1 comments about Bailouts or Bail-Ins: Responding to Financial Crises in Emerging Markets.

1. I don't know where to begin with this review, but I just wanted to say this is one of the best books on the subject and anyone interested in global economics and markets should read this book.

5 comments about Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Public Worlds, V. 1).

1. Obtuse and without meaning in the real world. Appaduarai needs to set foot on real soil and realize the world is not created, nor can it be defined behind ivy walls.
   
   Use your time to read something of importance and let Appadurai die on the vine, he may impress other sycophantic scholars with his labeling and vocabulary but you don't need him.



2. Appadurai's book, Modernity at Large, offers quite a few tools to help us think about that big fuzzy thing called "globalization." He coins quite a few words to describe multiply-constituted networks of culture - ethnoscapes, mediascapes, ideoscapes, financescapes, and technoscapes. All are different ways of looking at the global cultural flows that we're trying to describe, and all are strongly influenced by perspective, overlapping, and rapidly shifting (though the term doesn't quite capture the instability and mutability of global cultural flows).
   
   A book like this, to be useful, should help us think about important problems in manageable, intelligible, and useful ways. Appadurai's book offers more than most in this line. His terms, such as the above, are interesting, and his willingness to theorize as well as analyze is valuable. The ways that he situates himself in his analysis is also illuminating and useful. For example, Appadurai describes a trip he and his wife made to a Hindu temple in Bombay. His wife asked about a Hindu priest that she had known before, and they were told that he was in Houston. The point isn't just that they went there and he came here. He's talking about trans-locality, and the production of locality beyond mere connection to a place. Not all Hindus live in India, and not all Indians have to live in India to maintain their Indian-ness. At the same time, Houston is Houston because of both the people and the landscape located there. But part of its identity as a place derives from the trans-local identities of some of its citizens - a "cosmopolitan" city where some citizens are both Indian and American. He does a better job than I'm doing here explaining his thinking about the contemporary experience of diaspora, which is an accomplishment in itself.
   
   There are some flashes of real insight in this text - for me, some of his coinages were brilliant, and the comment that some trans-local modern ethnicities are forced into violent anti-statism through an inability to articulate their identity except through the language of nation and state also resonates - but overall, Appadurai tried to accomplish too much in one book. He finds himself saying things like "the details of this argument are beyond the scope of this chapter," and it seems like this happens too much. It would have been better to flesh out his thinking about the production of locality in greater detail, with more case studies. And some of his terms could use additional explanation - he doesn't seem to notice his own un-critical use of the term "cosmopolitan," and he pays remarkably little attention to literature and film after professing the importance of both in the global exchange of ideas (mediascapes and ideoscapes, as he calls them).
   
   This is a strong book, with some real value, but I wouldn't recommend reading the whole thing all the way through. The table of contents, the index, and the chapter titles are useful signposts. It's the kind of book that might be most useful in small doses.



3. I am going to quote Aihwa Ong - Antrhopology Professor from UC Berkeley who criticized "Modernity at Large" since I cannot state it any better than her:
   
   "When an approach to cultural globalization seeks merely to sketch out universalizing trends rather than deal with actually existing structures of power and situated cultural processes, the analysis cries out for a sense of political economy and situated ethnography."
   
   Appadurai is essentially Thomas Friedman in a graduated sense for academia.



4. Appadurai uses a number of powerful metaphors to talk about globalization. His language of -scapes (financescapes, mediascapes, etc) is an interesting way to look at global flows from different perspectives. He suggests that in the postmodern world, the collapse of time and space through technology gives rise to widespread agency as the work of the imagination. He also suggests the collapse of the modern nation-state, or at least the decoupling of those terms through the removal of the hyphen, as identities and allegiences become more transnational.
   While this work is very thought provoking and a useful lens on globalization and global flows of people, goods, ideas and such, Appadurai overstates his points a bit. His prediction of the end of the nation-state seems premature in light of post 9/11 developments (which might be termed, to borrow one of his seciton titles "The Empire Strikes Back"). And while his discussion of works of the imagination is stirring and powerful, it does not adequately take into account power dynamics that are, on the one hand incredibly freeing to the haves, and on the other, quite restrictive to the have-nots.



5. With "Modernity at Large" Appadurai created a widely acknowledged groundwork for a viable perspective on globalization. This little book is a very thorough description about what is going on and changing in the world around us. Additionally, it provides numerous details and examples from all over the world - each of which could be developed even further. It should be read by everyone, who is afraid globalization is erasing the cultural diversity of this world.

5 comments about Tomorrow's Gold: Asia's age of discovery.

1. Traditional wisdom about investing is full of conflicting messages. We all heard that past performance doesn't guarantee future results (means it's hard to say about future based on the past data). But at the same time, we are told that US stocks are expected to return about 8% annually based on the past performance (means it would be reasonable to expect 40%+ return over 5 years). And at the same time, in Q1'06 Dow is still lower then it was 5 years ago (hmm, if 5 years is not a long run, what is?). Each statement describes the US market, sounds simple and straightforward, but they are giving conflicting views, so this knowledge is not really helpful. Simple, but doesn't make sense.
   
   This book does make a lot of sense. It starts with a very impressive overview of the global history from the earliest known civilizations. Then it tells you about cycles in economic activity. The quality and quantity of the facts and references is amazing! Then authors gives you an overview of the current situation in macroeconomics and geopolitics. And then he is explaining his view of the future, both short and long term.
   
   It's is clearly not a "how to get rich quickly" book. The main focus is not what you should be doing but to explain you the big trends so you can make your own educated decisions.
   
   The book is written in 2002, but it will stay actual for years to come. Actually now in 2006 it's amazing to see how acurate Faber's forecasts were.
   
   The book is also pretty short and easy to read.
   
   Highly, highly recommended!



2. I purchased this book shortly after it was published in 2002. The author has been correct in his advice to date (Dec 2006) and I believe will be proven right for years to come. It is a rare opportunity to find a book that so clearly lays out the future and helps you make great investment ideas and actually has recent history to see if the author has provided good advice.



3. Faber, a pioneer in study global business cycles, successfully predicted many ups and downs of different markets in the world since the 80s. In this book written in 2002, he predicted the rising of China, and the booming of commodities due to the rising demand from China, India and other Asian countries. Years later, his prediction again has been proved to be correct. An insightful book about global investing.



4. Once you make it past a rather lame device at the beginning, the book really takes off. There are valid points in the beginning, so stick with it. Your reward will be a history lesson that could be repackaged and sold as current investment advice.



5. Students of financial history as well as those just trying to understand today's credit crisis will be well rewarded with the purchase of Tomorrow's Gold by Marc Faber. I first read this book in 2003 and decided to revisit it recently given the current state of the economy. I must say, the book is even more interesting the second time through as recent events have proven out many of Fabers predictions. Many of his warnings and observations seem to be taken from today's headlines, for example from his chapter on inflation- "...But easy monetary policies by Western central banks could lead at some point in the future to renewed severe inflationary pressures which, given the shaky state of the global economy, may not be countered by tightening monetary policies" (sound familiar..?). Faber, a proponent of the classical Austrian school, is right on the mark in his views and I recommend this book highly.

No comments about Banking on Basel: The Future of International Financial Regulation.

5 comments about In Defense of Globalization: With a New Afterword.

