Vandana Shiva on Globalization

[Ivan Seeking]

... VANDANA SHIVA: If globalization had not been forced on us, I can imagine I would have gone back to doing my puzzles with quantum theory.

But now that we have, A, the WTO and its massive destruction -- and I can't watch our farmers die as if they were flies that are being swatted in a global economy. And then you have climate change. And I do feel we need a massive shift in thinking, massive shift in the way we live. We could crash in the next 20 years, not just as a civilization, but as a species...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/globalization_03-23.html

I don't know what I can add except to say that I think she is absolutely correct in almost everything said. Globalization unchecked is capitalism run amok and serves only the global corporate entities.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/globalization_03-23.html

I don't know what I can add except to say that I think she is absolutely correct in almost everything said. Globalization unchecked is capitalism run amok and serves only the global corporate entities.

Excellent article. I was talking to a young man from India last Friday. He told me several stories very similar to what Vandana mentioned in the show. He said India exports unrefined sugar and high grade wheat and imports processed sugar and low grade wheat. So although the middlemen profit in both directions, the populace is stuck with crap westerners won't even touch.

He also said that the state used to be in the seed business. Farmers could get seeds at 20lbs for a dollar. Now they buy hybrid seeds from the west for 20 to 100 times that amount. And since they are hybrids, the seeds from the new crops are no good. So they are stuck buying seeds at the higher prices.


And speaking of seeds. This kind of greed makes me sick.

And I started to plant (neem) trees. I started to distribute neem to farmers, train them. And then, in 1994, I find a patent held by W.R. Grace. Well, Grace claims to have invented the neem, invented the use of neem for biopesticide.

So, we challenged a patent held jointly by them and the United States Department of Agriculture. We fought that case 11 years. We won it. But this was a case of biopiracy.

...


A company in Texas called RiceTec claims to have invented the basmati that grows in our valley.

So, when I find RiceTec in Texas claims to have invented the height of the plant, the length of the grain, the aroma, and the methods of cooking, I said that, my grandmother taught me when I was a 6-year-old, took on that challenge. We fought that one four years.

And, then, much later, Monsanto, who claims to always invent new seeds, had the cheek to steal an old Indian wheat variety and patent it as an invention. That was struck down in a four-month legal battle in the European patent office.

Sounds like a new form of snake oil salesmen.
Too bad they have to fight such fraud in court for such extended periods of time. There otta be a law.

 

[Yonoz]

I share her ideals, but I couldn't find any serious criticism there:

VANDANA SHIVA: That, to me, is the heart of the issue, that the so-called growth, as defined in the indicators that have been evolved to suit those who control the wealth of the world and the political decision-making in the world, that that growth hides behind it huge amounts of destruction in the lives of people, in the lives of the Third World, and in the planet's life.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, how would you measure economic growth?

VANDANA SHIVA: I would measure economic growth by seeing, how much food are people eating, how much clean water do they have in their rivers and their wells, how much clothing do they have access to, how much education and health services can -- are they provided as public systems?

There are indicators for all those things. Should we simply change the definition of the term "economic growth" - will that change our competitive nature?

 

[Economist]

I don't know what I can add except to say that I think she is absolutely correct in almost everything said.

I don't understand why people rarely look at what experts on globalization are saying? If you really want to here an expert on globalization then turn to Jagdish Bhagwati.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195300033/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://www.catomedia.org/archive-2007/cbfa-10-25-07.mp3

http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/activities/files/Bhagwati5-13-04.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~jb38/

I seriously hope that you will read Jadgish, although I doubt anyone will, considering most people want to hold on to their incorrect views of economics, capitalism, globalization, etc. I guess it's true that ignorance must be bliss, or maybe it's that people are to afraid to read these things because they're terrified that their ideals will be proved incorrect, and they can no longer sit around with their friends and complain about these things and talk about how the sky is falling.

The contrary view, which I develop and defend in my just-published book, In
Defense of Globalization (Oxford), is that economic globalization has a human face. It
advances, instead of inhibiting, the achievement of social agendas as wide-ranging as the
promotion of gender equality worldwide, increased prosperity in the poor countries and
not just the rich countries, reduction of poverty in and shifting of children from work to
schools in the poor countries. Besides, the fears of economic globalization in the rich
countries, especially that globalization reduces real wages of workers and reduces labour
standards because of a “race to the bottom” are seriously exaggerated, if they are valid at all.

Globalization unchecked is capitalism run amok and serves only the global corporate entities.

