On the global fridge - how has the world integrated?

There are terms that have become self-evident. ‘Global’ became a household word in the 1990s although issues such as the future of the world and internationalisation had been discussed much longer. In today’s world money and people, together with their cultures, transgress national borders. Journalist Johanna Korhonen discusses the problems involved in globalisation and globalism.

I am writing this article dressed in an American pullover and a dress bought from Great Britain. As for the tights I am wearing, I know nothing of where they come from. My underwear is made in Britain. I have washed my hair with shampoo which has instructions for use in six languages.

Just a minute ago, I killed time by browsing thorough some Swedish web pages. Before that, I opened my fridge which contains Chinese soy sauce, Finnish milk and cheese, Spanish capers and a strange marzipan delicacy brought by my friend from Italy. I ate a carton of Finnish yoghurt.

On the table in front of me, I have an American computer and note pad, a photo album I bought from Rome, a Japanese wristwatch and gold rings from the USA, Greece and Finland.

After this review, I may not be able to claim I have a critical approach to the phenomenon called globalisation. Much discussed globalisation is all this.

ENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES?

There is more to globalisation than a variety of bric-a-brac from different places in homes and different foods in the fridge. Its greater, deeper impact tends to be neither seen nor heard. We can feel it, however, and many of us actually do feel it. To some people, the feeling is one of the boundless joy with regard to the infinite opportunities our globe seems to offer, for others it is a feeling of distress without a name: that one cannot cope or manage all this, a feeling that one is unable to comprehend, or know how to do anything at all, a feeling void of energy. I have a Finnish book describing the state of the world and Finland (Maailman tila ja Suomi), edited by Anu Kantola. I decided to use this book as one of my sources for this article.

In her preface, Kantola reminds us of some figures, staggering in their magnitude. In the period 1950 –1990, international tourism grew 17-fold. CNN television channel has viewers in 134 million homes in 140 countries. Music Television attracts an even bigger audience: people in 250 million homes watch MTV’s music videos. Charlie’s Angels and a Little House on the Prairie are the favourite television programmes of Saddam Hussein. Coca-Cola and Windows user interface are available almost all over the world. How come?

FREE TRADE

In simple terms, globalisation has permeated all levels of trade: from trade in goods and money, services and people, to trade in information.

Everything dates back to trade in goods. Those European countries which established colonies took a liking to their dependants’ products and their thirst for those products never exhausted itself. Although countries have carried on trade with each other for thousands of years, recent centuries have marked the advent of large-scale world trade. Today, it is hard to imagine a room which does not contain at least one imported product.

In the 20th century, practically all potential barriers to free world trade were abolished. The liberalisation of world trade, in the form of the GATT Rounds, was completed in the 1990s, and this resulted in the removal of most commercial tariffs and other national barriers to trade.

The liberalisation of trade paved the way to the free movement of money - free trade would be quite difficult if money were regulated. The free flow of money across borders can be seen and heard. Even the general public notices the waves of foreign exchange trading worth thousands of billion dollars, at least when currency pours into the jobbers’ pockets. In Finland the consequences of easing restrictions on loan taking from abroad, a process which started in the mid-1980, are widely known: a debt and bank crisis followed by a very severe recession.

Liberalisation of the services trade is taking place at the moment. If a Finn who has bought a computer dials the helpdesk number, the call may end up in Ireland. The telephone booking centre of a large European airline company operates in India, where the workforce is just as competent but labour is much cheaper than in Europe. A Finn can have an account in Spain and take out insurance from, say, Germany.

GERMANS IN HELSINKI

The movement of people is also unrestricted. Not surprisingly, tourism is possibly the largest field of industry in today’s world. Unemployed but active EU citizens can apply for work in other Member States. The movement of people in a global world does not mean, however, that tourists from Nigeria or Mongolia are likely to crowd the Senate Square with their cameras. Although you may see Germans, French or even Greeks in Helsinki, as a whole tourist traffic is one-way.

The globalisation of information has various consequences, not all of them good. The final outcome can only be guessed. Information through the CNN and the Internet can reach any corner of the world in seconds. No one can deny that it is a good thing for people oppressed by dictators to receive information from the outside world and be offered other opportunities, and for the rest of the world to know about their situation. But does the whole world really need the Bold and the Beautiful, Disney characters and Pokemons?

As greater freedom has dawned for retailers and their customers, stock jobbers and foreign exchange dealers, it has also opened the door to difficulties. Manufacturers in a rich country find it more convenient to pollute a poor country rather than their own country with their factories or hazardous waste. The poor country may even feel grateful: at least the rich manufacturer leaves it a couple of dollars better off.

TRIUMPH OF COMPETITION

Globalisation intensifies competition everywhere. In particular, this applies with respect to routine work not dependent on production place. If a Bangladeshi dressmaker sews a coat at cheaper price than her Finnish colleague, it is more economic for the Finnish clothing company to order the clothes from Bangladesh.

A Finnish customer rarely remembers to ask whether this Bangladeshi dressmaker has yet turned ten. Globalisation has also meant the shift of power from politicians to markets. Confronted with the benefits of global economy, the parliament of a small country is a puny force. Few have the courage to argue in the face of global economy.

Globalisation is often described as ‘development towards a mutual global village’. This is a bit misleading. If you think of the concept of a global village, you would picture a place where everything is near and where people work on the behalf of the whole community. This is not, however, the case: at present the income differences between the rich and the poor have only been increasing, and this development seems to be accelerating. Common goals are a mere illusion.

Globalisation creates pressures which divide even existing villages: when going from Aleksanterinkatu to the Railway Station, a Helsinki-based technomillionaire has to step aside to prevent himself from tumbling over citizens lying about on the street; their input is not competitive in any local, let alone global markets. To save the competitive edge of the national economy, these excluded are not to be pampered too much – otherwise common resources cannot be effectively concentrated on productive and internationally competitive activities.

JOINT RESPONSIBILITY – PARDON ME?

Global responsibility, global minimum work conditions, global environmental policies and global democracy have been suggested as a counter force against global economy and an increasingly global entertainment industry. In addition, what is needed are strong, functioning local communities and economies.

These ideas are fine but for some reason they are not so eagerly promoted as were free trade and foreign exchange trading. Many of the above-listed issues, in fact, are regarded as major obstacles to trade.

There are signs that this may change. Politicians in several countries have started to demand that power should be gradually returned to politicians from the markets, buyers and sellers. This is, however, an extremely slow and difficult process. The best remedy for globalisation can still be globalisation itself. Who knows if global consciousness will be able to bring about global change one day?

Johanna Korhonen