1. PART I: Hypothesis and Framework
   
   Although there is a glut of literature and debate on the subject of globalization, Jagdish Bhagwati chooses to weigh in again upon this controversial subject. Bhagwati sees that the debate on globalization has become weighed down by passionate, if uninformed, arguments on the one side, and fragmented, overly optimistic responses on the other. The forces of anti-globalization- be they the ground troops seen dressed as turtles at trade summits, or the more informed NGOs that have raised serious questions about globalization- have been able to seize the debate, at least in developed nations, and raise unfounded fears of this trend. They have latched onto unproven fears of globalization and attempted to present them as fact despite a paucity of evidence. In response, the pro-globalization camp has not mounted the defense they should have. There has been no systematic refutation of the claims of anti-globalization forces, followed by a sensitive response to those claims that do have merit. As Bhagwati tells us, "...we have fierce opponents locked in combat, but each side without a constructive blueprint for globalization. Where we need a total war, we instead have combatants engaged in battles over a fragmented front" (Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization x). In Defense of Globalization is Bhagwati's effort to construct that blueprint of globalization and systematic refutation of the claims of anti-globalizers. One-by-one, Bhagwati goes through the claims of the anti-globalization forces, and one-by-one he blows holes through them, yet when he comes across those claims that are serious he gives them a reasoned response and gives guidance for how these problems can be alleviated.
   Globalism began as a phenomena that was trumpeted by the developed nations (the US and its allies) as something that would bring the developing nations up and away from the lure of communist revolution, yet today it has turned into something that is generally favored by the people of the developing nations and looked at with trepidation by the developed nations. This 180o paradigm shift is accompanied by two types of globalization dissenters. The first type of dissenter is the impassioned, yet ruefully ignorant, costumed protestor that has developed a deep-seeded hate for capitalism, globalization and multi-national corporations (the "trilogy of discontents"). The next type of dissenters though are the well reasoned critics of globalization that invite debate and discourse; in addressing these critics, the `meat and potatoes' of Bhagwati's work takes shape.
   Economic globalization- and one must preface this by saying that Bhagwati's work is clearly focused on economic globalization (FDI, trade flows, capital investment)- lacks the compassion needed to help the poorest people of the world according to these critics. It has adversely helped the rich in the developing nations at the expense of the poor, hindered the cause of women, put children to work, and usurped the sovereignty of developing nations to the benefit of rapacious multi-national corporations. Not so, says Bhagwati. He calls their claims a "giant non-sequitur" and gives good evidence to prove this claim. Yes, some of these things have happened but are they globalizations fault? When children were fired from working in textile shops in Bangladesh (a victory for anti-globalization, because child labor had been stopped) what happened to them? A significant amount of them were turned into child prostitutes, a pyrrhic-victory at best. When globalization significantly increases the GDP of a nation, and the per capita GDP of its peoples, does it not help the poor as well? By increasing the size of the pie, hasn't globalization allowed everyone in developing nations to eat more, literally and figuratively? Is it to be damned because the rich have benefited as well as the poor?
   Bhagwati goes to great length to lay aside these claims that economic globalization undermines the poorest of the world, but he does not stop there. He does his level best to convince the reader that globalization is in fact socially benign. This may not be such an outrageous claim to an economics student or an IR student, but to the layman this is simply an outrageous statement. Isn't it sweat shop workers who are stealing the jobs of Americans? Aren't they virtually forced to work in these plants under terrible conditions? This is one of the major problems Bhagwati is trying to ameliorate with this book. The anti-globalization forces have seized `high-ground' in the debate. This is why they can mass thousands upon thousands of protestors every time there is a WTO summit or a G7 meeting in a developed nation. For too long the pro-globalization forces have been content to let their numbers do the talking against specific claims, while failing to get out the broader argument that globalization has a human face, is socially benign, and is (MNCs) subject to the laws of host nations. In Defense of Globalization is an excellent all-purpose book that hits the anti-globalizers at every level. It address specific and broad claims, draws from a wealth of previous research to support its claims and benefits from the 50+ years of experience Bhagwati has in the field of international economics/relations. His unmatched personal experience, connections and intellectual acumen make this book a pillar of strength for globalization to rest on. It is perfect for the layman who knows globalization is good, but lacks the lexicon to defend it against the many blustering critics it has gained.
   
   PART II: Format and Evidence
   
   Bhagwati breaks his book up into four major sections where he presents a total argument for globalization. In his first section, Bhagwati explores the whys and wherefores of anti-globalization in an attempt to get a grasp on what the `enemy' thinks of globalization; furthermore, he offers arguments and evidence to deal with these critics of globalization. Coping with Anti-Globalization, as he names this first section, is an in-depth look at the critique of globalization. First, Bhagwati asks why are people against globalization. Next, he attempts to prove that globalization (regardless of what critics say) is a social boon, but that it can be improved- both of which are ideas he explores further in later chapters. Finally, he looks at the major players of the anti-globalization movement: the NGOs, who have become incredibly well-funded and powerful in the developed nations, yet oftentimes remain at odds with their less extravagant counterparts in the developing world.
   In order to begin any defense of globalization one must understand why there are any anti-globalizers at all. Bhagwati breaks the anti-globalizers into two distinct groups: the protestors who make every attempt to disrupt meaningful trade summits with costumed antics fit for the cartoons they resemble, and the dissenters who call for reasoned debate and response to their arguments. These dissenters are well-connected, well-funded and have raised serious claims that need to be met with serious responses.
   Identifying these dissenters is not enough though, Bhagwati also hits upon some of the core assumptions that these dissenters make about globalization. First among these is that globalization is a single, homogenous entity that is either all good or all bad. By this logic free trade was proven to be a terrible thing when the Asian Financial crisis happened in the late 90's. Far be it for an anti-globalizer to separate free trade (which was prominent in the East Asian miracle) from unrestricted capital flows-which were a causal factor in the financial crisis. (In Defense of Globalization 7) Another of these fallacies that Bhagwati brings up is that anti-globalization is a worldwide phenomena that is supported by the majority of the world's poor. Citing data from the World Economic Forum (WEF), Bhagwati shows that since the 1950s and 1960s globalization has taken a U-turn to become very popular in the developed world while becoming more feared in the developed world, although you wouldn't know this if you were an undergrad in the US. Is there any campus in America where students aren't completely sure that the people of East Asia had globalization unwillingly forced on them and would be rid of it if they could be? Thankfully the developing world doesn't take its cues from US campus' protests. Many of the nations of the `South' have seen the success that globalization brought the Far East while they chose to remain protectionist and have since open their own trade. Bhagwati does note though that the WEF data shows anti-globalization sentiment that left the Seattle talks in ruins has subsided since the 90's, at least in the US. This would be consistent with passage of CAFTA legislation that the US congress has passed recently, but how would this data square with the recent anti-immigration movement of US legislators? Indeed, even Bhagwati himself seems to be a bit skeptical of this last part of the data.
   How did these fallacies about globalization develop, and why are the anti-globalizers so ardent in their opposition? Bhagwati comes up with his trilogy of discontents that are at the heart of the anti-globalization movement. The first of these is the anti-capitalism movement. How can there even be an anti-capitalist movement? That is what the logical question should be, but clearly it is there. Anti-capitalism began, as it is seen today, after the triumph of capitalism. Once the West had won the ideological war against the USSR; China had left traditional communism behind for a more open, market-oriented economy; and the Asian economies that embraced market capitalism took off, the ideological left was left intellectually bankrupt. Socialism and communism were proven to be uncompetitive when put on an open field with capitalism. When there is no alternative to embrace the natural response is to hate that which has triumphed. That is the genesis of the anti-capitalism movement that has ensnared many of the young people on the campuses in the US. Further, many of these young people think that capitalism is unable to answer the social questions that are so important to the youth. Economics is hardly seen as the breeding ground of compassion that literature and the social sciences are, but it must also be said that people intellectually based in literature are hardly in the same reality as the rest of us. Of the social sciences, history may be the only one which offers a common sense and objective way to view any given situation. This is one of the main problems with the enthusiastic youth of the anti-globalization movement: they have not had a true intellectual awakening yet, they have only one side of the story. They lack a broad understanding of global issues that is needed to analyze something as massive as globalization. This is exacerbated, Bhagwati tells us, when these same young people can watch suffering 7,000 miles away live on FOX News:
   Today, thanks to television, we have what I call the paradox of inversion of the philosopher David Hume's concentric circles of reducing loyalty and empathy... What the internet and CNN have done is to take Hume's outermost circle and turn it to his innermost. No longer can we snore while the other half of humanity suffers plague and pestilence and the continuing misery of extreme poverty.... So the young see and are anguished by the poverty and the civil wars and the famines in remote areas of the world but often have no intellectual training to cope with their anguish and follow it through rationally in terms of appropriate action. (In Defense of Globalization 18-19)
   