This is just a myth. While it can be debated how much globalization should be "checked," globalization is definitely a good thing. Even if globalization and capitalism were lefted very unregulated, globalization would do far more for the people of the third world than any politician, activist, or NGO has ever done, or ever will do.

 

[Economist]

VANDANA SHIVA: That, to me, is the heart of the issue, that the so-called growth, as defined in the indicators that have been evolved to suit those who control the wealth of the world and the political decision-making in the world, that that growth hides behind it huge amounts of destruction in the lives of people, in the lives of the Third World, and in the planet's life.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, how would you measure economic growth?

VANDANA SHIVA: I would measure economic growth by seeing, how much food are people eating, how much clean water do they have in their rivers and their wells, how much clothing do they have access to, how much education and health services can -- are they provided as public systems?

This is untrue. Economic research has pointed out time and time again that things like real per capita GDP, and real PPP per capita are actually pretty solid measurements of how the average people of a country are doing. She fails to point out how highly correlated "her measures" are with the "economic measures" she is bashing. It's such a myth to think that globalization and capitalism help the rich and hurt the poor. As Milton Friedman pointed out, capitalism and globalization help the "common man." The elites do extremely well, no matter what system you have. Capitalism is what allows everday people like you and me to have a good standard of living. Or check out the article below:

Capitalism and the Common Man
by Walter Williams (October 26, 2003)

There are some arguments so illogical that only an intellectual or politician can believe them. One of those arguments is: capitalism benefits the rich more than it benefits the 'common man.'

Let's look at it.

The rich have always had access to entertainment, and some times in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much of what only the rich could yesteryear. Capitalism's mass production have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the reach of the common man; thus, sparing him of the drudgery of the past.

What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have impacted our health, safety and life quality in a way that dwarfs the wealth received by their creators.

Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn't have been that hard.

The ordinary person wouldn't be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewellery plus, they wouldn't be driving by. Compare the income status of today's airline passengers with those of yesterday; you'll find a greater percentage of ordinary people.

That's one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. You say, "Williams, common people don't have access to Rolls Royces and yachts!" You're wrong. Microsoft's Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting sailing; so can Williams - just not as long. I can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.

Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It sounds to me like her statements are based on observations, and your statements are based on theory and abstraction.

Now where did I put those Chinese made, lead lined lunch boxes?

 

[Economist]

It sounds to me like her statements are based on observations, and your statements are based on theory and abstraction.

Are you serious? Do you really think that is all economists are doing? Theory and abstraction, with no observation?

Actually, empirical studies are what economics is all about. If you listen to Jagdish Bhagwati's presentation, which is the second link, he points out how there are many theoretical papers in economics, some that say globalization is good while others say it's bad. However, all the empirical studies support the view it's good.

Maybe you should have said, "It sounds like her statements are based on selective cherry-picked anecedotal evidence which may not even be true, while your statements are based on data, facts, and science."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where is clean water included as a parameter in those studies?

 

[Economist]

Where is clean water included as a parameter in those studies?

Are you talking about the measurements that deal with real GDP per capita?

If so, then this is related to real GDP per capita, as clean water, food, etc, are some of the first things that people can buy with increases in income. Water is usually fairly cheap to buy, as Adam Smith noticed a couple hundred years ago. Adam Smith couldn't figure out why water (which humans need) is cheaper than diamonds (which humans don't need). He died without ever figuring this out, and later Alfred Marshall cracked the mystery.

 

[Gokul43201]

Currently it seems that in India, there is a huge upsurge in incomes among the educated middle class. And while incomes are going up in many (geographic) sections of the lower class, the cost of living has been shooting up way faster, particularly in urban areas. It does not appear to me that a majority of the poor are benefiting yet, but I think they will, within the coming decade. I really would like to see what the various macroeconomic indicators say.

 

[OmCheeto]

This is untrue. Economic research has pointed out time and time again that things like real per capita GDP, and real PPP per capita are actually pretty solid measurements of how the average people of a country are doing. She fails to point out how highly correlated "her measures" are with the "economic measures" she is bashing. It's such a myth to think that globalization and capitalism help the rich and hurt the poor. As Milton Friedman pointed out, capitalism and globalization help the "common man." The elites do extremely well, no matter what system you have. Capitalism is what allows everday people like you and me to have a good standard of living. Or check out the article below:

Vandana reminds me of Liv Ullmann's character in the movie http://www.sweetmoviememories.com/0_Mindwalk.html?gclid=CJf-yaiB2ZACFRCYiQodaylyPQ" . A smart physicist viewing the carnage around her. I did skim through Jagdish Bhagwati's yale pdf. It was logical, from an economic point of view. But people dying around her might have skewed Vandana's world view.

