Summaries
Even though the two authors wrote the articles in two different centuries on millennia, there is a stark similarity in the concepts and themes expressed. The two authors address concepts of globalization, even though it is from different perspectives. Held (2009, p.535) argues that “the present trajectory is one where countries are entwined tightly through the globalization” (Held, 2009, p.535) Hell also finds that “even in the context of a new world political order, the needs of individual states cannot and should not be undermined by multilateral orders and globalization” (Hell, 2009, p.535). Hell holds that “in the delivery of social justice and equal liberty, sovereign states are not privileged by the fact of their existence” (Held, 2009, p.535). Instead, the judgment of the performance of these states should be done on the basis of an ethical paradigm that considers the prevailing realities in these states.
Held explores these issues by ventilating on the enduring nature of cosmopolitanism in the contemporary political philosophy (Held, 2009). Held also explores the notion that cosmopolitanism is the prescribed solution for the challenges that face the global community (Held, 2009). Held also explores the concept of cosmopolitanism and its relevance to the social and political problems on a global scale (Held, 2009). Without defending cosmopolitanism against its critics, Held argues that cosmopolitanism is the solution to the inadequacy of a multilateral world order and its principles in solving the global challenges of the twenty-first century, an argument that is also endorsed by McGrew (2004, p.1).
Gill explores the concept of globalization and the globalization of neoliberalism (Gill, 1995, p.399). The take of Gill “is that the increase significance of the power of capital resources globally is characterized by many contradictions (Gill 1995, p.399).” In his analysis, the contradictions are an indication of the fact that globalization and neoliberalism as concepts and the forces which emanate from these concepts have only enjoyed a short-lived dominance. Gill “argues that the rise of capitalism is consistent with changes in norms and practices that were present in earlier years when there was state capitalism and welfare-nationalism” (Gill 1995, p.399).. Instead, the rise of capitalism is characterized by the spatial expansion and the entrenchment of economic liberalism whose social purpose is individualistic in terms of actions and the politics that influence such actions.
It is on the basis of these thoughts that Gill projected the emergence of a new world order where liberal market civilization and its principles will fade (Gill 1995, p.399). In his conception, the hierarchical, exclusionary, and social disintegration practices of market civilization will be reformed by the practices of market integration, accumulation structures spanning the entire globe and the integration of consumption practices and labor trends. The emergence of transnational capital and the growth of its significance will help entrench these reformative practices. Gill “finds that globalizing neoliberalism will undermine the materialistic, economistic, short-termist, me-oriented, and ecologically myopic characteristics of market civilization” (Gill 1995, p.399). This is to be achieved through the interaction of state and free enterprises and the direct use of political power and market discipline to coordinate the interaction.
Critical Analysis
Market civilization is a dominant theme against which Gill argues. Understanding the themes that characterize this concept is central to understanding the basis for his arguments. Bowden & Seabrooke “argue that one of the central themes of market civilization has to do with marketing mechanisms where the prevailing conception is that states require free capitalist markets in order to improve their ability to socio-politically self-organize” (Bowden & Seabrooke 2006, p.10). Another principle of market civilization as reported by Bowden & Seabrooke “is that of normalization where this concept is pursuant of the normalization of the aspects of liberal positivism” (Bowden & Seabrooke 2006, p.10)..
Liberalism principles are very similar to neoliberal policies which recommend for the removal of state interventions in the market through actions such as the taxation of the investing class and enterprises, the reduction and eventual elimination of social welfare programs, the deregulation of businesses and the transfer of private entities into private hands. “On the international scene, neoliberal principles recommend the free movement of capital, goods, money and services across national borders while localizing labor” (Kotz, 2000, p.1). The belief of economic liberalism is that the most viable economic decisions are made through voluntarism and individual decisions rather than the regulations imposed by a government. In this belief, the role of the government is to enhance liberty and maximize freedom.
However, the neoliberal policies improve on the liberal economic policies that led to the Great Depression, a period that was preceded by widespread deregulation of business and entities. The recommendation for disciplinary neoliberalism by Gill “characterized by the integration of markets, labor and consumption trends as well as structure that span the globe” is a concept with which many scholars agree (Gill, 1995, p.399). However, Yeung notes the concerns that relate to the “loss of identity due to the use of neoliberal policies” (Yeung, 2000, p.133). Kotz finds that “many transitional economies with the exception of China were unwilling supporters of the neoliberal policies because of the direct pressure from the United States as well as through the funding from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund” (Kotz, 2000, p.1).
Nonetheless, Yeung finds that “the acceptance of the packages from the International Monetary Fund, products of neoliberal policies does not represent the surrender of sovereign governance of the economic policies domestically” (Yeung, 2000, p.133). With reference to the issue of a loss of national identity, especially in the context of increased interdependence and interconnectedness between countries because of globalization, the arguments of Held (2009) become very relevant. The notion by Held (2009) that “cosmopolitanism is the prescribed solutions to the many challenges with which the increasingly interdependent and interconnected global community is faced” are preceded by similar arguments by Yeung (2000, p.133). This scholar found that “neoliberalism was inept in solving the tensions that arose from the global-local dynamic where there was a prevailing need for the globalization of the productive capacity of capital while employment and jobs remained localized”.
It is this argument that gives credibility for the appropriateness of cosmopolitanism in global governance. “The concept of cosmopolitanism appears to achieve the defeat of market civilization as desired by Gill” (Gill, 1995, p.399). This is achieved by undermining the principle of moral ranking of peoples as is the characteristics of market civilization. Instead, a moral paradigm that considers the realities of the various states. Additionally, the cosmopolitan approach is more sensitive because unlike the neoliberal approach which ranks performance by the economic and labor productivity, the cosmopolitan approach considers the economic realities in the various countries when judging performance. Finally, the cosmopolitan approach while acknowledging the interdependence and interconnectedness of the global economy owing to globalization, it still considers the needs of individual states and recognizes them as principally important.
References
Bowden, B. and Seabrooke, L. 2006. Global standards of market civilization. London. Routledge.
Gill, S. 1995. Globalization, market civilization, and disciplinary neoliberalism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24(3): 399-423.
Held, D. 2009. Restructuring global governance: Cosmopolitanism, democracy and global order. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(3): 535-547.
Kotz, D. 2000. Globalization and neoliberalism. [PDF]. Available at:< http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Glob_and_NL_02.pdf> [Accessed 7 March 2016].
McGrew, A. 2004. Cosmopolitanism and global justice. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, 3: 1-17
Yeung, H. 2000. State intervention and neoliberalism in the globalizing world economy: lessons from Singapore’s regionalization programme. The Pacific Review, 1391): 133-162.