   Second in Bhagwati's trilogy of discontents is the natural anti-globalization movement that has developed among these same youth out of their anti-capitalist feelings. This shift is as natural as breathing for any left-leaning student. Capitalism has been linked to imperialism for as long as it has had detractors, and globalization is seen as the imperial arm of today's capitalism. Since the sensibilities of the world have moved beyond the archaic, imperial mindset, empire must be disguised in clever ways that make the conquered actually embrace the conqueror. Of course, globalization is the means by which today's Western empires conquer the developing world. No doubt that if these developing nations do not willingly accept globalization it will be forced on them through economic coercion at best, and military intervention at worst. The catalyst for spreading the empire, globalization, has become the general target of these discontents, but the catalyst for spreading globalization, MNCs, have become the specific targets of these discontents.
   Indeed, the MNCs, Bhagwati's third target in the trilogy of discontents, may have more venom directed at them than the more general targets of capitalism and globalization combined. Trying to fight general terms like globalization and capitalism is difficult, while fighting something with a tangible face (like Microsoft) is comparatively easy, and in fighting the MNCs you actually are fighting the other two parts of the trilogy as well. MNC opposition is not limited to protesting students though, a great many people from all walks of life feel that MNCs are the unrivaled winners of globalization. Oftentimes MNCs are portrayed as monopolies that are able to sidestep laws and regulations at best, or are not even subject to laws and regulation at worst. Bhagwati explains that the anti-globalization camp uses specific examples, which are often overblown, to justify their general hate of corporations. Most importantly, they have been able to use this anti-corporate sentiment for some strategic success, disrupting the WTO, IMF and World Bank on separate occasions. Using the high profile nature of these meetings, these dissenters have been able to gain the favor of the media. Indeed, I've never seen CNN or FOX News broadcast the actual WTO meetings (something that would be eminently enjoyable) but they are both sure to have as many shots of and stories about protestors that they can.
   Rounding out his look at the whys of anti-globalization, Bhagwati tackles some of the `alternative' dissent to globalization. The ideological right would have America build walls figuratively and literally to keep unwanted immigrants and imports out of the country. How appropriate this sentiment seems today in the wake of the recent Mexican immigration demonstrations and English as a national language legislation that has been passed. Although this viewpoint was not the focus of Bhagwati's work (immigration is not specifically one of the economic aspects of globalization) it may become the most powerful form of anti-globalization in the United States. Politicians were conspicuous by their absence during the Latino demonstrations of a few weeks ago, and the US Senate has been quick to pass legislation making English the official language of the US. Surely both Democrats and Republicans realize that the vast majority of Americans (upwards of 70%) want some type of immigration reform. The political power of this heretofore silent majority is mammoth, even greater than the "Latino vote" which politicians have been pandering to for the last 20 years while our southern border became a turnstile for illegal immigrants. Bhagwati would have done well to spend some more time on this obviously important issue.
   Lastly, Bhagwati hits upon something that Chua noted in World on Fire (2003): that anti-Americanism fuels anti-globalization today. The worldwide hegemony of the United States is matched by the almost worldwide anti-Americanism that can be found. To be sure, anti-Americanism is not nearly as strong as American hegemony, and is balanced by pro-Americanism is several regions, but it is a concern the US has to deal with. With no prevailing alternative like that provided by the USSR, nations feel overwhelmed by the reach of the US. As a result, these nations begin to resent that the US (which is oftentimes half a world away geographically) exercises more power in their respective backyards than these nations do themselves. As Chua would put it the US is the world's market dominant minority.
   Bhagwati uses the next two short chapters of his first section to introduce his ideas that globalization is better than it is portrayed to be, but that it can still improve if governments implement it better. Globalization has become, in his mind, the punching bag for every social ill of the world. As he sarcastically exclaims, "...if capitalism has prospered and economic globalization has increased while some social ill has worsened, the first two phenomena must have caused the third" (In Defense of Globalization 29). He posits, on the other hand, that globalization has a human face, and that it is socially good. This is explored in some depth in Part II of his book. In his mind though, globalization can be implemented better than it currently is. This would reduce the anti-globalization sentiment and help some of the developing nations equally distribute then benefits of globalization to everyone. This idea he looks at in Part IV.
   Bhagwati finishes his first section with a look at the essential cog that makes anti-globalization go: the non-governmental organizations. NGOs have proliferated at a rate that would make the AIDS virus green with envy; in fact, a small number of them have probably just began in the time it took you to read this sentence. Interestingly enough, one would think that Western nations dominate the numbers of NGOs (their NGOs certainly dominate media coverage at WTO ministerial meetings), but developing have as many NGOs as developed nations. They are just not nearly so well funded or well connected. As Bhagwati points out in this chapter, NGOs of the Western world have come to resemble that which they oppose a great deal: the multi-national corporation. The NGOs though oftentimes do not have to keep transparent record keeping or file quarterly reports like MNCs do. Under close scrutiny some of these so called benign NGOs have been so laced with corruption that the costumed protestors would be better to set up shop outside of their local Red Cross rather than a Wal-Mart.
   Bhagwati's goal for his second section of his book is to prove that globalization has a human face, and that that face is none other than the free trade and MNCs that are so vehemently protested against. He does this by systematically going through every point of attack that anti-globalizers level against corporate globalization and by refuting them one by one. First on the chopping block is poverty and the claims that globalization worsens the plight of the poor. This simply is not the case as the evidence shows. Bhagwati is able to site several studies that conclusively show that, "trade enhances growth and growth reduces poverty" (In Defense of Globalization 53). To put it simply, when the pie gets bigger everyone begins to eat more of it. It is the policy responsibilities of the individual nations to see that their poor are experiencing as much of this growth as possible.
   When it comes to child labor, Bhagwati demonstrates that globalization has helped this cause as well. By showing that globalization spurs growth and overall wealth for the poor, Bhagwati is able to trace this to a reduction in child labor. He argues that when poor parents in the developing world are able to make more in wages, they do not use this extra money to consume more. In most cases, "education of one's children is a superior good, the consumption of which rises as income rises" (In Defense of Globalization 70). Citing Dehejia and Gatti's studies of 163 countries Bhagwati tells us that, "improvements in the financial sector... is associated with a reduction in the use of child labor" (In Defense of Globalization 70).
   In the case of women's rights Bhagwati finds some areas where globalization (in the form of MNCs) can do more for women, but he still concludes that globalization has been beneficial to women in general. Feminism, Bhagwati argues, was spread in large part due to globalization. Bringing Western ideas of equality to the formerly developing world and the current developing world has opened up opportunities for women that previously would not have been there. Further, working conditions in EPZs, that often employ many women, are oftentimes better than those in the rest of developing nations and pay a better wage than those other jobs as well. On the other hand, MNCs that employ these women should take a greater role in ensuring that they can get to and from work safely if the host nations have proven themselves unable or willing to police their neighborhoods. Passing all of the blame to governments in poor nations is an easy way for corporations. They would do well to provide more for their workers, the good will sentiment alone would more than defray the cost.
   The next question is whether or not globalization interferes with democracy. Herein lies a paradox. By promoting international norms, obviously democratic sovereignty is reduced in any given nation, but it can also be stated that globalization promotes the transition to democracy by formerly autocratic regimes. This is one of the principle debates about globalization that has yet to be answered to any real satisfaction. Huntington speaks to this debate in The Third Wave: Democratization in the 20th Century (1991). One of his six independent variables that influenced the movement of developing nations to democratization was the snowballing effect of other nations becoming democratic. That is, that global pressures pushed nations to democratize as their neighbors did. Yet some nations have been conspicuously resistant to this change. China is obviously the first to come to mind here. While they have opened their economy they have remained politically repressive. Bhagwati asserts that China's political repression cannot last, but this is a guess at best. Many scholars have been saying the same thing for 20 years, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
   What Bhagwati is getting at in all of these successive chapters of his second section is that globalization as a whole entity is a socially benign thing. Specific examples of globalization setting back the social agenda can be found, but on the whole the evidence shows that globalization in the form of MNCs is under too much scrutiny to be as rapacious as its critics would assert. MNCs realize that they will always be fighting an uphill PR battle in the media, so their representatives have to be above the standards of other local companies inside of developing nations. The scope of globalization is so huge that focusing on specific examples of what one corporation did is no way to make a general argument for or against it.
   In Part III of his book Bhagwati briefly shifts focus to some of the other dimensions of globalization. Namely, transnational migration and international capital flows. International capital flows are among the most dangerous aspects of globalization, and this is not lost on Bhagwati. He was at the forefront of those who saw the Asian financial crisis coming and those who knew how to stem the tide of this crisis, but were unable to change IMF and World Bank policy. Capital controls keep money from fleeing a region with the speed that it did during the financial crisis, and they were present in the few East Asian nations that were able to avoid the worst of the crisis. Bhagwati makes it known that he is for some restrictions in capital flows, but trying to turn this into protectionism is the wrong answer. It was open trading that brought about the East Asian miracle and closing it off would be wrong.
   To deal with massive immigration Bhagwati would ask that we cope with it instead of trying to stop it. Essentially, he argues that it is impossible to stop, and should be dealt with in any case. Granting limited civil rights to illegals is just the tip of the iceberg for him. He has proposed a World Migration Organization that would take charge of national migration policies. Here is somewhere that I feel Bhagwati is off the mark. His solution is simply implausible, I cannot see many developed nations joining any World Migration Organization. The loss of sovereignty is simply too much. The US, for its part, is beginning to lean more and more towards stopping immigration rather than coping. To be sure coping has failed the US for the last 20 years.
   Part IV of Bhagwati's work focuses on how to better implement globalization in the world today. As he tells us, "It should be clear that globalization will yield better results if it is managed" (In Defense of Globalization 221). Breaking into three chapters, Bhagwati sees three ways in which globalization can be managed better. First, he wishes to enhance the human side of globalization which he demonstrated in Part II. This can be done by strengthening the review processes of international organizations, not by allowing trade sanctions to be imposed by developed countries on developing nations that have differing labor standards. Second, he sees that globalization is going to have some eventual downsides, and these need to be coped with. These downsides are often country specific and institutions need to be funded inside of these nations to confront these downsides. This means that careful study must be done of specific nations and their respective problems, there is no cookie-cutter globalization policy that will work in all developing nations. Furthermore, stopping globalization completely in a given area to prevent a proposed downside is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It just doesn't need to be done. Lastly, Bhagwati thinks that the transition to globalization needs to be managed as well. It is the speed with which a nation globalizes that he is primarily concerned with. Indeed, he isn't the first scholar to note that rapid globalization can lead to trouble, even disaster. Chua definitely notes this as one of her biggest concerns with globalization. Nations are becoming democratic and capitalist overnight, leaving the poor in power and the rich in fear. Bhagwati's fears are not as great in this matter as Chua's, but he recognizes that globalization should happen at optimal rather than maximal speed.
   What strikes the reader most about Bhagwati's work is that when you read it you realize that you are reading the words of an expert in the field, perhaps the expert. The wealth of knowledge that Bhagwati can draw on for this subject is limitless. He cites several studies (some of which were his own) and never seems to be at a loss for ample data to back up his claims. At points one feels that Bhagwati may be patting himself on the back, but a quick look at his resume will quickly take that notion from you. He simply is the authority on this issue, and if he isn't shy about it at points it's because he doesn't have to be. I found myself awestruck for a moment when Bhagwati recounted an encounter with Justice Scalia where upon the good Supreme Court Justice and our author discusses the finer points of the Justice Bhagwati's (the author's brother) rulings on the Bangalore Principals. So too, when Bhagwati talks of being part of the committees that helped India to globalize and being at the very top levels of the IMF, one cannot help but pay close attention to what he has to say.
   
