Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue,
I've asked you many times for you reasons and you've only slowly produced a couple of them. Now you're saying even those are only small parts of it. Why not simply explain your reasoning? Or maybe you're read too many books and gained a general impression without actually working it out yourself.
No, you've asked a series of questions, to which I've tried to provide specific answers. Your continued insults vis-a-vis being educated about an issue is getting tiring - I'd remind you that I work in these countries. I see first hand what works, and what doesn't.
Nor would I consider myself anti-globalization - its fine, it even offers 3rd/developing world countries many opportunities -
if implemented properly. I keep brining up the example of Brazil for a reason - while far from perfect, they have been able to develop their economy, become a regional power, and recently extended their reach well into international politics and the global economy. I.E. they are a poster child for industrialization and the benefits it can bring. The problem is, few are following their path - globalization remains largely what Brazil spent decades fighting against - LMC's from rich countries taking advantage of the poor living conditions and weak laws in these nations, while contributing little in terms of local economic development.
I'm really tired of people saying "low wages, poor working conditions". That's the standard rhetoric of anti-globalization people but it really isn't a problem without somebody enforcing it.
Not a problem? You may want to tell that to the ~100,000 people who die every day that their inability to buy adequate amounts of food isn't really a problem.
Its ironic that you claim I'm out of touch, while so clearly demonstrating you have no clue as to the magnitude or impact of the problem some of these countries face. What good is a job that pays $1/day, if that companies taken over all the local farms and thus you need to pay for imported food - at $2/day?
If I knock on your door and say "Hey Bryan, I have a fantastic job opportunity for you. 15 hour shifts, $1/day, no medical insurance, hazardous work. Quit your job and come work for me." Will you? No. But if I come with an army and drag you there, then destroy your home, perhaps you will. That 2nd part is certainly bad, but nobody can quite explain how it's done, or by whom. You say corruption is a small part of how it happens. What's the big part?
Your example is irrelevant - that is a pretty rare event. There is no big part; just thousands of small issues that add upto one huge problem. And its not the same country-to-country. In general terms, "sweatshop" labor practices, the loss of educated people to wealthier countries, failure to develop local industries, crime, corruption, poor governance, disease, low life expectancy, inability to compete with (often subsidized) foreign companies, lack of local capital/investors, inability to secure credit, outsourcing, child labor, dependence on aid, etc, all add up.
No, not all of them are globalization issues, but several of them are. And those countries which have successfully industrialized in the post-WWII era did so by directly targeting all of those factors.
open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.
Sorry but Brazil is only a sample size of 1. It doesn't count by your standards. Reading a book which supports your preconceived opinion is also not open minded.
Actually, the book changed my mind, not the other way around. Its why I recommend it (although I seem to have lost it). Other examples include Korea, the Warsaw block nations, Mexico, China, India, Singapore (and several other SE Asian countries), and so on. Some of those have completed industrialization, others are still working at it, but they all have gone past what most of the 3rd world has achieved - largely by countering those factors I mention above.
Why do you think China has such a huge internal population migration? Farmers who left the countryside to work in factories. They weren't pressured into it, in fact the government makes it difficult for them - they're often not entitled to the same rights and services as local people. Yet they do it, they're paid poorly, they work hard, but they're very upset if they lose their job and have to go home. This may be a sample of 1, but it's the biggest example in the world, it dwarfs any mines or factories in Africa.
Could you have come up with a more irrelevent comparison?
1) China is not a 3rd world country
2) China successfully industrialized in the 1950's
3) China industrialized in the absence of globalization forces - until the 1980's they banned foreign companies from operating within their borders.
4) China hasn't been a primarily agrarianism society for the better part of the 1900's.
5) China industrialized as a communist nation, and thus had a highly regulated economy
6) China industrialized in the presence of a strong government which rigorously prosecuted corruption
So I'm not too sure how you compare that to on-going industrialization primarily agrigarian societies, with unregulated economies, weak governments, and in which LMC's and other "globalization" factors are involved.
I still think, and you still havn't shown otherwise, that farmers in poor countries often don't have a very good life. That they actually prefer factory work, because however bad that is, it's better than what they had before.
Firstly, I never made that claim. I simply pointed out the well accepted (by international developmental agencies, anyways) fact that people in countries currently making the transition from aggrigarian to industrialized societies have experienced a decrease in their quality of life, and that those decreases are attributable, in part, by the way globalization effects the industrialization process.
Secondly, when I provided examples of development organizations which studied (and thus identified) this fact, you whined about me providing outside sources. Now you're whining that I didn't provide it, even though I did.
A few more examples:
The impact of globalization on a country's quality of life: toward an integrated model. MJ Sirgy, DJ Lee, C Miller, JE Littlefield - Social Indicators Research, 2004
Sustainable wealth creation at the local level in an age of globalization. L Newby - Regional studies, 1998
Globalizations impact on onestate and local policy: The Rise of Regional Cluster-Based Economic Development Strategies. CL Felbinger, JE Rohey - Review of Policy Research, 2001
Does globalization affect human well-being? MC Tsai - Social Indicators Research, 2007
Throughout those you will read the exact same thing I have been saying here:
1) Industrialization can improve peoples quality of life, if it is done in a fashion which promotes the development of a local economy, and
2) The current "model" of globalization tends to harm, not help, the people of the nations currently undergoing industrialization.
Bryan
