In reading the six assigned chapters of Foer’s text, there
seemed to be two underlying themes: all of the countries mentioned have failed
in their attempts in globalization and that time plays an important role in a
country’s instillation of policies or ideas to successfully globalize. All of
Foer’s examples of failed globalization have one distinct commonality: none of
them had successful institutions set up. Instead, their government often
consisted of dictators and or blatant forms of corruption within the
government. In addition, in all of Foer’s examples, globalization policies and practices
were instilled quickly and shortly thereafter, failed rapidly. One possible
reason for these rapid failures of policies and ideas could be pointed at those
who instilled them; generally these people had little experience in doing so. A
second possible reason is that they were simply not given enough time to evolve
and possibly flourish in the long run.
One argument for the reason why the United States is so
successful in its globalization efforts is due to the institutions we have set up. Our
democratic system of government, while flawed, is set up so that there are
constant checks and balances of government power to ensure that one branch of
government does not gain more power than the others. In addition to our checks
and balance system, the U.S. has a constitution and accompanying amendments
that grant rights and freedoms for citizens. One such right is the freedom to express any feelings (good or bad) openly. For example, you can openly yell out your negative feelings regarding the (lack of) efficiency of our government, or you can initiate peaceful protests, argue over controversial policies via twitter, etc. If you have an opinion, you have the freedom to voice it, and not only do you have the freedom, you are encouraged to exercise these freedoms. None of the countries
that Foer talks about in the reading have democratic institutions or democratic
societies. Thus making a connection that globalization is successful in
democratic societies where there is a balance of power and extensive rights for
citizens.
Something that I
noticed while reading the examples of failed globalization attempts in Foer’s
book is how time is a key factor with regards to a country’s success or failure
in globalization. For example, Foer talks about Brazil’s (less than) ten-year
period of economic growth and industrial boom (“Brazilian Miracle”) that hit a
bump after the 1972 oil shocks. Instead of adjusting Brazil’s economic growth
plans due to the oil shocks, the military dictatorship maintained its initial
intent and kept the economy aimed at its stellar growth rate; which meant more
state spending and more borrowing from foreign banks. This high rate of
borrowing and spending put the government into a $40 billion debt, which thus lead
to inflation and unemployment. Brazil’s attempt to globalize and become an international
power by enacting new policies and creating new public works projects was all
done extremely quickly. Just as quickly as the “Brazilian Miracle” began, it
crashed and burned. The lesson I took
away from this example is that globalization takes time. For a country to
implement an entirely new structure in order to create economic growth, like
Brazil did, it may have successful outcomes in the short run, however the
Brazilian government had no previous experience or knowledge on how to deal
with a bump in the road (the oil shocks) and maintain a steady growth rate. Had
Brazil took more time in developing its economic plan or had experts monitoring
the plans for economic growth, they may have been more successful. If you look
at the U.S. in contrast, which is a country that is known to be a globalized
country, it’s important to note that our success did not just come over night.
Again, taking a look at our political structure, it took a lot of time, trial
and error, patience and innovation to come up with our strong democratic
system; and even today, this system that we pride our self on as “the voice of
the people” is far from perfect. As the saying goes: slow and steady wins the
race and from my observations reading Foer’s book, this applies to
globalization as well.
Emily,
ReplyDeleteWould you say that it is the presence of institutions or the presence of institutions better able to take advantage of globalization that helps the US in this sense? In other words, did Brazil lack institutions or did it (for whatever reason) have institutions ill designed for what was coming?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteProfessor Shirk,
DeleteI think it was a combination of both. Brazil lacked institutions because of their poor government structure (a major institution.) Therefore I think the problem was that Brazil wanted to grow their economy, however the government didn’t have the necessary means to do so and therefore was unable to do so successfully. I believe this is where the role of the (non-governmental and governmental) institutions would normally step in to advise the government. However, Brazil did not have non-governmental institutions and therefore could not successfully instill practices which they had little knowledge in. Had the government brought in outside experts from globalized countries to advise their plans, I think that Brazil would have been better able to handle the problems they encountered (like the oil shocks). In addition, the Brazilian government would have been able to learn from an already successful country about how to create economic growth and how to deal with the unavoidable problems that arise in a country’s economy.
Emily,
ReplyDeleteI like the way you condensed a single facet of the Foer reading. It is an interesting case study in how the US is able to be successful at globalization, and whether or not institutions are at the root of that. You talk about the many checks and balances within our government, but does the government count as an institution when comparing it to countries that lack non governmental institutions? I like that your argument acknowledges the need for checks and balances in the face of globalization.
Thanks for sharing!
-AManda
Hi Amanda,
DeleteI think you offer a very valid question. I do think the government still counts as an institution even when comparing it to countries that don’t have non-governmental institutions because I believe that Brazil’s lack of non-governmental institutions in addition to the government’s lack of experience in enforcing new plans were the major issues causing the failed economy. I believe that Brazil was (in a sense) trying to copy the U.S. (and other Western countries) in their economic structure. However, the problem was that they took the parts of our structure that they liked and thought would lead to their own success but they did not have the advising or experience necessary to properly instill their economic plans and make sure they would lead to a successful outcome.
Emily,
ReplyDeleteYou did a really good job with this post. This is somewhat relatable to my post, where I was saying that some countries are simply not "ready" for globalization. A country can't just be like, "Alright, let's say yes to globalization!" It takes time, as you say. But how much time? In the world today, globalization is growing, and some nations are far more ahead than others. Do you think these nations that are behind will be able to "catch up", in a sense? For example, there are many failed/weak states in the world today that currently have no capacity to foster globalization. It will take a lot of time for these nations to build up their economic growth, even if they are democratic. But what if they never do? In this sense, there could always be impoverished nations. Is it good to have a balance of strong states and weak states in the international system? Do we want every country to foster globalization? These are questions I'm still pondering about, and do not quite have the answer to. I think a lot of people don't have answers to these questions.
Great job!
Hi Emily,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! As always, there is a lot of thought behind this. When you speak of institutions, at first it sounded like institutions by their framework nature provided support and stability that allowed globalization to succeed. As your argument progressed, however, I see that you pinpoint democracy as the specific institution which makes globalization successful. I agree with your point about how the rights that come with a democratic institution are helpful to globalization, but in addition, I am curious if you think any other institutions are capable of enabling globalization?