{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Anti-globalization paper rough

Anti-globalization paper rough - The fact that contemporary...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The fact that contemporary society has become increasingly global is difficult to dispute. Though positive aspects of this new global society include increased communication between countries and an expedited flow of ideas; political and economic globalization has adversely affected many poor countries. The neoliberal structure of globalization is its ultimate downfall; it "has proved a disillusioning disappointment to ordinary citizens" (Evans, 2005, p. 421). The structural adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank solely serve the interests of wealthy nations by proliferating capitalism in developing countries, thus eliminating pubic services and holding governments hostage with loan debt. In a post-Bretton Woods era, powerful governments push for "liberalized trade and investment, tax cuts…and the privatization of state-owned industries or services" (Ayres, 2004, p. 12). The IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization have increasingly drifted away from their initial missions of promoting financial stability and trade to promoting the interests of the West while further disadvantaging developing nations. The hegemonic nature of globalization did not go unnoticed. Beginning in the early 1990s, local unrest accumulated and escalated into a transnational social movement, reaching a boiling point at the 1999 protests in Seattle. The anti-globalization, or counter-globalization, movement was in many ways the first of its kind. The global nature of the issue at hand called for a global response, and the protests crossed borders in ways not previously seen. Though it is not immediately apparent in surveying the makeup of the protestors that this was a world-wide upheaval, the movement's "transnationally-shared diagnosis," or "master frame," reflects its global nature (Ayres, p. 11). In fact, the movement actually benefited from the structure of globalization; fluid communication through global networks and electronic technology especially strengthened its impact. The core values of the anti-globalization movement, therefore, were not
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
really anti-globalization. Rather, the movement was "globalization-from-below" - a counterweight to the oppressive, hegemonic structure of neoliberal "globalization-from above." A Brief History of Anti-Globalization Movements Local public discord surrounding the effects of neoliberal globalization existed long before the protests of the late 1990s. However, none of these uprisings were particularly visible prior to the Seattle demonstrations. Local uprisings against the policies of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO in developing nations lacked "institutional allies within the affected polities or organizational resources" (Ayres, p. 17). Activists in developed countries struggled as well. Canadian activists mobilized against the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s, but could not gain traction because "the experiences of these Canadians differed considerably from the socially disruptive effects of the IMF's structural adjustment programs…in the developing South" (p. 14). Similarly, leaders of the European green movement in the 1980s were
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}