Globalization
...st of all, Locke doesn’t tell us who is the one to decide which countries produce what, ignoring the fact that it is the major world powers who are the sole decision makers in this respect, guided by their own self interests. To make matters clearer we need to give examples. Taking Locke’s example of Nigeria and the U.S, it is basically the U.S that decides what Nigeria should or should not produce depending on the U.S needs and interests and not on what Nigeria needs. Nigeria may need to produce more basic subsistence crops and products to be self reliant and not produce T-shirts to satisfy U.S needs. A distortion in Nigeria’s economy would be the immediate consequence of this policy. Taking Egypt as a real example, we shall find that this theory of comparative advantage distorts Egypt’s economy. The U.S, according to trade agreements with Egypt decided to export wheat to Egypt. This is because the U.S has surplus wheat and doesn’t want its price to go down so as not to discourage the U.S wheat farmers. Therefore, it sells wheat to Egypt at good prices. This in turn demotivates Egyptian farmers from producing wheat, which is a basic subsistence product for the whole population and make them shift to more profitable crops that could be beneficial for exportation. This distorts the economy of Egypt and maintains its state of dependency on the U.S and on the major world corporations. So this system obviously serves the economic interests of the developed countries only, even though it may seem mutually beneficial. This has been confirmed by Jerry Mander in her article “Economic Globalization and the Environment” who states that global corporations benefit, while individuals, communities and nations become vulnerable and dependent. Therefore the theory that all countries should specialize in what they produce maintains a state of economic dependency of poor countries on richer ones, and this is as Jerry Mander states, “neo-colonialism.” As Mander explains, diversity in industrial and agricultural systems makes a country independent, while specialization makes countries “extremely vulnerable to political decisions abroad, or to the shocks and whims of the market and commodity pricing systems.” So the land that once grew enough food for its local citizens is now converted by the large corporations into a land that produces export products and the end result, as Mander points, out is landless, hungry and dependent communities. Therefore, Locke cannot claim that the benefit of globalization is based on comparative advantages. Another argument made by Locke is that it is “absurd” to fear that multinational corporations can threaten the sovereignty of small nations. He states that “governments have the power of physical coercion (guns) ; corporations do not; they have only the dollar—they function through voluntary trade. This argument is fallacious. In our age of economic development and growing monopolies the dollar is stronger than the gun. This is evident as we find how economic colonization is more dangerous than military colonization, and how people who are economically stronger are also politically and militarily stronger. Therefore Locke cannot belittle the great economic power of the dollar because people who can’t produce their own food and who depend on others to feed them, need the dollar more than the gun to stay alive. With globalization, economic dependencies of poor nations on developed ones increase and so these countries gradually become controlled by the dollar and it’s market value and become easier to control not only economically but also politically. According to one famous saying, a country that can’t grow its own food can’t secure its sovereignty. Therefore comparing the strength of the dollar with the strength of the gun is a comparison in favor of the dollar and not vice versa as Locke claims. Another fallacy in Locke’s argument here is his use of the expression “voluntary trade.” Voluntary by definition means according to one’s own free will without outwards pressure of any kind. Under this system of globalization, nothing becomes voluntary anymore since countries who refuse to merge in the system are penalized directly and indirectly. Directly, as stated by Mander, when the Wo...