去年は、幸運なことにオーストラリア国立大(ANU)で政治経済＆国際関係のM.Aを取得したGLENN教授に教わった。わずか6人ほどのクラスで、教授からハンズアウトされた読み物を元に、開発学、理論と同時に、貧困問題や国際関係、政治、経済などのディスカッションをした。もっとも、人類学は「過去」の人間の行動や態度、習慣を執着して研究するイメージをもたれやすいのだけど、それは考古学や文化人類学、民族学なんかの影響によるものだろう。しかし、人類学における開発では、「今日」をもターゲットに世界情勢における問題等を人類学の方法論を使って研究するというもので、グローバルな問題を扱うので、人類学の中でわりとイメージしやすい学問であることに違いない。ここで得たスキルは渉外、折衝や企業コンサルなどにも役立ち、今後もその需要は社会学と同様、世界的に高まっていくことは間違いないだろう。
GLENN教授は残念ながらUSCにはもういない。キャリアアップのために国際機関に勤め、ミンダナオで仕事をしているようだ。本当に残念なのが、いい教授ほど、外に出て行ってしまうことが多いことだ。教員の質を保ちつづけるのは大学側のキャリアサポートや待遇も重要だし、それと失望させない意欲のある学生たちではないだろうか。高い学費はいい教授を確保するために使ってほしい。まして、多額の借金を返すためじゃなくて。
そんな中でグローバリゼーションのクラスで、理論のレビューを行っているので、GLENN教授からいただいたコピーのひとつ、Stiglitzの「Globalization and its discontents」を思い出し、もう一度読み直しを始めた。Stiglitzはノーベル経済学賞を受賞した、元世銀の肩書きを持つ、経済学者であり「Globalization and its discontents」は、Stiglitzの執筆したなかでもベストセラーで、グローバリゼーションがもたらした「世界の歪み」の原因は、世銀やIMFにもあると批判した。世銀やIMFが貧困国や第３世界に属する国を救う世界機関であるというのは表向きで、実際は非常に偽善的で、言葉は悪いが、実態は貧困を救うという名の下の世界的高利貸しであり、先進国と新興国の経済格差は開くばかりであるのはこうした行使権力をもつ世界機関の政策によるものという見方である。
とはいいつつも、Stigltzは世銀やIMFの世界的役割を完全否定しているわけでも、グローバリゼーションがもたらすのは悪だけではないと。IMFや世銀の世界的な役割をもう一度見直すことと、金と権力と影響力を正しく使うこと、公共事業としての透明性をはっきりさせること等を主張していると解釈した。
フィリピンが貧困国から脱出するということ、フィリピン国民もNGOも国際NGOやNPO、フィリピンで暮らす日本人すら願うことだろうけども、フィリピンの現状を見て、そしてこの本を読めば、いかに絶望的なシチュエーションかってのがわかるし、長期的な視野と対応が必要になることは間違いない。
以下、サマリー。
‘Discontents of globalization’
“A growing divide between the haves and the have-nots has left increasing numbers in the Third World in dire poverty reduction made over the last decade of the twentieth century, the actual number of people living in poverty has actually increased by almost 100 million. This occurred at the same time that total world income actually increased by an average of 2.5 percent annually.” (Stiglitz 2002: 5)He concisely and bravely gave us his critical thoughts on behind its globalization in this book ‘discontents of globalization’.
“Worse, many of the policies that the IMF pushed, in particular, premature capital market liberalization, have contributed to global instability, and once a country was a crisis, IMF funds and programs not only failed to stabilize the situation but in many cases actually made matters worse, especially for the poor.” (Stiglitz 2002:15)According to Stiglitz, what globalization has brought both the developed and developing countries is inconsistency. Globalization has two sides; one side that has brought economic growth and another side that has brought distortion in the world. I believe that globalization has brought pros and cons. His point is that globalization should be argued neither good nor bad.
“Why has globalization – a force that has brought so much good- become so controversial? Opening up to international trade has helped many countries grow far more quickly than they would otherwise have done. International trades help economic development when a country’s exports drive its economic growth. Export led growth was the centerpieces of the industrial policy that enriched much of Asia ad left million of people there far better off. Because of globalization many people in the world now live longer than before and their standard of living is far better. People in the West may regard low-paying jobs at Nike as exploitation but for many people in the developing world, working factory is a far better option than staying down on the farm and growing rice. (Stiglitz 2002:4).”According to his tasks; thinking through what strategies might be most effective in promoting growth and reducing poverty, working with governments in the developing countries to put these strategies in place, and doing everything he could within the developed countries to advance the interests and concerns of the developing world whether it was pushing for opening up their markets or providing more effective assistance. Besides, he critically pointed out that those global institutions, such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, the IMF’s original mission was to preserve stability in international financial markets by helping countries both to make economic adjustments when they encountered an imbalance of international payments and to maintain the value of their currency in what everyone assumed would be a permanent regime of fixed exchange rates and reduce poverty spread over the world.