   PART III: Globalization Debate
   
   Bhagwati's contributions to the globalization debate are unrivaled. In Defense of Globalization clearly is the book that the casual free trader can rest his hat on and be confident that it will give him the answers he needs to brush of the protests of anti-globalizers. Bhagwati's work would clearly agree with Drezner's Bottom Feeders (2000). Drezner goes to great length to dispel the myth of a "race to the bottom" in which global standards of labor and environmental conditions are sacrificed at the alter of the MNCs. He is able to cite evidence which clearly shows that multinational corporations have in fact raised the standard of living and the condition of the environment in the nations where they have been. Further, they often use their influence to nudge developing nations into raising their environmental and labor standards so that they (the corporation) does not have to face the potentially damning criticisms of the anti-globalization NGOs. In fact, Drezner's work is one that Bhagwati cites in his book.
   I think Easterly's Cartel of Good Intentions (2002) might be one that would give Bhagwati some pause. Bhagwati puts an unreasonable amount of faith in multinational institutions in my opinion and clearly this is the opposite of Easterly. Easterly sees these institutions as being a roadblock oftentimes to the aid developing nations need to manage globalization properly. Bhagwati's slant towards multinational institutions would lead him to disagree with the principal of Easterly's argument. In fact, there really is no point at which Bhagwati does not support globalization, be it multinational organizations or eliminating trade barriers. He shows some needed reserve when it comes to restrictions on capital flows, but other than that he is an unabashed globalist. Unlike Chua's work which isn't meant to be anti-globalization stuff, but can be used that way, Bhagwati's work is purely pro-globalization.