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/shiva219.htm
Sadly, more than a hundred women have committed suicide as a result of water scarcity in the Tehri region over the last few years. Women who came from 250 villages to meet us say that their sacred mother, the river Ganga, has been reduced to receiving them in death and no longer gives them life. Women are still sitting in protest in the ruins of the ancient city of Tehri, refusing to give up their struggle. They say they will commit collective suicide if forced to move.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't understand why people rarely look at what experts on globalization are saying? If you really want to here an expert on globalization then turn to Jagdish Bhagwati.

I liked what his wife said:

http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/activities/files/Bhagwati5-13-04.pdf
Second, we need to ensure that we do not repeat the mistake made by the
reformers in Russia, where shock therapy was tried and failed. Maximal speed is not the
optimal speed; both economic s and politics require cautious adjustment. When the
economist Jeffrey Sachs, now my distinguished colleague at Columbia University,
insisted on shock therapy in Russia, he used the analogy: “You cannot cross a chasm in
two leaps”. The Soviet expert Padma Desai --- who happens to be my wife, as I must
admit in the interest of transparency --- replied: “You cannot cross it in one leap either
unless you are Indiana Jones; it is better to drop a bridge.” Events proved her right.

I seriously hope that you will read Jadgish, although I doubt anyone will, considering most people want to hold on to their incorrect views of economics, capitalism, globalization, etc. I guess it's true that ignorance must be bliss, or maybe it's that people are to afraid to read these things because they're terrified that their ideals will be proved incorrect, and they can no longer sit around with their friends and complain about these things and talk about how the sky is falling.

Incorrect on all counts.
I re-read Jadgish's paper.
Why would anyone want to hold onto an incorrect view? That's like saying people like to be wrong. I know of no such people.
Ignorance is not bliss as the uneducated children of the uneducated parents who did not string up the politician who sold their river to a company now have to play in the dirt.
I've witnessed no fear in my brief 4 weeks at this forum.
And the only falling that would take place would be me falling asleep listening to an economist for an hour and a half. I didn't sleep through two semesters of college economics classes for nothing. I learned that they are better than sominex.

Anyways, Jadgish and Shiva, although on apparently opposite sides of the table, seem to want the same thing. Perhaps the term 'globalization' means something different to physicists and economists, and we are arguing about nothing.

 

[daveb]

There's a book I'm reading right now about this very subject called The Great Turning by David Korten. I'll update folks as I read it.
They also have a web page here.http://www.thegreatturning.net/"

 

[DrClapeyron]

I doubt as to whether the myth of globalization can be aplied to all of India by one person. Naturally some people love to do business, work hard and eat a healthy meal before they go to sleep. Others will continue to moan on about the evil myth men and their capital destruction.
There has been a lifestyle in India for thousands of years which says if you eat certain foods then you have reached the highest point of human character and their is no need to go further. Lazy lifestyles inherited over thousands of years should not be confused with the impact of globalization.

 

[Gokul43201]

There has been a lifestyle in India for thousands of years which says if you eat certain foods then you have reached the highest point of human character and their is no need to go further.

I don't know a single Indian whose main ambition is to "eat certain foods". How many do you know?

 

[DrClapeyron]

I think a majority of Hindus in India do not eat red meat. The cow is for them a sacred animal and must not be touched. I can't imagine how a man can live around so much red meat, live a protein poor lifestyle and expect to be strong in body and strong in mind. Something has to give and for the Indians it has to be the vegan diet, or else they will continue to live the way their ancestors did before.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's some rampant speculation here, and you seem to be arguing that India's primary stumbling block is their vegan diet. For one thing, there's probably a lower incidence of vegans in India than in the US, though there may be as many vegetarians (l recall about a quarter of the population) there as there are people in the US. In any case, this is now going somewhat offtopic to the primary issue here, which is economic globalization.

 

[Economist]

Why would anyone want to hold onto an incorrect view? That's like saying people like to be wrong. I know of no such people. Ignorance is not bliss

I don't know, I think it's possible that some people enjoy holding onto their views so much, that even truth, facts, and rigourous analysis will not change their minds. I'm not saying everyone is like this, but definitely some people are. For example, for many college students, professors, etc, being "a liberal" is part of their identity, and I don't know if some of their views would be easily changed even in face of very convincing research. There's a book that interviews former socialists who changed their mind about the virtues of socialism. Apparently, these former socialists all talk about how painful and difficult it was to change their ideals.

