Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Bush's Challenge: Globalization Good for The Poor
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Going to College & Grad School Looks Like a Disaster
Nan Mooney
Democracy and Elections:
More Unfinished 2008 Election Business: Verifiable Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
California Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Compassionate Care
Tamar Todd
Election 2008:
Clues Obama Won't Govern Center-Right
Robert Creamer
Environment:
The Many Ways Our Future is a Mess
Michael T. Klare
ForeignPolicy:
A Diplomatic Storm Is Brewing over Pakistan and India After Mumbai Attacks
M.K. Bhadrakumar
Health and Wellness:
Obama's Plan to End the HIV/AIDS Crisis
Kaytee Riek
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Immigration Pathway Still Looks Uphill
Kirk Nielsen
Media and Technology:
Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives
Doron Taussig
Movie Mix:
Love Bites: What Sexy Vampires Tell Us About Our Culture
Sarah Seltzer
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Economic Downturn Hits Women the Hardest
Brittany Schell
Rights and Liberties:
Obama: Close, Don't Repackage, Guantánamo
Michael Ratner, Jules Lobel
Sex and Relationships:
Virtual Sex: How Online Games Changed Our Culture
Damon Brown
War on Iraq:
Would You "Shoot an Iraqi" in Cyberspace?
Gabriel Thompson
Water:
Water Neutral: Is the Latest Eco-Term Just Corporate Hype?
Jeff Conant
George Bush has thrown down the gauntlet, issuing a public challenge to the anti-corporate globalization movement. When hundreds of thousands last month demonstrated against the G-8 meeting of rich country leaders in Genoa, Italy, George Bush decried the activists, saying it was the advocates of corporate globalization who genuinely are seeking to advance the interests of the world's poor.
It's not enough to mock Bush's pretension of being a defender of the poor by pointing out that, through his giant tax cut, the president has overseen one of the history's great transfers of wealth to the rich in U.S. history. Critics must respond to his claims.
Unfortunately, that turns out to be a remarkably easy challenge to meet. The last 20 years of corporate globalization, even measured by the preferred indicators of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, have been a disaster for the world's poor.
Over the last two decades, Latin America has experienced stagnant growth, and African countries have seen incomes plummet. The only developing countries that have done well in the last two decades are those Asian countries that ignored the standard prescriptions of the IMF and World Bank.
The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has published compelling data comparing growth rates from 1980 to 2000 (during the period of ascending IMF/World Bank power, when countries throughout the developing world adhered to the IMF/Bank structural adjustment policy package of slashing government spending, privatizating government-owned enterprises, liberalizing trade, orienting economies to exports and opening up countries to exploitative foreign investment) with the previous 20 year period (when many poor countries focused more on developing their own productive capacity and meeting local needs).
The results: "89 countries -- 77 percent, or more than three-fourths -- saw their per capita rate of growth fall by at least five percentage points from the period (1960-1980) to the period (1980-2000). Only 14 countries -- 13 percent -- saw their per capita rate of growth rise by that much from (1960-1980) to (1980-2000)."
CEPR found that the growth slowdown has been so severe that "18 countries -- including several in Africa -- would have more than twice as much income per person as they have today, if they had maintained the rate of growth in the last two decades that they had in the previous two decades. The average Mexican would have nearly twice as much income today, and the average Brazilian much more than twice as much, if not for the slowdown of economic growth over the last two decades."
A follow-up CEPR study used a similar methodology to look at social indicators. CEPR found that progress in reducing infant mortality, reducing child mortality, increasing literacy and increasing access to education has all slowed during the period of corporate globalization, especially in developing countries.
The CEPR global comparisons across time show the bottomline, combined effect of the specific policy components of corporate-friendly policies imposed by the IMF and World Bank and enforced by free trade agreements. These include the following:
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More News and Analysis: | ||
|
The Many Ways Our Future is a Mess Environment: Even the government is now warning the US will face a world of greater dangers, more challengers and a paucity of reliable allies. By Michael T. Klare, The Nation. December 2, 2008. |
Clues Obama Won't Govern Center-Right Election 2008: Have progressives been suckered into supporting a President who will really govern from the 'center-right'? The short answer is no. By Robert Creamer, Blog for Our Future. December 2, 2008. |
Going to College & Grad School Looks Like a Disaster Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace: Thinking about going back to school in a weak jobs market? Students face a plague of loan problems, less aid and higher tuition and fees. By Nan Mooney, AlterNet. December 2, 2008. |