2. "In Defense of Globalization" is a point by point rebuttal of the cacophony of arguments put up by the so-called anti-globalization movement. Jagdish Bhagwati employs wit and facts to set the record straight and as a native of India, he speaks first hand about the defects of the state-managed semi-closed economy of his youth (although he does not contend it was all bad).
   
   I did have to dock one star for the often self-reverential commentary. He also makes some arguments that he thinks are stronger than they really are. On page 142 he makes a convincing case that young environmentalists fail to see the trade offs in the policies they demand and then asserts this is true of the old as well (the middle aged being the exception). While his assertion about the young seems reasonable, he offers nothing but anecdotes to back up his assertion about the elderly.
   
   However, he offers considerable evidence that trade and foreign investment do more harm than good. Many anti-globalization activists are quick to criticize international corporations who employ people in third world countries but Bhagwati shows that while living standards of these employees may be below those of their counterparts in the developed world, they are higher than alternatives in the developing world.
   
   In his chapter on wages and labor standards, Bhagwati suggests, quite convincingly, that the critics assertion that globalization leads to a "race to the bottom" in living standards is without foundation. Rather he shows historical examples that suggest a "race to the top" is more likely.
   
   The hard core anti-globalists will not be satisfied with Bhagwati's argument, but he notes many of them are not open to being persuaded anyway. However, a fair-minded reader will find plenty of good information this book.



3. a well built construction of what is globalization and the reason to apply to it . Interesting. Engrosing and over all illustrative of a "global" phemomenon that reaches everybody and also determines the future of the world and humankind .In Defense of Globalization: With a New Afterword



4. In rather readable style - I just love his sense of humour - Professor Bhagwati (JB) sets out his case in favour of globalisation.
   
   Part One sets out the arguments of the anti-globalisation movement. It would appear that a whole load of other issues not connected to globalisation found a home in the anti-globalisation movement, anti-Americanism being one of them. JB also notes that students of economics tend to be in favour of globalisation and that those opposed to globalisation rarely know anything about economics. Perhaps that situation could be remedied by spreading more knowledge of economics amongst the "anti-globalisationists".
   
   In Part Two, JB examines the effect of globalisation on a number of issues including poverty, child labour, women and their treatment of, democracy, culture, wages and labour standards, the environment and multi-national corporations. He finds that globalisation is not a threat but rather beneficial to any of these subjects and that multi-nationals are not thriving by playing economies against each other or exploiting countries by abusing their corporate might.
   
   Part Three deals with legal and illegal movement of labour and the challenges arising from it and the perils arising from the move of international capital where he also looks at the 1998 Asian crisis. Whilst I agree with JB that the reason for the crisis was not an end of the economic miracle experienced in the 30-odd years before the crisis I think that these countries' economic mismanagement played a large part in it. But you are of course free to read JB's book and make up your own mind.
   
   In Part Four, JB discusses ways in which globalisation could be managed in such a way that potential downsides in the course of economic development could be met in a better way than is available at present. You will notice that JB is terribly impressed with the efforts of the IMF and the World Bank in helping countries in need.
   
   In his conclusions, JB mentions that his book was written against the background of the mass demonstrations accompanying the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999.
   
   Also in his conclusion, JB tells of an argument put forward by the anti-globalisation movement that globalisation kills jobs in the industrialised countries. This line of argument would suggest that investment and economic development to the non-industrialised world must be denied because these jobs must be retained in the industrialised countries in order to secure `our future'. Who is the selfish party here, I wonder.
   
   Jagdish Bhagwati's book should be compulsory reading for everyone because he proves that the arguments put forward by the anti-globalisationists are simply not true, including the one about killing jobs outlined above. I look forward to these people demonstrating in favour of globalisation, soon, or at least after they have read JB's book.



5. I must say it took me a bit to get through the book - however here are a few pointers
   1. This is a comprehensive overview of Globalization as we know and understand it.
   2. The reasoning is coherent, and sometimes the facts are totally unexpected / surprising.
   3. The book is chock-a-block with references - extremely well researched
   4. This book is not for beginners - it is fact based, slightly dense at times but then again, much much easier to understand than a standard text book :)
   5. It doesn't build up to a euphoric end - there is a steady pace of revelations, detailed cross referenced understanding of the concepts and all points are re-iterated at various stages, in different contexts. Think of it like wikipedia - almost :) You will see various facets of the same issue being discussed.
   6. I would recommend reading 5-10 pages daily... i was not able to read it at one go - too much to digest :)
   
   Overall, comprehensive text, good read - slightly dense for me, but I think I get it - this is really how much there is to globalization and Prof. Bhagwati explains it the best.
   
   You can keep it and refer to it for a long time to come.

5 comments about Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America.

1. A good book, though most business people will disagree, but most working people will cheer. Over the last 30 plus years things have gotten so bad that our biggest exports, are jobs. And our leaders say this is good for America. You think? We have trade deficits with just about every trading partner, if they can be so described. But no one in power thinks we need to do anything to change things.
   
   Trade, something of value, in exchange for something of equal value. What do we manufacturer in this nation anymore worth trading? This in turn has contributed to the credit crisis, over burdening credit card dept, (another story) our cities and states cannot meet their obligations in part because revenues are down.
   
   Then there is that nasty word "Globalization," where this nation has become the dumping ground for it seems any and all goods other nations produce. Where we now look the other way because goods are cheap, because they are produced by prisoners, or worse children. No enviromental precautions, no minimum wage, cheap labor, better defined as "SLAVE" labor. Then there is that nasty thing we do called deficit spending, where we spend more than we take in. Living on credit so to speak.
   
   The next President to take office had better have the balls to set this monster straight, or this economic quicksand America now faces will overshadow the great depression of the 1930s. We are pulling up every third world nation, at the expense of American jobs. The jobs an advisor of John McCain says we as Americans are not truly entitled to. Jobs that built this Nation after the depression, and aided in the winning of WW II.
   
   Suggestions are made by the author as to how we can begin to dig ourselves out of this mess, but it will take a great deal of heart. Heart enough to renegoiate our one way trade deals. Pay our way out of dept, and not try to borrow our way out.
   
   This is basic good economics, something like being left with a surplus, instead of dept. This is a major reason we can no longer properly supply our military, too much of what is now needed is produced by other Nations, and how bad is that? Well imangine if before World War 2 this were the case, think we would have won? The Pentagon has little choice but to look to overseas producers, because most of our heavy industry has been exported.
   
   This all relates to our educational system where most high school grad cannot read a simple rule. Not nearly enough revenues to properly educate our children, and a Communist Nation holds a great deal of our dept, as well as Middle Eastern Nations. I thought we were anti Communist. Where do we go from here?
   
   Well too many of us do not vote, and of those who do believe it when they the politicians say globalization is good for America. I hope we read this book, and start to pull our heads out of the sand.



