de-facto trade union, says Wolfowitz's appointments risk opening the organisation to charges of hypocrisy when it demands transparency of the poor countries that receive its aid.
Some appointments were uncontroversial, such as his choice of Swedish national Lars Thunel as head of the International Financial Corporation, the Bank's lending arm, and of Italian Vincenzo La Via as chief financial officer.
But other job placements have caused a stink, notably the naming this month of Suzanne Rich Folsom as director of the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity, its anti-corruption unit.
The Republican lawyer, who is close to the White House, now keeps tabs on all of the Bank's 10,000 personnel in Washington and around the world to ensure they are administering funds cleanly.
Rich Folsom, whose husband leads the International Republican Institute, had already been serving as an adviser in Wolfowitz's private office since June.
Wolfowitz has brought in his Pentagon aide Kevin Kellems, who was also spokesman to Vice President Dick Cheney, as his special adviser and director of strategy for external affairs.
Robin Cleveland, Wolfowitz's new counsellor, was formerly associate director of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
The World Bank's staff association, its de-facto trade union, says Wolfowitz's appointments risk opening the organisation to charges of hypocrisy when it demands transparency of the poor countries that receive its aid.
This also had an effect on the 'hollow ring' Stephen Roach is referring to.
$1:
Like it or not, IT-enabled globalization has unexpectedly tilted the playing field. Labor markets in the industrial world have an increasingly hollow ring.
Toro @ Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:31 am
Scape Scape:
Productivityhas reached record levels
And Exxon earning $10 billion because the price of oil has gone to $70 demonstrates this how?
Scape Scape:
but personal income has dropped like a stone.
It hasn't been dropping like a stone. Its been rising like a, er, balloon (?)
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchi ... pi1205.htm
$1:
Personal income............................
2004 9,713.3
2005 10,462.6
2004 9,713.3
2005 10,462.6
And this is after a 6% gain in 2004.
Knoss @ Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:10 am
The biggest benifit of fre trade although it may have a negative effect on the quality of life in develpoed nations is the elimnation of poverty. If we can buy imported good for the same price as domestic goods made by immagrants then poeple wouldn't have to go halfway around the world, leave their families, and communities for a better life.