The Anti-Globalization Movement.

David Barber




            In recent years, globalization has become a catchphrase for those interested in the world and the way it works. At the same time, it has become a bogeyman for those who fear change, and for those who believe the modern world has taken a turn for the worse. For those who fear change, very little can be done to make globalization a better process. For those who fear globalization only in its current incarnation, there are a multiplicity of suggested fixes. This paper will review some of the arguments of the anti-globalization movement, and attempt to put some sort of structure on its various arguments.





            To discuss in any detail the anti-globalization movement, it is first necessary to define globalization, in and of itself a difficult and contentious task. In his book Globalisation: Threat or Opportunity? Paul Streeten devotes an entire section to other scholars’ definitions of globalization. In a list of 36 definitions, he runs the gamut from positive to negative, some focusing only on economics, others on technology, others on combinations thereof, and still others on completely different issues. A few words do stand out. ‘Internationalization’ is used repeatedly. Another oft-used phrase is ‘Economic Interdependence’. Information Technology is often cited as the driving force behind this growth of interdependence – the ability for people and businesses to communicate worldwide.[1] Streeten begins the chapter with what he considers the most succinct definition – “The power to act instantaneously at a distance.”[2] Although inarguably short and to the point, this definition does not work well for understanding the anti-globalization movement. The anti-globalization movement is not primarily composed of Luddites who would take away telephone and e-mail, and in fact many of these groups make use of this technology themselves.[3] Most view the technology as an enabling force for globalization, not as the thing itself. For the purposes of the anti-globalization movement, globalization is perhaps more accurately defined by economics. For a definition of globalization which incorporates this theme I turn to Thomas Friedman, who defines it as “that loose combination of free trade agreements, the Internet and the integration of financial markets that is erasing borders and uniting the world into a single, lucrative, but brutally competitive marketplace.”[4]


The Issues


I use the Friedman quote specifically, because it makes an admission that may or may not have been intentional on the part of the author – the idea of the entire world becoming a marketplace. Many, if not most, of the arguments anti-globalizationists make involve markets, either market failures of some sort (often in the same sentence as the words ‘multinational corporations’), or ‘market creep’ – markets moving into areas in which they are not wanted. A popular example of this is the privatization of water,[5] but other examples abound. Again, this is not to cast the anti-globalizationists as ‘anti-market’. In fact, many authors use the argument that the market does result in an efficient allocation of resources, but only when properly overseen by a government which controls its excesses.[6] The first two sections of this paper will review the arguments anti-globalizationists make concerning these market failures and market intrusions.

            Labor groups of various backgrounds are also involved in the anti-globalization movement, and as such the third section of this paper will address their concerns. As an example of the depth of their involvement, in 2002 the International Labour Organization convened a commission on the “Social Dimension of Globalization”.[7] The concerns of the labour movements are not examples of ‘market failures’ per se. Economics allows for the idea that there are winners and losers in international trade. With this, however, there is a theoretical assumption that the winners in some way compensate the losers. The short form of this argument, however, is that with international trade everyone is better off (based on the idea that, taken in aggregate, international trade raises national wealth).[8] The argument of many labour groups is that the losers to international trade are not being properly compensated, i.e. too often the short run negative effects of international trade on labour are being ignored, because “everyone is better off.” In addition, labour groups worry about the rights and freedoms of their members (most likely because it is those rights which very often allow labour to organize in the first place).

            The last section of this paper will serve to address a selection of the great number of other ideas, some more reasonable than others, people have concerning globalization. Some of the ideas concern the major players of globalization and their mismanagement of the process. Other of the ideas revolve around concepts of national identity and xenophobia.


Market Failures


            Market failures are most often cited in the same breath as ‘multinationals’, primarily because the size of many of these corporations has allowed them to circumvent or subvert rules made in an earlier era. Although there were certainly multinationals before the modern age of globalization,[9] those who study multinationals would argue their reach and power have never been greater than today.[10]

            An example which feeds directly into our next topic, ‘market creep’, is that of media companies. Within the last two decades a global feeding frenzy has consolidated most content production (i.e. movies, music, etc.) into the hands of a very few massive companies. The consolidation of content by itself is relatively innocuous, which is why Benjamin Barber is quick to point out that without content neither hardware manufacturers (e.g. the makers of televisions and radios) nor content delivery systems (cable and satellite companies) have a useful product.[11]

            An interesting example of this can be seen in the new ‘XM Radio’ and ‘Sirius’ radio systems. Although still beholden to content, these systems require proprietary hardware (and a monthly subscription) to access. Thus the homogeneous ‘radio’, a product which has become astonishingly cheap to produce (and to purchase), is replaced by proprietary technology, which, due to recent legislation, is illegal to circumvent or reverse engineer in the United States.

