The most striking aspect of today's readings for me were the differing perceptions of the morality of market economies and globalization offered by the authors. Stiglitz, for example, expresses a great deal of concern that economic globalization has been conducted in a largely immoral manner. This he demonstrates by pointing to the inability of globalization to decrease poverty and inequality on a global scale. He argues that globalization has, thus far, succeeded only in making the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. Such "global imbalances" he states, "are morally unacceptable and politically unsustainable." By using such charged phrasing as "morally unacceptable" Stiglitz elevates his discussion of economic globalization to new levels.
Wolf, on the other hand, while entering into a lengthy discussion of the morality of market economies largely ignores the the effects of such markets' interactions with the rest of the world. Though he persuasively argues that market economies are more moral than any other past arrangment, he does not address the potential such economies have for behaving immorally in the global sphere. At one point he says that the free market makes "people richer and more concerned about environmental damage, pain and injustice," yet he does not discuss (at least not at this point in the book) whether or not this heightened concern or awareness actually produces positive changes internationally. Stiglitz also acknowledges this heightened awareness of damage, pain and injustice but does not seem convinced that this heightened awareness has led to any strong pushes to offset them.
I am very interested to see how and if Wolf addresses this potential that the free-market has for producing immoral outcomes on the international scale. How do we extend the democratic principles which govern the market here at home to international activities and so prohibit immoral outcomes abroad which would never be tolerated here at home?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)