2. By way of full disclosure, the chances of my giving Pat Choate's new book, Dangerous Business a bad review are not very high.
   
   We have been friends and business associates for more years than either of us care to count and our views on the competence of those in our government who masquerade as international trade negotiators are strikingly similar.
   
   That said, Pat's ability to take a subject which is a non narcotic substitute for sleeping aidslike international tradeand make it interesting is rare and a gift which any college student who has a term paper due should appreciate.
   
   In his last book, Hot Property, Pat explained how people in countries like China steal ideas.
   
   This book concentrates on how they directly take our money.
   
   And it is important to note that Pat is not a China-phobe.
   
   In fact, the first thing he points out is that China, Inc. is not some backward, third world country.
   
   Its industries are now owned mostly by the government but controlled by very smart, very efficient and very experienced people who would hold similar jobs in private industry were they here in the United States.
   Worse, they are much better negotiators than anybody we have representing our country. Partially by intellect and partially by national trade doctrine.
   
   In fact, in many cases, with a little help from our own stupidity, they can fake us out of our jockstraps--usually made in China these days and sold at Wal-Mart.
   
   Pat points out that the situation we find ourselves in today is the result of the U.S. policy of free trade as opposed to fair trade which is being espoused by a non-partisan group of multi-national companies which look forward no further than their next quarter's earnings.
   
   The resulting disruption of our economy is simply not accounted for in negotiating today's trade agreements because the results of globalization are instant profits for the multi-nationals at the expense of jobs and the U.S. economy.
   
   Put bluntly to U.S. citizens who lose their jobs to outsourcing: you had a good run and if you live through the pain, maybe you'll do well in the future but you'll have to live through the pain as we pursue global profits.
   
   China, on the other hand, follows a global policy of mercantilism.
   
   Their currency is strong, they run a positive trade balance and they only let foreign investment into China when it suits their interests.
   
   And even when they do allow foreign investment, it is allowed with an eye towards the future so that perhaps they won't need it after they absorb all the knowledge and expertise they can.
   
   The results of both our policies and their policies have been a number of paradigm shifts in the United States.
   
   One example is that many parts we use in our defense industries are now sourced overseas.
   
   We are, even now, being treated, as an example, to the spectacle of an aircraft tanker competition between Boeing and the people who make the Airbus in Europe and Airbus won the initial round.
   
   The future safety of such arrangements, Pat points out, is in doubt.
   
   What can be done?
   
   Well, that's the crux of the book and it can be summed up in two words.
   Better deals.
   
   It's a good read and makes you wonder what a Perot-Choate administration might have done to NAFTA and the WTO had they pulled off the miracle in 1996 and won the Presidency.



3. I couldn't put this book down and read the 205 pages in one sitting. Choate gives great instructions for our government. READ THIS BOOK!



4. The American people need a wake-up call! That seems to be the message that Pat Choate is urgently attempting to convey in his important new book "Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America". For more than seven decades now both Republican and Democratic administrations have been pursuing economic policies that favor so called "free trade". And with the establishment of the World Trade Organization and the passage of NAFTA back in 1993 the Congress in conjunction with Presidents Clinton and Bush have seemingly colluded with multi-national corporations in accelerating the outflow of capital and good paying jobs from our country. Yes, it seems that people like Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Senator Byron Dorgan were right. Globalization has been a disaster for the American worker. But there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye. That is what "Dangerous Business" is all about.
   Would it disturb you to learn that a number of state governments are in the process of leasing our freeways to foreign companies? I had never heard of this one before but in 2005 the State of Indiana awarded a 75 year lease on an extremely busy highway known as the Indiana Toll Road to a Australian/Spanish consortium. Under the terms of this agreement the State of Indiana would receive an up front payment of some $3.15 billion dollars. In return this consortium agrees to operate, maintain and collect tolls on the turnpike. Tolls are expected to increase dramatically in the years ahead and estimates are that this deal will produce more than $121 billion of revenue during the life of this agreement. This is definitely a short-sighted and ill-advised deal for the State of Indiana. Then there is another scheme known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. You might want to check one out at www.corridorwatch.org. It is frightening to discover just how many questionable deals federal and state governments are entering into with virtually no involvement from the legislative branch and with an absolute minimum of publicity. It is instructive to note that both President Clinton and President George W. Bush have attempted to circumvent the normal legislative process by utilizing Executive Orders to accomplish their highly questionable objectives. Such actions makes one wonder just whose side our leaders are really on.
   Those of you who are old enough might recall the classic scene in the 1976 motion picture "Network" where Arthur Jenson, Chairman of the Board of the UBS network (played by Ned Beatty) confronts anchorman Howard Beal in the Board Room. In that scene Mr. Jenson declares in no uncertain terms: "There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today." He goes on to say: "We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime." How apropos to the subject matter at hand! Throughout the pages of "Dangerous Business" Pat Choate points to countless examples where the interests of our nation have been sold down the river by corporations, investors and the elite. One of the most disturbing things that I discovered was just how much of our nations defense work has been outsourced to other nations including China! It seems to me that the very security of this nation has been put at risk by actions like this. Then there is the whole subject of the WTO. Did you know that all 153 member nations of the World Trade Organization have an equal vote in the decisions that are made? Thus, as Choate points out, the vote of the tiny nation of Antigua (population 69,000) carries the same weight as that of the United States. There is clearly something wrong with this picture.
   Time will simply not permit me to even scratch the surface of all of the substantive issues discussed in this book. Suffice to say that "Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America" is an extremely timely and important book that needs to be read and digested by as many Americans as possible. The American people need to understand what is happening around them and Pat Choate offers a number of thoughtful solutions to the problems he discusses. Extremely well written and exhaustively researched "Dangerous Business" is one book I simply could not put down. Very highly recommended!



5. "The globalization policies of presidents Bush (I and II) and Clinton constitute the worst economic mistake in American history" - says Chaote early in his "Dangerous Business." Readers then learn that the U.S. now imports more food than its exports; similarly more high-tech products.
   
   In the six years since 9/11, food-born pathogens and toxins have killed 10X those killed in the terrorist attack. Our response - reduce the number of FDA inspectors. China, India, and Mexico are prime culprits, and cases have involved deliberate adulteration of food for animals and people with poisons that have killed thousands. U.S.D.A. inspectors analyze less than 1% of food imports; part of our reticence to reject Chinese food imports is their quick retaliation by banning ours.
   
   Over 80% of the bulk active ingredients for U.S. prescription drugs are imported - mostly from China and India.
   
   The Chinese low-cost advantage comes via low labor costs, few environmental/labor safeguards, piracy, export subsidies (tax exemptions, forgiven loans, free rent and land - estimated to contribute 16% of their advantage), industrial clustering (aka Ford's River Rouge Plant near Detroit; contributing another 16% of their advantage).
   
   Foreign corporations may deduct from Chinese income tax an amount equal to 150% of their R&D in China - if this amount increased 10% over the prior year.
   
   China's surplus funds and assets are expected to hit $3 trillion in 2010, vs. an entire value of $15.4 trillion for NYSE U.S. firms.
   