            Failures of the market are a comparatively more contentious issue among the various authors, as each draws the line between ‘fierce competitor’ and ‘monopolist’ somewhat differently. The antitrust cases against Microsoft in the US and Europe demonstrate this perfectly. Most of the authors writing on this topic do agree that there is a place where competition ends and market power begins, and also agree that at that point government has to take over to curb the excesses of companies which become too powerful. Many of these authors also point out that the growth of multinational corporations has made national economies “no longer governable”.[12] Others, however, contend the national governments are still able to control corporations within their borders if the political will exists.[13]


‘Market Creep’


One of the biggest problems most of the authors staking a place in the anti-globalization fold have with globalization is the idea that Democracy (one person, one vote) is being replaced by something more market driven (one dollar, one vote).

            An example of this ‘market creep’ is given by Noreena Hertz in her book The Silent Takeover. In it she states “Corporations have become behemoths, huge global giants that wield immense political power” and in the process of their evolution, “justice, equity, rights, the environment, and even issues of national security fall by the wayside.”[14] She goes on to cite a Business Week statistic that “three quarters of Americans think that business has gained too much power over many aspects of their lives.”[15] George Soros, in an interview with PBS, stated that the globalized capitalist system is “extremely successful. And due to its success it penetrates into areas of life -- of society where it doesn't really belong.”[16]

            The “areas of life” he is referring to include human rights[17] and democracy. As Ms. Hertz states, ‘democracy’ has in recent times meant not “a democratically elected government” but a system which is “sympathetic to the American capitalist system.” She goes on to demonstrate cases where, in her opinion, foreign policy was determined and military actions were taken for the benefit of large corporations.[18]

            This is an area where, by and large, the anti-globalization movement is in agreement that economics is not the measuring stick which should be used. Issues such as democracy and human rights are moral issues, and corporations, it is argued, are “morally ambivalent”.[19]

            The well known economist Amartya Sen suggests that ‘development’, a concept often tied hand-in-hand with ‘globalization’, should be measured in terms of “human freedom” rather than in the traditional methods like gross domestic product or other economic terms. He argues that democracy and civil rights should be a primary unit of measurement of development, rather than being described as in some way distinct from development.[20] Although it is difficult to separate the issues into neat little boxes, it is clear that if the proponents of globalization argue that globalization aids in development, then by definition (Sen’s definition) it should increase, rather than decrease, democracy and civil rights.

            Another area the anti-globalization movement is concerned that markets are invading is the media. Many focus on news as a particular target. As Jeremy Rifkin puts it in his book, The Age of Access, “[w]hen human thought becomes such an important commodity, what happens to ideas that, while important, may not be commercially attractive?”[21] This is a key question when the ideas are counter to the companies which control the media. Companies have been known to turn down advertising which is “inimical to [their] legitimate business interests”. This was the case when the Media Foundation attempted to advertise ‘Buy Nothing Day’ on television – it was determined that buying nothing was against the interests of the corporation, and the spot was not allowed to air.[22] With global magnates like Rupert Murdoch acquiring ever more of the global media totality, it is argued that freedom of expression and ideas are falling victim ever more frequently to economic decisions.[23] Based on recent political events in the United States regarding media concentration, this is an issue many people feel strongly about.[24]

            An excellent example of a particular area of market creep is into the realm of sexuality. Although some would argue sexuality has always implicitly been a commodity,[25] by and large traditional values have rejected outright commodification of sex (in the form, for example, of prostitution). Altman, in his book Global Sex, argues that as a direct result of economic development, “hundreds of thousands are forced to turn to sex work.”[26] Altman’s work goes much farther than a simple connection between development, impoverishment, and the need to turn to prostitution in order to live. He argues, in fact, that “there is a close link between liberalization and major changes in sexual behavior”[27] due to the increasing incursion of cultures in both directions (North to South and vice versa), and due to the packaging of culture (and gender and sexuality) for consumption in new markets. Although most of the other authors do not address this particular aspect of globalization, I believe they would in principle agree with the concept of commodification of sexuality as a facet of the general issue of western cultural hegemony. Altman, coming to this issue from the realm of sociology, offers an expansion of ideas that the other authors, looking primarily from an economic perspective, touch on, but do not deal with.