Bryan Caplan also talks about it in his book titled "The Myth of the Rational Voter."
Here's a podcast, if anyone is interested where he discusses his ideas from the book. One thing he points out is that certain views/ideas make it so that people will view you as compassionate, caring, etc. For example, people look at Vandana Shiva and say "she is such a great person, look at how much she cares." On the other hand, people like William Easterly, who talk about the failures of foreign aid, get labeled as "hard, cold, lacking in compasion, etc." Even though Dr. Easterly is an expert at what he's discussing (formerly held high position at world bank, now professor of economics at NYU, and has came to his conclusion through rigourous data analysis).
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/bryan_caplan/index.html

Besides, all your talk about uneducated people in the 3rd world misses my point. I'm not saying that people want to be completely uneducated, but rather that people who are already educated may like to hold onto certain beliefs and ideas, even if they are incorrect.

And the only falling that would take place would be me falling asleep listening to an economist for an hour and a half. I didn't sleep through two semesters of college economics classes for nothing. I learned that they are better than sominex.

That's a shame. On the other hand, I don't know whether I can blame you as some (many?) economists are not that good at communicating, and therefore, some econ classes maybe incredibly boring (I hope I don't have that problem when I teach classes as a grad student). In fact, I believe one reason I fell in love with economics was that my first professor in college was a great teacher. The guy had been teaching the intro classes at the community college that I attended for like 30 years, and by the time I had him, he did a great job keeping the class entertaining while at the same time teaching us a lot.

It's also a shame for another reason though, which is that many people have strong opinions on economic issues while at the same time being very ignorant about economics. I can only imagine how much heat I would get if I tried to have all kinds of opinions on Physics, even though I am ignorant of the field. The problem is that most academics, journalists, politicians, citizens, etc are ignorant about economics while simulatenously holding strong opinions and ideas on the topics.

Or to quote Murray Rothbard:
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Anyways, Jadgish and Shiva, although on apparently opposite sides of the table, seem to want the same thing. Perhaps the term 'globalization' means something different to physicists and economists, and we are arguing about nothing.

Possible, but doubtful. I imagine they have fairly similar views of what globalization is, they just have a very different view on the virtues (or failures) of globalization. I was just trying to point out that Bhagwati is probably more of an expert on this topic than Shiva.

Again, the fact that people turn to Shiva for their information on globalization may prove my original point that people want to hold certain opinions on topics. If I was trying to learn about biology, I would turn to books written by biology professors. If I was trying to learn Physics or Mathematics, again I would turn to books written by the experts within that field. However, when people want to learn about economics they turn to some of the least enlightening authors, such as Lou Dobbs, Michael Moore, or Vandana Shiva. It makes me wonder whether people are mostly interested in learning something, or rather they just want to hear someone who's opinions and ideas already coincide with their world view.

 

[Economist]

There's a book I'm reading right now about this very subject called The Great Turning by David Korten. I'll update folks as I read it.
They also have a web page here.http://www.thegreatturning.net/"

I read that link, as well as the wikipedia article on the author, and it sounds like both the author and the book have a very specific agenda. That's not to say that the book won't be good, but rather that I urge you to read some other stuff as well (such as Jagdish Bhagwati's book "In Defense of Globalization").

 

[DrClapeyron]

Vandana Shiva says 'I can't watch our farmers die as if they were flies that are being swatted in a global economy.'

Indians cannot take a stand against their own feudal system yet they label 'western capitalism' as the destructive force ruining their way of life? It is themselves who are at fault. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations provided everything Indians and people the world over need to feed themselves and their next of kin.

 

[OmCheeto]

There's a book I'm reading right now about this very subject called The Great Turning by David Korten. I'll update folks as I read it.
They also have a web page here.http://www.thegreatturning.net/"

What a coincidence, over at Democracy Now, they held a joint interview with Dr's Shiva and Korten:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/14/from_empire_to_earth_community_author
Well, the triple crisis is really seriously converging on India, India being one of the preferred spots for outsourcing of all the pollution and energy-intensive production of the world. We hear of outsourcing of jobs in the information technology sector. We don’t often enough hear about the outsourcing of pollution to the third world, the resource-intensive, resource-hungry industry like steel and iron and aluminum and automobile manufacture.

you know, I spent thirty years of my life working on third world development, on the effort to end poverty in low-income countries. And it took me a long time, but I finally came to realize that mostly what economic growth is about is rich people expropriating the resources of poor people to turn them into the garbage of the consumer system in an accelerating rate in order to make money, which increases the power of people who—for people who already have more than they need.

It would appear that both of their views are skewed by being on the front line of poverty in the world.