   Finally, Chaote also points out that many key military components are either available in the U.S. now only through a single source, while others not at all. The Pentagon says it's not concerned because wars will be shorter in the future. Meanwhile, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue on, years longer than WWI, WWII, and the Korean War.

5 comments about A Year Without "Made in China": One Family's True Life Adventure in the Global Economy.

1. I really enjoyed reading abut this family's attempt to avoid buying from China. The way in which they approach the challenge was very realistic...the reluctant husband, the concerned, but not too "militant" wife, and the friends and relatives who were a mix of supportive and ridiculing. It was very eye-opening to see the different items they struggled with. I would recommend it to anyone who is trying to be a more conscious consumer.



2. This book is a lot of fun to read and really gets you to think about where things come from. My wife and I both read it. We agreed that she was pretty hard-core. We would not have lasted the whole year. If you've ever looked at the label to see where things come from, or if you have some concerns about our trade deficit with China, this book is one you would enjoy.



3. Boring after the first chapter.
   
   Assigned as a text for my International Business class, the students thought this was a light weight text with the main point established in the first 2 chapters. The rest of the book delves more into family details with more examples of the same.
   
   Save your money, look into your closet and document all the things you have purchased that are made in China. In so doing, you will understand the concept of this book. There are no prescriptions or solutions, just railing about the problem.
   
   Instead, the author should discuss the impact of Made in China:
   * Trade imbalances
   * Currency devaluation
   * Declining educational system
   * Bigger government
   
   Do not buy this book. It states the obvious without any solutions.



4. This book is light reading; with 227 pages it's a quick read and at times funny and insightful. However, I didn't get the point.
   
   The "rules" of living a year without felt flimsy; granted, it was a work in progress, but what's the point if you're going to keep breaking the rules? Example: the "gift" exception. You can always ask a relative to buy something you need that's made in China.
   
   If you're going to go a year without, * really * go a year without! Perhaps a better approach would have been to write a book titled "A Year of Made in the USA"... now that would have been tough! Here the writer goes to great lengths to buy items made from other countries.
   
   Personally I think the entire book could have / would have done well as a lengthy article, and I would have gained just as much insight. What the book lacks, and what others have mentioned, is a pairing of this family's decision with a discussion about China. The reader could have benefited from a historical explanation as to why China has infiltrated our economy, and why it's difficult to go without purchasing items made there. I actually consider this a disservice to the reader.
   
   Oh well... not a complete disappointment but it wasn't what I expected.



5. I would have appreciated more depth about the actual experience of seeking out products not made in China and fewer irrelevant tangents about the author and her family and friends. The tangents do make the book "read like a novel" but if you aren't after a novel then you may find it annoying to have to wade through the fluff in search of the interesting parts.

5 comments about Adventure Capitalist: The Ultimate Road Trip.

1. I am quite impressed by this book and Jim Rogers trip. We all would like to do a tour of the world, but very few of us can spare the time or the money. Being a retired billionaire does help in that respect and if only because it gives the necessary funding to construct your own vehicle and do as you please. Jim Rogers does precisely that. In a way, we all ought to be jealous or make a killing money-wise and do it ourselves.
   
   I loved the description of his trip from Ireland to Tokyo and back to Ireland as well as his trip down and up through Africa. Jim Rogers being an investor he was bound to make all sorts of observations on the economies he traveled through. Some of these I found spot-on. I also agreed with his observation on foreign aid projects given that I have also seen them in action.
   
   The one disappointment for me were his travels from India to New Zealand and his trip through the American continent and largely because he describes it rather briefly. I think they would have deserved at least as much attention as Part One and Part Two of his trip.
   
   But apart from that, this is excellent stuff.



2. I read the book to hear of tales and experiences of traveling the world via automobile and that is what it delivered. This is not an investing book. Very fast read.



3. Mr. Rogers is dead-on right about many things, and there are things that he is wrong about. Being close to the ground before investing internationally is amazingly brave and smart. His claim that you can learn more about a country in 10 minutes speaking to a prositute than you can in 1 hour speaking to the country's head of state is a bold and funny claim, but I am certain there is truth to it.
   
   He picks investments based on a number of unorthodox factors. Reading some of these scathing reviews from fellow Amazon readers, I can't help but wonder what the reviewers' investment returns look like. Everyone's a critic, but who can back up what he/she says? I know Jim Rogers can, for if there's one thing you can't argue against Jim Rogers, it is the success of his investments.
   
   The book is very interesting, because even though it is autobiographical, it has the element of fiction: did that really happen, you're left wondering as he almost drove off a mountain in an Icelandic Blizzard before the trip even started. Did he really drive through the Sahara Desert behind a military convoy in a bright yellow Mercedes?? I could ask a million similar rhetorical questions, but if you're here reading my review, I would highly recommend reading the book instead.



4. This is probably the best book I've read this year so far. It's a great true story with solid business tips and great travel stories. I highly recommend it.



5. This book offers you an amazing learning experience from someone with a greater scope of knowledge and curiosity (could he possibly just sit still?) than just about anyone else I know. After finishing this book--I feel that I've absorbed the collective wisdom of 100's of people living over many centuries. Rogers sense of adventure and curiosity compares with that of Richard Feynman--and one should study his methods of thinking. The book is replete with lessons about history, politics, finance, love, and travel--and their interaction. The scope is comparable with War and Peace, Don Quixote, etc.. This book must assume a place on the pantheon of greatest investment books--including One Up on Wall Street and A Random Walk Down Wall Street. The book must also assume a place on the pantheon of greatest adventure stories.

5 comments about Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. Steger begins by defining the term "globalization": A "set of processes" (not a "condition") towards greater interdependence and integration among the various cultures of the world. He makes a point to emphasize that economics is only ONE aspect of globalization: there are also political, cultural and ideological aspects. Moreover, he dedicates one chapter to showing that globalization is by no means a NEW phenomenon: cultural exchanges can be traced back to the prehistoric period.
   
   I found the chapter on the economic aspects of globalization (chapter 3) very useful. It explains the history and role of the IMF, WTO and the World Bank in the global economy. It also discusses the West's transition from "controlled economies" to "free market capitalism." Arguing that globalization is an uneven process, the author shows how it is having very different effects on the various regions of the world. This gives us a clear vision of some of the negative impacts of the new world economy, such as a larger gap between rich and poor nations. His realistic view of globalization is a nice antidote to the cheerleading of hyperglobalizers like Thomas Friedman.
   
   The chapter on opposition to globalization (chapter 7) does an excellent job of explaining challenges that are coming from both the right and the left. The particularist protectionists (on the right) feel threatened by multiculturalism because they want to maintain a sort of cultural purity. This often leads to their rallying against immigration and appealing to nationalism. However, like the left, they also criticize the power of the corporate elite and the negative effects globalization is having on the average domestic worker (i.e., jobs going overseas, lower wages). In the US, Pat Buchanan is a good example of this view. The universalist protectionists (on the left) tend to criticize the poor working conditions of both domestic and foreign workers. In general, universalist protectionists "are concerned with protection of the environment, fair trade and international labor issues, human rights, and women's issues." Ralph Nader is an example of a universalist protectionst.
   
   Overall, an excellent introduction to the various facets of one of the most important issues of our time.