Intellectual Property


            There are several elements of intellectual property rights which anti-globalization activists object to. Those who focus on this the issue of intellectual property and globalization argue that over time patents and intellectual property rights have been made broader in their interpretation. One way of looking at this statement is that more and more intellectual property is being protected. An alternative interpretation is that less and less intellectual property (or more accurately, intellectual capital) is free.

            One aspect of this argument is the loss of The Commons. Many of the things becoming intellectual property are things which were previously owned collectively, possibly by a nation, possibly by an ethnic group. Often, it is argued, it is not just businesses buying, but also governments selling, which leads to this cordoning off of previously public property.[28] David Bollier cites five reasons why this is troubling. First, “the public’s assets and revenue streams are privatized, with only fractional benefits accruing to the public in return.” Second, because generally it is large companies who are able to enclose, market concentration is increased. Third, this enclosure favors “short-term exploitation over long term stewardship” of the environment. Fourth, enclosure can “impose new limits on citizen rights.” Here Bollier brings us back to the idea of ‘market creep’, stating “[l]arge companies have learned that they can freeze out democratic and market accountability by using sophisticated proprietary technology.”[29] And finally, “enclosure frequently imposes market values in realms that should be free from commodification.”[30]

            An excellent example of enclosure can be found in the ‘public-private’ arrangements many Universities have been making with private firms. Although it is generally understood that scientific progress relies strongly on the research that has gone before (it has been referred to as “standing on the shoulders of giants”), recently it has become popular to enter into partnership with private firms, with the understanding that what is funded by the firm, in large part, becomes the firm’s property. In addition to this, many universities themselves are becoming de-facto corporations, patenting that which is discovered within their establishment, and generating revenue from the licensing. However, as Bollier points out, “The federal government provides about 59% of funding for academic research, or 15.6 billion in 1998.”[31] Thus most research is in fact a public good, at least in part. Despite the government’s (and thus the public’s) monetary interest in this research, several laws have been passed allowing the effective donation of this research to private corporations, the first of which was the Bayh-Dole act of 1980.[32] It is argued not only that this will hurt the research community by effectively placing discoveries ‘off-limits’ to other researchers, but also that it will change the shape and direction of research at universities. It is unavoidable that as more money comes from those pursuits which generate revenue, those areas which do not generate revenue will be neglected.[33]

            Another negative element of intellectual property rights is that they grant a monopoly on the items they protect, giving market power to the owning institution. The standard argument for this is that ‘the monopoly allows the rights holder to recoup the costs of creating the intellectual property, and without those rights firms would have no incentive (or much less incentive) to research and create new intellectual property.’ Although there has been some disagreement with this theory (a recent study suggested there were methods of extracting profits without granting a monopoly to the producer),[34] by and large most economists agree a monopoly of some sort is necessary to provide incentives to the creators of intellectual property. However, when human rights gets involved some argue the rules should be different. An example is the strengthening of intellectual property rights in 1995 world trade negotiations. The effect on pharmaceuticals was to allow Western drug companies to stop production of generic copies of certain drugs in India and Brazil. The effect on people infected with the diseases those drugs treated, however, was virtually a death sentence. The strengthening of intellectual property rules at the 1995 Uruguay round of talks significantly reflected the views of the producers, rather than the users.[35]

            It is also argued that many patents are being granted for ‘items’ which should not be patentable. There are two main elements to this argument. This first element involves the ever-broadening definition of intellectual property. For example, within the past two decades patents on business methods have gone from a rarity to a necessary part of the business process. Some examples of frivolous patents might include’s patent of the “1-click” purchasing system, or owning the ‘name your own price’ auction method. It is argued that by issuing patents of this nature, innovation is being stifled.[36]

            The other side of the argument, one considered far more ominous by a much wider assortment of groups and interests, involves the issuing of patents on materials, processes, etc. which many would argue do not belong to the patent holder. There are several aspects to this side of the argument, most of which primarily involve indigenous peoples.

