Internet, globalization and harmonization

How has the world Internet changed the power dynamics between the state and the society? How did the traditional control of the state over the communication slowly give in? What does this mean? Is the ever-expanding global communication system threatening to take over the traditional knowledge and mode of thinking? Relatedly, is the globalization and ensuing clash of civilizations, necessarily washing away the traditional cultural footprints? Is modernity diametrically opposed to culture and tradition?

This process is affecting how people think, interact with the world and build their pathways of survival... The information flow is however faster than people can absorb or reflect over. Does that make us as humans of 'shallow' and 'superficial' thinking... Time-management is a major problem in light of competitive demands and obligations. How can we manage our time in light of this information blast? For example, as an average American citizen can you keep up with everything that is happening in the presidential elections every day? Don't you feel overwhelmed? Don't you sometimes want to shut off the TV? I have decided to minimize my use of TV as much as possible. I can't promise the same about the Internet though.

In answer to some of these questions, I highly recommend to listen to the recent program Forum of BBC World Service with my own Professor Madhavi Sunder here. Professor Sunder is my favorite professor who influenced me to a great degree as a law student. Her scholarship crisscrosses many subjects, including Law and Modernity, Intellectual Property, International Human Rights, Women and culture...

Keynes and Globalization

Adam Smith (1723-1790), the mastermind behind the so-called Invisible Hand, wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Smith was wise in pointing to the inner needs of a human being and the vitality of creation of incentives. Unfortunately, as we know, the invisible hand did not do what Smith portrayed and greed in human society blocked the spillover effect of which he spoke about. The Great Depression in the beginning of the 20th century was largely a result of the failure of the Invisible Hand.

Therefore, the theories of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)(above) came as a revelation and a saviour. In contrast with Smith, Keynes propagated interventionist policies by government that would control and regulate the free markets. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very much under the influence of Keynes when devised the plan to take the country out of the Depression. Of course, as usually crude capitalism is synonymous with free markets and state intervention is always attacked as socialism... Moreover, nationalization of industries as one of the measures of the state to regulate the capricious markets and big business is assailed as anti-democratic. Putin's economic policies in Russia have been coined precisely that, while he is very much like Roosevelt in economic affairs...

Today it is virtually unassailable that domestic markets must be regulated. But the problem is how in this globalized world we can also learn to regulate international markets, so that international accumulation of wealth can be distributed evenly among nations... Since no nation has the incentive to do that (just like the individual businessman, only seeking his self-gain), this is the task of international organizations. But just like governments purporting to regulate markets and lobbied by big business, international organizations cannot be perfect and are often lobbied by stronger nation-states...

Globalization: a panacea?

I asked one of the Russian students in San Diego, "Why is Russia not joining the WTO?" He looked at me and said, "What will Russia get out of it?" I did not have a quick response to that but it made me think... Many ask similar questions that have as its source the dissatisfaction with 'internationalization' and globalization. In the 90s the rate of globalization was very speedy and disorganized. It left many countries and cultures marginalized, because its blessings were not shared with by many. Joseph Stiglitz captured the picture excellently in his famous "Globalization and its Discontents." Today, however, many have realized that globalization is not a choice but a reality. But why is it that people view globalization and one of its by-products-- growth and development of international organizations with such illusory expectations. Nobody promised that 'internationalization' would be panacea for all our troubles. Joining international organizations like the WTO entails not only benefits, but first of all obligations that often are difficult to carry out. For India it meant a fundamental restructuring of its manufacturing of generic drugs, due to the TRIPS agreement (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights). Just like a citizen of the civil society has obligations before the law and the society, a member of the international community also has heightened obligations before the world. So then what are the benefits? Going back to the question posed to me by the Russian student, the benefits are not quantifiable or ascertainable because 'internationalization' involves a process to direct domestic resources for the benefit not only of one's country but also at least not to the detriment of other countries. Perhaps, one can argue that only international cooperation can alleviate the problems in the world, etc. But once again globalization was never supposed to be a curing medicine to our wounds and of course, like every medicine it has its side effects... People should not view international organizations or the law for that matter from the perspective of a utilitarian, especially when the human rights law is concerned... Therefore, the question should not be 'what I would get out of it?' but 'how I can meet my obligations and be a team player with the international community.' Read Professor Anupam Chander's "Globalization and Distrust" for a compelling analysis of these issues.