Seattle brought two distinct protests into the open. The first is a reaction in the industrialized countries against the way economic logic has been allowed to supersede social and political concerns. Many segments of the public believe that, in the absence of any corrective influence, globalization is developing in a way that is increasingly forcing us to live in an economy rather than in a society. This perception helps explain why most polls in the United States reveal anxiety about the future at a time of unprecedented economic growth. It is mirrored in French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin’s oft-quoted remark: “Yes to the market economy. No to the market society.”
Let’s face it: obsessed with meeting the challenge of globalization, its attention riveted to the maximization of shareholder value, the corporate world has regrettably failed–with some notable exceptions–to take the full measure of the fears generated by change. Corporations have not provided any convincing response to the erosion of the notions of security and predictability in people’s lives, or to the issues created by the elevation of success and competition to status of values. In the triumphalist thesis of globalization, a rising economic tide is supposed to lift all boats. Any suggestion of trade-offs between economic-efficiency imperatives and social imperatives has been seen as an unacceptable interference with the free play of market forces. On too many occasions, the social dislocations created by globalization have been dismissed as the unavoidable manifestations of change.
This “globalization machismo” has been compounded by a related force. The growing concentration of economic power has been paralleled by the shrinkage and limitation of national political power–with government’s role in economic affairs now deemed obsolete. More often than not, governments are in retreat, their margin of maneuver severely constrained by the new emphasis on fiscal discipline, their power challenged by the onslaught of international capital flows, their grasp of the issues put into question by sweeping technological changes.
With the growing perception of a breakdown of the balancing mechanisms which existed in our societies, many now see direct action as the only resort left for venting frustrations and concerns, for expressing aspirations. This helps explain the multiplication of NGOs, and the rise of their impact. This is why commentaries and articles extolling the virtues and benefits of free trade are off the mark: people react against the globalization process not out of ignorance but because they realize only too well what this process, left to its own logic, risks doing to their lives.
That’s why, after Seattle, we need to focus on a number of issues. Among them: What is the most efficient form of a partnership between government and business to meet the requirements of the knowledge-based economy? How can governments provide the appropriate level of protection to the most vulnerable segments of society without creating unsustainable financial burdens or bureaucratic rigidities? The point here is not to choose between “small” or “big” government; it is to redefine government’s very mission.
Corporations, too, need to change. As many business leaders recognize, there is a social responsibility of the corporation to make sure that the sustainability of globalization is realized through a strong ethical dimension. What, for example, should business do about the environment? How can the potential of the Internet revolution and of globalization be leveraged so as to reduce the digital divide? In other words, what kind of policies and initiatives–at the business as well as at the government levels–would help globalization create a more inclusive prosperity?
We get here to the second type of protest exemplified in Seattle. The failure of the WTO meeting was a clear warning signal that globalization will suffer more serious challenges if its pace, modalities and agenda are seen as dictated only by the priorities and needs of the industrialized countries. The present balance of economic forces at the international level cannot be seen as a license to overlook the concerns and priorities of the emerging economies. In effect, the Seattle fiasco has challenged us to create new models of collective decision-making processes at the international level. In short: how are we to build the structures and processes that help us govern globalization in order to achieve a more integrated world?
Seen in this light, Seattle gives us an opportunity. As we go forward into the new year, the memory of the demonstrations there should force us to focus on the unfinished agenda of globalization, on dimensions of the process which are essential but as yet neglected and missing. We have a chance to get globalization back on track; we should take it wholeheartedly.