            I was able to witness a facet of this dispute from the aggrieved party’s side the last time I was in Thailand. The headlines of every national paper were full of the recent patenting of Basmati rice. In this case it was a genetic variant of the rice, but the question does stand – if a product has been used for dozens or hundreds of generations by a particular nation or people, is it really something an individual or company can claim ownership of?

According to the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement, the answer is yes. Critics argue these agreements are being crafted specifically to favor multinational “theft of commonly owned cultural and biological property.” Under this and other agreements, countries which do not adopt standards allowing for the private ownership of plants and microorganisms may face trade sanctions.[37]

In addition to these (comparatively) innocuous facets of the argument, other elements patents are being sought on include the actual genes of certain peoples (specifically the “leukemia-resistant genes of a Guyami Indian living in the Panama forests.”).[38] Invasions of this sort have led one indigenous people’s group to attempt to stem the tide by claiming ownership by the indigenous people as a whole over “human and other genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts.”[39]

            Like market failures, there is not a great deal of agreement on intellectual property rights. Most of the authors who take up the anti-globalization position cite intellectual property as an area in need of reform. Outside of that group the problem is often unacknowledged, or is defined as the reverse of unconstrained property rights. These groups instead see the problem as unconstrained piracy and a lack of respect for intellectual property rights. There is unequivocally a problem of piracy in terms of music, movies, and software. The last time I was in Beijing it was hard to go half a block without someone offering pirated music for pennies on the dollar. But primarily those are questions of enforcement of existing rights, whereas the anti-globalizationists are much more concerned with attempts by multinationals to expand their rights into new arenas. Based on some of the patents registered in recent years, and the enforcement methodology now being attached to these patents, it is clear this expansion of intellectual property rights is an area where the mainstream has not devoted enough attention.




            According to the International Forum on Globalization, Globalization has been characterized by “[a] sharp increase in unemployment in both the North and the South, as […] corporate activity becomes more mobile, unrestricted, opaque, and unaccountable.”[40]

There are several causes of this increase in unemployment. For example, the Washington consensus has a strong bias against state owned enterprises, and developing countries are often urged to privatize these businesses. Even Western countries have been divesting themselves of state owned enterprises, as in the British train system. However, as Joseph Stiglitz points out, “privatization often destroys jobs rather than creating new ones.” This is often viewed as efficiency. However, he also states “there are social costs associated with unemployment, which private firms simply do not take into account.”[41] If there is no social safety net, as is often the case in developing countries, those social costs can be large. Unfortunately, too often developed countries do not take the social costs into account either, especially with less skilled laborers.

            Even enterprises which did not start out as ‘inefficient state-owned enterprises’[42] have continually reduced their workforces. As Barber points out “Business efficiency dictates downsizing, which means capital-intensive production, and capital-intensive production means labor minimizing job policies. Translated into English this means firing as many permanent workers as possible and eliminating their costly benefit and pension packages.” He continues “Unemployment may eventually weaken the market... but corporations taken one by one are necessarily rabid competitors with (at most) a quarterly earnings horizon.”[43]

            An example of the ignorance some people have of the social and economic costs of unemployment can be seen in the pro-globalization work of Thomas Friedman. In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Friedman states “I believe globalization did us a favor by melting down the economies of Thailand, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Brazil in the 1990s, because it laid bare a lot of rotten practices and institutions in countries that had prematurely globalized.”[44] Clearly Friedman views the investment community’s safety as a long term good which outweighs any short-term losses which might be experienced by residents of the countries in question.

            In a January 1998 interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, when asked about the connection between globalization and human rights, stated “I’m not sure what we could attribute the relationship to, but its well known that child labor, the exploitation of children and sweatshop conditions are becoming more common in so many countries, including our own.”[45] Here again we see a focus on the issues of human rights and ‘market creep’, through the lens of organized labour.

In addition to the points raised by Mr. Sweeney, the International Forum on Globalization, in their statement on the negative impact of globalization, cites “Massive population shifts from rural to urban areas, with commensurate poverty, famine, ethnic friction, and degradation of living and working conditions and human rights.”[46] In part this is another facet of the ‘race to the bottom’ as it deals with living and working conditions. The population shifts are often cited as a result of multinational corporations siting their operations in urban centers, due very often to the needs of the multinational for infrastructure not offered by rural areas in less developed countries, and because of the proximity of inputs and labour.

