|
Amartya Sen on Globalization
|
 Where
does "our own" Nobel
laureate in
economics stand on
globalization?
Earlier this year, I
reviewed The
Argumentative Indian by A Sen. A wide
ranging book with
sixteen essays on
Indian culture,
history, and
identity, it often
brims with that
perennially precious
thing: commonsense.
It also reveals his
abiding love of
India. Here, too,
Sen tackles
globalization from
his unique vantage
point as an
economist. Below is
an extract from my
review that
examines his views
on the topic.
Some fears about
globalization, Sen
says,
make it sound like
an animal-analogous
to the big shark in
Jaws-that gobbles up
unsuspecting
innocents in a dark
and mysterious way
... Globalization is
neither new, nor in
general a folly.
Through persistent
movement of goods,
people, techniques
and ideas, it has
shaped the history
of the world. India
has been an integral
part of the world in
the most interactive
sense. The forces of
ideological
separatism may be
strong in India at
present, as they are
elsewhere, but they
militate not just against the global
history of the
world, but also
against India's own
heritage. |
He warns us against
the temptation to
see globalization as
a "one-sided
movement that simply
reflects an
asymmetry of power
which needs to be
resisted."
Throughout history,
"different regions
of the world have
[benefited] from
progress and
development
occurring in other
regions." He points
out that a
millennium ago this
movement occurred in
the reverse
direction-with
"paper and printing,
the crossbow and
gunpowder, the
wheelbarrow and the
rotary fan, the
clock and the iron
chain suspension
bridge, the kite and
the magnetic
compass," zero, the
decimal system, and
advances in
mathematics-but he
is conspicuously
silent about how the
unprecedented scale
of today's
globalization, with
its pace and engine
of change, instant
flights of capital,
rapid demographic
shifts, and powerful
corporations, might
differ from that of
an earlier age.
Sen acknowledges
that economic
globalization poses
risks to the
vulnerable and the
disadvantaged and
his prescriptions
appear close to the
neo-liberal line:
It's inescapable, so
let's try to make it
more humane and
just. Rather than
isolating itself or
blaming the "shark"
of globalization,
India should get
behind it and,
through smart public
policies, tackle
specific ills that
arise from it, as
well as invest in
education, health
care, micro-credit,
land reforms,
women's education,
and infrastructure
(like energy,
communication,
transportation). He
favors safety nets
and well conceived
social welfare
programs that do
less harm than good
(who can disagree,
but here Sen betrays
no awareness that
this old problem is
known to ensnare
even the best kind
of reasoning). He
has used part of his
Nobel Prize money to
fund development
research in India
and Bangladesh. He
has persuasively
argued that
development should
be measured not by
GDP but in terms of
"real freedoms
people can enjoy." |
|
But Sen's analysis is not
without its flaws. He writes: "Global economic interactions bring general
benefits, but they can also create problems for many, because of
inadequacies of global arrangements as well as limitations of appropriate
domestic policies." If (a big if) these were addressed-Sen seems to
suggest-economic globalization should create few problems. This is
simplistic at best. Problems can also come from a culture's unpredictable
response to it. What novel set of beliefs will it provoke? Will they be
broadly liberal, rational, and conducive to economic success? Can we say
how the dust will settle? The patient may get worse, or trade one serious
illness for another. This recognition, far from turning us against
globalization, makes us more realistic about its effects. Factoring in
culture, Amy Chua, in her
World on Fire, provides sobering examples that contrast with many
of Sen's sanguine assumptions about "the crooked timber of humanity". |
|
| |
|
|