He criticized that the approach of the IMF into problems; he called that macroeconomic view which relies on statistics and “one-size-fits all” approach to stabilize its economy. “
The IMF the lack of detailed knowledge is of less moment, because it tends to take a “one-size-fits-all” approach. The problem of this approach becomes particularly acute when facing the challenges of the developing and transition economies. The institution does not really claim expertise in development – its original mandate is supporting global economic stability, as I have said, not reducing poverty in developing countries – yet it does not hesitate to weigh in, and weigh in heavily, on development issues. Development issues are complicated; in many ways developing countries present far greater difficulties than more developed countries. This is because in developing nations, markets are often absent, and when present, often work imperfectly. Information problems abound, and cultural mores may significantly affect economic behavior.” (Stiglitz 2002: 34)
The problem in developing countries is more complicated like seamless web than developed has, nevertheless the approach was irrelevant which does not focused on specific problems whose people in developing countries are facing on today.Stiglitz criticized that market liberalization which the IMF let small market in developing countries to be opened so that foreign aids can join in the market competition. He experienced in Ethiopia, the powerful multinational companies are able to penetrate their economy and transformed their lifestyle to suit on.
“When global financial institutions enter a country, they can squelch (squash) the domestic competition. As they attract depositors away from the local banks in a country like Ethiopia, they may be far more attentive and generous when it comes to making loans to large multinational corp. than they will to providing credit to small businesses and farmers.”
And he also mentioned that
“Conditionality refers to more forceful conditions, ones that often turn the loan into a policy tool. If the IMF wanted a nation to liberalize its financial markets, it might pay out the loan in installments, trying subsequent installments to verifiable steps toward liberalization.”
Disadvantage of globalization in the market is also easily shaken and money sways between states and market by economical and political matters. As a result, it causes a crisis by instability market. He argued that the discontents of role of the IMF. It would have been the role of sustained in stability market to be functioned.
“The IMF believed that competition among banks would lead to lower interest rates. The result were disastrous: The move was followed by the very rapid growth of local and indigenous commercial banks, at a time when the banking legislation and bank supervision were inadequate, with the predictable result- fourteen banking failures in Kenya in 1993 and 1994”....“If globalization has not succeeded in reducing poverty, neither has it succeeded in ensuring stability. Crisis in Asia and in Latin America have threatened the economies and the stability of all developing countries. There are fears of financial contagion spreading around the world that the collapse of one emerging market currency will mean that others fall as well. For a while, in 1997 and 1998, the Asian crisis appeared to pose a threat to the entire world economy. “(Stiglitz 2002: 6)
Once it occurs, those stock holders and investors will be back off from the market so that those countries which primary rely on the foreign aids, are no longer maintained. Besides, the magnitude of economic depression are much severe than comparing before because countries are highly interconnected in as global village today and it will simultaneously occur domino effect which a country depression must be triggered to other country down. He emphasized the crisis is no longer on country’s problem, but it occurs the stagflation on the market. The recent rating downgrade of Greek debt was not enough to be surprise occurred.
Greece has a lot of rich people who are not being taxed properly because there is so much tax evasion nevertheless the aid that the country could get from the IMF and other euro-zone left people so many questions. Although the financing in Greece was evaluated as low-rank, Greece had needed to borrow from everyone else to cover it budget deficit. The crisis led a fear of investors that swayed in the market so that the stock and foreign currency market is tumbled. To take back its regular financial status for not only Greece but for the whole euro-zone, especially, Portugal and Italy was affected by the crisis, were so hard to be rebuild.
He mentioned that decision making was done behind closed doors, which is no public discussion.
“The IMF left itself open to suspicions that power politics, special interests, or other hidden reasons not related to the IMF’s mandate and stated objectives were influencing its institutional policies and conduct.”(Stiglitz 2002: 34) “Today, in spite of the repeated discussions of openness and transparency, the IMF still does not formally recognized the citizen’s “right to know” : there is no Freedom of Information Act to which an American, or a citizen of any other countries, can appeal to find out what this international public institution is doing.”(Stiglitz 2002: 52)
Finally, I believed that Stiglitz neither to expose how much the institutions wastes money for wrong policies nor globalization is evil but wanted everyone to have freedom to say openly discussion regards how the international institutions should be so that it will provoke us what we should think and look beyond globalization and those original roles of global institution.
He pointed out that National leaders pursue the well-being of their peoples.The role of public international agencies, like the IMF and the World Bank, must ensure that global phenomena maintain a human face, and that national politicians be supported by somebody in charge when something goes wrong. Whether you like or not, those Institutions have money, powers and influential authority for politics over the world. Power and wealth are concentrated in the institutions; the monopoly which dominates the scene has not brought the promised economic benefits – “broken promises” It is not a problem but how it was used.
He concluded that
“The time has come to “grade” the international economic institution’s performance and to look at programs how well or poorly, promoting growth or reducing poverty. “Reference:
Joseph Stiglitz, “Globalization and its Discontents NewYork: Norton, 2002
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