How Compatible is Globalisation and Sustainable Development?

This section outlines the relationship between Globalisation, Sustainable Development and Environmental concerns. Globalisation and the environment can only be linked through the concept of Sustainable Development; globalisers by themselves are unconcerned as to the environmental effects of Globalisation.

Truman’s inaugural Presidential Address in1949 brought Development to the centre stage of international relations; he described making scientific and industrial progress available to underdeveloped areas, by democratic fair dealing, not foreign exploitation (Esteva, quoted in Allen and Thomas 2000:5) This was in part a response to the threat of Communism and Cold War, and it initiated intense rivalries between the Communist and Free worlds, for influence with the non-aligned Third World. Esteva (quoted in Allen and Thomas 2000:5) regards Development at this time as US hegemony, whose ideals and programs would control development everywhere.

Success can be claimed for the Asian Tigers, Hong Kong Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, Plus China. However Latin America, Central Asia, Sub Saharan Africa all have very low or negative growth rates. Africa particularly is suffering the ‘threefold humanitarian crisis’ of ‘deepening poverty, social disintegration and environmental destruction’ (Korten, quoted in Allen and Thomas 2000:6)

In 1987 concern for the environment and international development led to the Brundtland Commission report. Sustainable development was defined as:
‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (1987:Our common future: World Commission on Environment and Development)
quoted in Lechner & Boli 2000.

This concept is elastic, vague and potentially contradictory. Potter et al (2004) quote O’Riordan as saying that ‘Sustainable Development can mean everything or anything you want’ (227). It has been ‘described as a move from the conquest of nature to the managing of the commons’ (Kingsbury 2004). The process of managing the commons involves among other things, the use of resources. Kingsbury (2004) questions the sustainability of the world. If the entire world were to use energy at the rate that the developed world currently uses it, a five times increase would be needed. We need to take into account too that world population has increased from 1.2 billion to 6 billion in the last 100 years, and world consumption is doubling every thirty years (269).

Potter et al (2004) shows us that resources can be looked at simply as things in themselves, or as valuable according to the functions they can perform, depending upon how human ingenuity can put them to good use. For instance, genetically modified crops are more efficient because they can produce more crops on less land; against this it is argued that there are potential threats to ecological balances, and health; that there are small real economic advantages; and that they subordinate the farmer to the agribusiness by producing sterile seed, so the farmer must buy new seed each year (230).

They show us that the use of resources depends on the concentration of resources and skills, and on the possibility of restricting sale, as with OPEC; and that scarcity makes for ingenuity, so that now 75% of lead used in manufacture in the USA is recycled and 50% of the iron and steel (242).

Redclift (2002) shows us the many conflicting meanings of Sustainable Development. Sustainable use of natural resources? What principles the use of resources is to be governed? Sustaining present levels of production or consumption? (276)
He shows that economies can appear more sustainable than they are, when environmental costs like toxic waste and ‘dirty’ technology are passed to developing countries. Furthermore, we can spoil the world for future generations (277).

In the 1992 World Bank World Development Report (cited in Meier and Rauch 2000: 520) sought by its policies to attack the underlying causes of environmental damage. It aimed to
encourage efficiency, leading to less waste, less use of raw materials and more innovation; and
correct price distortion caused by government subsidies.
The Report refers to the environmental Kuznets Curve. As wealth increases, pollution increases too; wealth ultimately reaches the point where concentrations start to decline. The Report seeks to show that the environment is best protected through IMF and World Bank policies, and that in general, the richer societies are, the more they are likely to take care of their environments. It successfully turns a blind eye to any question of limits to exploitation of resources or to the growth of demand.

The question then arises, how does the concept of Sustainable Development relate to Globalisation? Dauvergne (2005) shows us that Globalisation can be presented in very different lights as to its effect on the environment.

On one side, standards of living have continued to rise generally under the influence of Globalisation, we are not running out of energy or natural resources, air and water are becoming less polluted, the green revolution has made food plentiful and cheap, it is just poorly distributed, and that world life expectancy has increased from 30 years in 1900 to 66 years in 2001.

Free trade can rid the world of poverty, hence can end deforestation, desertification, the exhaustion of natural resources, the pollution of waterways, poor government and insufficient inward investment. The environmental Kuznets Curve means that as incomes rise, citizens insist on better environmental conditions; Japan’s growth brought acute pollution, which led onto large improvements. Free trade brings about the transfer of technologies from North to South; more goods are produced with fewer resources, promoting growth and income; so more can be spent on Sustainable development.

Dauvergne shows that this denies the limits of resources implied by the projected growth of world population from 9 billion in 2002 to 12 billion in 2050. Economic growth is unsustainable; agriculture and natural resources extraction must reach a limit. Continuing growth and consumption makes an ever increasing impact on the environment, and causes the depletion of resources like fish, forests, wetlands.

He doubts the environmental Kuznets curve, (eg that growth must lead to lower pollution). As he says,
Some societies never move beyond massive pollution.
Heedless development ignores irreplaceable losses in biodiversity.
Cumulative ecological change may have catastrophic consequences.
Clearly, so far growth has not led to carbon emissions reduction.
Globalisation has increased inequality; from 1980-2000 per capita consumption in Africa has declined by 15%; while the USA contains 5% of world population but owns 30% of the world’s resources.

Similarly, free trade
may force down ecological standards in the race to compete;
and it could be interpreted as meaning that the North is free to exploit the South.
If efficiency can produce environmentally better products, if many more are produced, environmental damage still rises.
The crude price mechanism does not reflect ecological and social costs.
Trans-national corporations (TNCs) may conform to strict standards in developed countries, but exploit lower environmental protections in developing countries, eg. Bhopal, or promote themselves aggressively (BAT, Nestle).

McGrew (2000) shows us how developing states have been responding to Globalisation. They make use of the rules of international structures, especially the World Trade Organisation (WTO), working collectively to advance development. The Group of Seventy Seven (G77) has applied pressure to get changes in international economic organisations. The G22, a group of developing nations, demands more say in IMF rules, and the G15, a group of leading developing states, asserts the right to act as an alternative to the G7 group of industrialised countries.

Developing countries have also sought to achieve development policies through forming regional trading groups to have some protection from competition as well as enhancing their collective bargaining power.

McGrew describes a ‘Globalisation from below’, whereby citizens groups challenge neoliberal policies and build international alliances; they aim to make markets work for people, empowering people, achieving security and sustainability; however these groups are diverse and some are reactionary and racist (360)-