2. Book was informative, this is a text book. The last two sections give seemingly unsupported statements, but tries to be balanced.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



3. The book starts, ominously, with the author "deconstructing" (sic, comas and all) Bin Laden. It turns out the 9/11 attacks were all America's fault, for trying to force fed globalization into an unwanting world. The rest of the book continues in the same vein, with the author lambasting multinationals, neoliberals, the North, and above all evil Americans for all the worlds troubles. A mugshot of Bill Gates is included.
   
   Steger has no grasp of economics whatsoever, so all his economic assumptions about the effects of globalization are totally wrong. The classical example is trying to demonstrate the widening gap between rich and poor countries without taking account of countries population size or PPP. With China growing at a rate of 10% this looks specially silly.
   
   I strongly recommend Why Globalization Works (Yale Nota Bene) instead of this drivel.



4. The point of a "very short introduction" is to present a topic with a minimum of bias; then, if the reader wishes to delve deeper, s/he can do so.
   
   This book is unfortunately quite biased against globalization, the economic aspects of which are leading millions out of poverty (see India, China). Steger takes a typical Socialist view and runs with it.
   
   His multifaceted approach is quite commendable, however. His identification of the political, social, cultural, etc. aspects of globalization are too often ignored, although, again, I think he overstates the negatives.
   
   What I find most unfortunate is that the browsing book buyer might see this book and be inspired to learn something about an important topic. S/he will come away with a sadly jaundiced view of a process that has very much to commend. Steger the political scientist seems put off that economists get most of the globalization press (he sees politics as the driver behind everything, which is a suspect position IMO), and his use of "neoliberal" is seldom used in any positive sense even though classical liberalism has given Steger the very freedom to trash the "Global North" which he criticizes. It's too bad, really. The topic deserves better.



5. Manfred B. Steger's book Globalization is part of the Very Short Introductions series put out by Oxford University Press. The series is called that because each book in the series is a brief treatment of a particular topic, like Cosmology, Postmodernism, Intelligence, Drugs, or Animal Rights. In Globalization, Steger keeps his introduction to 147 pages, making it true to the series name.
   
   Steger has written Globalization with both erudition and clarity. Striking that balance between precision and perspicuity is no easy task, but Steger manages to succeed. In chapter 1, Steger decides not to protect the reader from the controversies surrounding the concept of globalization. He then takes his readers on a historical tour, showing how globalization has been happening in different ways ever since humans appeared on the scene (ch. 2). The meat of the book comes in chapters 3-5, where Steger expounds on the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of globalization. In chapter 6 Steger makes a careful distinction between globalization and globalism. The former, he explains, is a description of social processes, while the latter is an ideology endowed with neoliberal meanings and values. Earlier in the book Steger gave his readers another helpful distinction, separating globalization as social processes from globality as a social condition (p. 7). Chapter 7 highlights the recent key challenges to globalism in the form of particularist-protectionism and universalist-protectionism. Chapter 8, capping off the introduction, contains a brief assessment of the future of globalization.
   
   Although I had read about globalization before, and most of the concepts discussed inside are not new to me, Steger's volume on globalization has turned out to be the best introduction to the topic that I've come across

4 comments about Africa Doesn't Matter: How the West Has Failed the Poorest Continent and What We Can Do About It.

1. Terrific analysis of Africa's ongoing troubles in the 21st century and the failure of modern concepts of "aid" (however well-intentioned).
   
   The book is not really an easy read; it's more of a textbook, even with the anecdotal touches. Very dense at times.
   
   However, if you want a great overview of the history of modern Africa, the history of modern aid, and how various approaches have broken down in the past, this is a great primer.
   
   Most interestingly, Bolton points the way to the "holy grail" of aid: real solutions that can work to change the face of Africa forever.



2. This book is not a self righteous tirade against developed countries not doing enough. Rather, it's a clear expose of what are the real problems facing poor African nations, why billions of dollars in public and private aid over many decades has done so little to raise standards of living in Africa, and, importantly, what you and I as citizens of the developed west can do to make a real difference.
   
   Surprisingly, his answer is not "The West must give more money."
   
   He develops his case from both personal experience and careful research. Drawing on economic data from World Bank and other sources, Bolton lays out the relief industry in easy to follow charts - where the money comes from, where it goes, how effective is it.
   
   He sketches out the African historical context, from pre-colonial times, to the century-long period of western colonization, the wars of independence, and the current political and economic struggle to ascend from poverty.
   
   View the full review at http://insidework.net/resources/readinglist/does-africa-matter



3. A great book on the subject. As I read the book (almost finished) I'm amazed at how clearly he exposes the issues surrounding Africa, development (or lack of), trade, corruption, aid, etc.
   
   I've always wondered why was Africa so poor and with such an apparent lack of prospects. I remember way back many, many years ago, a school trip to an exhibit on africa and poverty. There was great emphasis (almost exclusive) on corruption and western aid. As the book explains, yes: corruption is a big problem and yes: western nations do provide some aid. But both aid and corruption have a story to tell of their own. As well as many other factors.
   
   The reality is that Africa's story has a lot to do with the Western world. And to the Western world "Africa doesn't matter" even though our actions have a big effect on African people.
   
   Again: it's a great book, very well written, very clear insights into the issues surrounding Africa.



4. Don't waste your time on this whining, disjointed diatribe. Get a real book with real solutions in it, "Banker to the Poor" for example, which shows how the west can apply intelligent market solutions on a micro level to improve lives on a global scale.Banker To The Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty
   
   Gilels Bolton in this Africa book does have some salient points, such as the sledge hammer approach used by NGO and Banker-types who want to write reports, generate budgets, and get reimbursed for so called "high risk" assignments to pad their paychecks. I've seen those men and women, sitting in nice hotels in Gulu and Kampala, Uganda, writing reports on shiny laptops before they speed away in Landrovers. I never saw any of them in the IDP camps or villages actually learning or doing anything. But the money rolled in and rolled right back out to their payrolls.
   
   In fairness, this is a book about the failures of the west, and it is true that the west did not create the Grameen bank, or the Village Phone project, etc. So it's true that the west is floundering, working against itself and failing to really help at the level it could, based on resources available to wealthy countries. And he does have some general ideas on how to improve our efforts, mostly centered around restructuring trade rules and getting large USA interests to stop hogging all the donor dollars so they can be spent inside the developing countries.
   
   On the other hand, why aren't failures of African leaders, like corruption figures detailed as carefully as USAID budget numbers, or WTO failures? Corruption in African leadership is now considered just the cost of doing business, siphoning off so much money that the poor see almost nothing. The problem is mentioned repeatedly but then quickly brushed away to the margins, to keep the finger pointed directly at the west for all the blame.
   
   Yes it's sad to see such things so indemic to Africa, but there are some real solutions happening that raise living standards, health and lives of families often with help from western finance and workers. The Grameen bank has been emulated in many ways in Africa, applying the laws of self-interest and economics of personal wealth to dramatically change lives. The Nobel committee recognized it, and rewarded microenterprise innovator Muhammad Yunus for his profound contributions over 30 years, in 2006.
   
   So, much as I admire Mr. Bolton's heart, I can't say his book will help at all. I'm sorry but as someone who has been to Uganda and worked in the camps, I hoped for a better book, at least one that reflects more careful thought and more up-to-date research into the stunning improvements microfinance (for example) bring when the creative and enterprising people of Africa are empowered to work on their own problems.