A recent study in India underscores this point. The study identified 138 ‘industrial clusters’ – groups of small-scale industries located in a particular geographic area. Of these 138, seven were located in the five poorest states, and seventy-one were located in the wealthiest four states.[47] The clusters of local businesses demonstrate the causes and / or the effects of these ‘massive populations shifts’ as skilled workers go where the companies are and companies go where the skilled workers are.

It has been pointed out by others that labour is one of the few areas where, although the problems are global, the organizations are not. The International Labour Organization has no real enforcement mechanisms, and national labour organizations cannot deal with companies which can move across national lines. In addition, as demonstrated by (for example) the Maquiladoras along the US/Mexican border, governments will often collude with multinationals to prevent new unions from forming. Most of the authors involved agree there is a problem at the microeconomic level; i.e. it is recognized that many workers are not adequately paid, and/or protected. Unfortunately, this is again a problem of national enforcement. Most countries have minimum wages and labour standards, but too often these are not enforced. Often, the root cause is the power a multinational can have over a national government. Unlike many of the other problems with globalization, labour issues are highly visible, and it apparent from the number of protests and movements which have sprung up around this issue that this issue serves as a focal point for the anti-globalization movement.


The Environment


            With regard to the environment, a great number of arguments are made by the anti-globalization forces. One is another aspect of the ‘race to the bottom’ argument. That is, as companies select and negotiate the terms of trade with countries they wish to invest in, one of the items that goes on the block is the environment. Companies may arrange to be excluded from local laws concerning the environment, or they may simply move to a country where the laws are more lenient (or less enforced). Production costs for the company go down because they do not have to install expensive environmental safeguards.

            Another argument involves the intrinsic environmental effects of transporting goods for trade. This argument says that as trade increases, transportation infrastructure has to expand to keep pace. This includes elements like the construction of roads and highways, as well as the effect of ever increasing fuel use as trade continues to expand, thus leading to increased pollution and greenhouse gases.

            An interesting argument which has become very relevant of late is the idea of bioinvasions. The basic idea is that as goods, services, and people travel back and forth around the globe, they bring with them microorganisms and invasive species which may cause irreversible ecological damage. [48] Of course, there is no simple way to control this without closing international borders.[49]

Finally, the argument goes that with increasing specialization comes increasing concentration. The primary example given is of the conversion of agriculture from small-scale farms for domestic consumption to large-scale farms growing crops for export. These chemically intensive farms are said to pollute considerably more than small single owner farms.[50]

Environmental issues are one of the elements on which nearly everyone agrees globalization could do better. Even the pro-globalization Friedman states “there will be no sustainable globalization without environmental preservation”, which he calls “only a hope and a prayer today.”[51]


Other Elements


            Most certainly, in addition to the arguments presented here, there are a host of other ideas working their way around certain segments of the population. For example, Harold James points out that some anti-globalization pressure comes from “racists who see immigration as a threat to an idealized view of a homogenous national community.”[52] Certainly elements of racism have been expressed with regard to imported goods (the example of Japanese automobiles in the United States during the 1980’s comes to mind). I have not chosen to focus on these ideas, in part because I believe they hold less currency than the ideas presented previously. Nevertheless, individuals holding these views would probably present themselves as being against globalization.

            In addition, I have chosen not to focus on the object of many anti-globalizationists’ wrath: the international organizations like the WTO, the IMF, et cetera. Suffice it to say that a variety of authors from various sides of the globalization issue believe that the international institutions are exacerbating the problems caused by globalization, rather than ameliorating them. A single example, and one which has carried on for some time after the damage was done, is the IMF’s fascination with liberalizing capital markets. As Stiglitz points out, this liberalization removes the ability of the country to “control the flow of hot money in and out of the country-short term loans and contracts that are usually no more than bets on exchange rate movement.”[53] This movement of ‘hot money’, and the risks associated with it, make the country less attractive to long-term investors, and as the Asian financial crisis demonstrated can have disastrous effects on the exchange rate, and the economy as a whole.[54] The key point of the movement against the international institutions (like the World Bank and the IMF) is that some very influential thinkers (not least Stiglitz and Sen, both Nobel Prize winners in Economics) are in agreement that mistakes have been made, and changes are needed.