And it would appear that the problem of globalization is a bit more complex than just mere economics.

Is it proper to steal and post from other threads?

"Life is infinitely more than your or my obtuse theories about it."
Mindwalk

 

[Economist]

but I finally came to realize that mostly what economic growth is about is rich people expropriating the resources of poor people to turn them into the garbage of the consumer system in an accelerating rate in order to make money, which increases the power of people who—for people who already have more than they need.

This is such bs, and I don't know how anyone who states this can at all be taken seriously in terms of economic understanding. Economic studies have shown over and over again that economic growth benefits even the poorest members of a society greatly, and that economic freedom improves the lot of poor people in particular, as the rich, the elites, etc, do well regardless of the system.

 

[OmCheeto]

This is such bs, and I don't know how anyone who states this can at all be taken seriously in terms of economic understanding. Economic studies have shown over and over again that economic growth benefits even the poorest members of a society greatly, and that economic freedom improves the lot of poor people in particular, as the rich, the elites, etc, do well regardless of the system.

Unless your name was Romanov, about 90 years ago. snicker. snicker.

tgigd...

 

[mheslep]

Barun Mitra on Vandana Shiva

"BULL**** AWARD FOR SUSTAINING POVERTY" AWARDED TODAY TO VANDANA SHIVA

28 August, Johannesburg - At a mass rally today in Johannesburg, the winner of the Bull**** Award for Sustaining Poverty was announced. In a closely run race, the winner was chosen for her important contribution to sustaining poverty around the world, in her role as a mouthpiece of western eco-imperialism.
...
Vandana Shiva is an individual whose immense presence at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and other global meetings, and her passionate defense of poverty, has resonated as far as newspapers and TV cameras can be found.

http://www.libertyindia.org/events/bull****_award_28august2002.htm

 

[turbo]

It is important that we define poverty. A farmer who feeds his/her family with food that they have grown, and that lives in a shelter that is appropriate to their location, and has access to clean water is not poor. I don't care if they live in a hut made of bamboo, with a roof shingled with layered leaves. If they are comfortable, warm and dry, and don't go to bed hungry, they have the basics covered. If we define poverty by the standards of the US and call somebody poor because they don't have a car, or a western-style house, or a flush toilet, then we are FAR off the mark.

A person is poor if he/she has been disenfranchised to the point where they have no access to the basics of life. If they have no access to clean water, they have no access to arable land, etc, and no way to support their family, then they are poor.

 

[Economist]

If we define poverty by the standards of the US and call somebody poor because they don't have a car

We don't. The data proves that something like 70% of those living "below the poverty line" own a car, and another 14% own two or more cars.

We generally define "poverty" as the bottom 20%.

 

[turbo]

You missed my point entirely. People are not poor just because they don't have a Western life-style. This is a major part of Shiva's message, and it gets glossed over or ignored by her critics, who insist on interpreting economies of the poorer countries not in terms of the well-being of the inhabitants, but by how much money changes hands. A farmer in India may grow enough food on a couple of acres to provide for his family, with excess seed for the next crop, and perhaps enough excess to barter for other goods or to sell. By local standards, he is a successful farmer, and is prosperous, though he is hardly a blip in the cash economy.

 

[Economist]

You missed my point entirely. People are not poor just because they don't have a Western life-style. This is a major part of Shiva's message, and it gets glossed over or ignored by her critics, who insist on interpreting economies of the poorer countries not in terms of the well-being of the inhabitants, but by how much money changes hands. A farmer in India may grow enough food on a couple of acres to provide for his family, with excess seed for the next crop, and perhaps enough excess to barter for other goods or to sell. By local standards, he is a successful farmer, and is prosperous, though he is hardly a blip in the cash economy.

No, I didn't miss your point. I was just trying to add to the discussion. In fact, I was agreeing with you, which is why I said what I did. Essentially, I was trying to point out that you are correct, and we have a silly view of what poverty is, which is why we tend to define it as the bottom 20%. I was also trying to point out that the US "poor" live better than the US "rich" did 100 years ago, or if you like, that the US "poor" still have amenities and the standard of living greater than probably 80% of the current worlds population.

By the way, people who seriously study poverty try not to fall prey to what you mentioned which is why they don't like looking at how much money changes hands. For example, using exchange rates gives a very distorted picture of how rich or poor someone is, but when you use PPP data instead it gives you a much more accurate picture of the average standard of living in a certain country. Furthermore, these figures are meant to get a general sense of how rich or poor individuals of a certain country are, and will not do a good job at "understanding" any particular person in that country (because it's just aggregate data).