Progressives Dragged Along by Globalization

Progressives are struggling to come to grips with today's global economy. Yet we're missing two key things: a map of where we're going and the power to steer this country in the right direction.

We know the direction we don't want to go. Seattle crystallized opposition to the ravages of globalization. But progressives haven't been able to agree on an alternative. More and more activists seem to recognize that what we must counter isn't globalization itself, but the neoliberal conception of globalization. We should be fighting not to stop trade across borders, but to ensure that democracy, workers rights and the environment are improved by a global economy -- not eroded by it.

Progressives are far from the levers of power that matter most. Over the past 25 years, transnational corporations -- with the blessings of successive administrations -- have used quick transfers of capital and production as a way to avoid government and unions, the traditional counterbalances to corporate power.

Do progressives have an agenda that both incorporates a long-term economic vision and pulls the right levers to control capitalism in an era of globalization? Yes and no. We are still grappling with day-to-day struggles and working in relative isolation. But the pieces are starting to fit together -- in theory if not yet in practice.

The following is a survey of progressive efforts to shape the global economy. A dynamic combination of approaches -- used vigorously, flexibly and to mutually reinforcing effect -- will have the greatest impact. The key will be expanding these efforts and finding the right mix.

The Rules

The neoliberal conception of globalization is enforced by a nexus of international institutions and agreements: the WTO, IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, Deutsche Bank, NAFTA, MAI, etc. Robert Stumberg, a professor at Georgetown Law School and attorney for the Free Burma Coalition, warns that addressing these institutions and agreements must be part of any progressive strategy, since many of the most common tactics could be challenged under their provisions.

Even boycotts or voluntary codes of conduct, for example, could be held to be in violation of the WTO's "technical barriers to trade."

Progressives can deal with the international institutions in three ways: playing by the rules, working to change the rules, or simply ignoring the rules. Playing by the rules means scrambling to define the accepted common practice of an industry. "Industry will try to win the race to set its own standards -- and then they'll claim that's the accepted international standard," Stumberg says. "Then they'll say the ecological or social standard is a local standard and is therefore not acceptable."

Playing by the rules can yield results: President Clinton recently signed an International Labor Organization (ILO) agreement prohibiting indentured service for children, child prostitution and use of children in hazardous work. (Well, it's a start.)

Working to change the rules involves trying to influence the major institutional players. "The original conception of the international financial institutions is that they appropriately serve as a controlling influence over market forces," says Tom Schlesinger, director of the Financial Markets Center. "There's a lot of baby that shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water." In other words, we don't want to replace poorly regulated markets with unregulated ones.

Part of working to change the rules is contesting which institution's rules and regulations should take priority. If a WTO rule conflicts with an ILO rule, which should apply? Rather than accept WTO or NAFTA stipulations, activists can try to pick a better forum and make a case for its primacy. For example, Stumberg argues that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for the United States to prohibit non-governmental organizations or state governments from giving products "union-made" or "organically certified" labels. This kind of argument pits the Constitution against the WTO -- a battle the Constitution could win.