            Finally, I have not examined the aspects of Anti-Americanism contained within the anti-globalization movement. Certainly it is easy to argue that America, in addition to being a nation, is a brand. And it is easy to see that use of this brand, and promotion of this brand in conjunction with a corporation’s products, have become a facet of many multinational businesses (although certainly not all of them). And it is very difficult to argue that the sheer volume of marketing involved (as dozens of multinationals spend millions of dollars promoting their own product in concert with the ‘American’ brand) probably has the ability to overwhelm all but the most resilient of local cultures. For example, in the “New Internationalist”, Wayne Ellwood pointed out that the Walt Disney Company “may just be the single most powerful and influential force in the globalization of Western Culture.”[55] So it is easy to see why many protestors (José Bové, the French ‘farmer’[56] who destroyed a McDonald’s in Paris, is a fairly famous example) equate anti-globalization with anti-americanism.[57]




As information technology and cheaper methods of transportation bring the world closer together, the power of money and the ideas of market fundamentalism are subverting the concepts of inalienable rights – those rights to which every person is entitled. Regardless of where they stand on the issue of globalization, the authors presented herein recognize that problems exist with some of the current trends of globalization. Primarily these problems do not involve the fundamentals of globalization, per se, but rather they involve the failure of government and other public institutions to distance themselves adequately from the markets. Most economists agree that, under certain conditions, a free market leads to efficient outcomes. The responsibility of the government as it relates to the economy has always been to provide those conditions. In addition, the responsibility of the government as it relates to public goods is to hold those goods in trust for the public. In example after example, this paper has shown the failure of government to provide the correct conditions for markets to lead to efficient outcomes, and its failure to protect the public goods with which it has been entrusted. Paul Streeten states that “international integration leads to national disintegration.”,[58] and therein lies the problem. Without some form of government to protect the rights of its citizens, and to prevent excesses of the market, the anti-globalizationists will be proven right - a Phyrric victory at best.

Altman, Dennis. Global Sex. The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Barber, Benjamin R. Jihad vs. McWorld. Ballentine Books, 1995.

Berner, Robert. “A Holiday Greeting Networks Won't Air: Shoppers Are `Pigs' --- Still, One Activist Pursues `Buy Nothing Day'; a Call To Cut Up Credit Cards”. The Wall Street Journal. 19, November 1997.

Bollier, David. Silent Theft. Routledge, 2002.


Cavanagh and Mander, et al. Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A Better World is Possible. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002.

The full text of this book may be found online at

Frank, Robert H. Luxury Fever. The Free Press, 1999.

Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Farrar Straus and Giroux, 1999.

Hertz, Noreena. The Silent Takeover. The Free Press, 2001.

International Forum on Globalization, The. “IFG Position Statement”.


James, Harold. “Capital Ideas.”  National Interest. No. 69 (Fall 2002) p. 132-9 ISSN: 0884-9382 Number: BSSI02114030 Interview with George Soros. April, 1998.


Pugel , Thomas A. and Lindert , Peter H. International Economics. 11th Edition. McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2000.

Rifkin, Jeremy. The Age of Access. Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.

Sardar, Ziauddin and Davies, Merryl Wyn. Why Do People Hate America? The Disinformation Company, Ltd. 2002.

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Anchor Books. 2000.

Soros, George. On Globalization. PublicAffairs, 2002.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2002.

Storm, Servaas and Naastepad, C.W.M. - Editors. Globalization and Economic Development. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 2001. Article cited is by Ashwani Saith. “Small is big, but is it still beautiful?”

Streeten, Paul. Globalisation: Threat or Opportunity? Copenhagen Business School Press, 2001.

[1] Streeten. Pp. 167-173. I have used Streeten exclusively here because this chapter actually incorporates at least two of my other sources, as well as several I have not seen. I am therefore convinced his list incorporates an excellent cross section of the definitions available.

[2] Streeten, quoting Manuel Castells. P. 173.

[3] This view is not shared by all.  In an interview with BBC News Online at the time of the Davos meeting, then President of the International Chamber of Commerce Richard D. McCormick stated the protestors at Davos were "modern-day Luddites who want to make the world safe for stagnation"

[4] Streeten, quoting a Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times. P. 171.

[5] Bollier. Pp. 70-73.

[6] Soros. P. 8. Also Barber. P. 14. Others have also expressed this idea.

[7] International Labour Organization. Background on this commission can be found at

[8] Pugel and Lindert. Pp. 61-78. Examples of these arguments can be found in almost any international economics textbook.

[9] I use the term ‘modern’ to separate the Globalization that most people talk about today, beginning sometime in the later half of the 20th century, from the globalization of earlier generations, an excellent example of which might be the East India Company.

[10] Barber, Chapter One, for example.

[11] Barber. P. 140.

[12] Streeten. P. 116.

[13] See Friedman.

[14] Hertz. Pp. 7-8.

[15] Hertz. P. 10.

[16] PBS. April 1998 interview with George Soros.

[17] Human Rights being a problematic term. One of the rights she refers to is actually the right to employment. However, she also cites the willingness of countries to place embargo on the goods of countries which violate human rights, viewing those countries actions as leading to further human rights abuses.

[18] Hertz. Pp. 76-79. It is worth noting this book predates the Second Gulf War.

[19] Hertz. P. 10.

[20] Sen. Pp. 146-149.

[21] Rifkin. P. 55.

[22] Berner. P. A1

[23] Hertz. P. 136. In the passage she takes particular note of Murdoch’s decision to drop the BBC World from his Asian Satellite broadcast after it criticized the leaders of China regarding the Tiananmen square massacre. Murdoch was at that time attempting to gain access to the Chinese market for his networks.

[24] Referring to the FCC’s decision to relax rules on market concentration. Shortly after the decision was made a bipartisan committee of Senators lambasted the decision making body.

[25] Francis Fukuyama wrote an article in the International Herald Tribune in which he argued legalizing the birth control pill in Japan would undermine the social contract “in which male resources were traded for female fertility.” As quoted in Altman, p. 38.

[26] Altman. P. 45.

[27] Altman. P. 45.

[28] Bollier. P. 3.

[29] Bollier cites Monsanto and Microsoft as two examples of this sort of behavior.

[30] Bollier. P. 7.

[31] Bollier. P. 137.

[32] Bollier. Pp. 137-142.

[33] Bollier. P. 144.

[34] The study in question suggested the original work could be sold for the full price of all future profits, and replication would then have no effect on profits. The study, whose citation I have been sadly unable to find, came under fire immediately after publication.

[35] Stiglitz. P. 8.

[36] Bollier. Pp. 130-131.

[37] Bollier. Pp. 80-81.

[38] Bollier. P. 80

[39] Cavanagh and Mander. P. 67.

[40] International Forum on Globalization, The.

[41] Stiglitz. P. 56-57. The Italics in the quote are his.

[42] This is not a quote, but rather a phrase which has become a truism. Rarely does one see the phrase ‘state-owned enterprise’ these days without seeing ‘inefficient’ somewhere nearby.

[43] Barber. P. 27.

[44] Friedman. P. 364.

[45] Sweeney. Interview with PBS, January 1998.

[46] The International Forum on Globalization -

[47] Storm and Naastepad. Pp. 376-7

[48] Cavanagh and Mander, et al. Pp. 28-29.

[49] CNN. Lou Dobbs Tonight. June 16, 2003.

[50] Cavanagh and Mander, et al. Pp. 28-29.

[51] Friedman. P. 242.

[52] James. Pp. 132-9.

[53] Stiglitz. P. 65.

[54] Stiglitz. Pp.  65-6.

[55] Ellwood is quoted in Altman, p. 31.

[56] I use the term ‘farmer’ loosely here, as Bové is much more than that. A BBC profile of Bové points out that “In 1988, he helped organise a protest "Ploughing the Champs Elysee" in Paris against European set-aside policies. A couple of years later, he led hunger strikes for more government subsidies. In 1995, he was on the Rainbow Warrior, siding with Greenpeace against nuclear trials.”

[57] Sardar and Davies. Pp. 114-7

[58] Streeten. P. 8.

[59] This is an inclusive bibliography containing both works cited and works consulted.

Paper on antiglobalization <- Research <- Home