Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Most countries all over the world since the early 1980s have pursued a strategy of integration into the world economy. The strategy might well be dubbed “neoliberal globalization,” with reference to the “new economic model” used to guide policy, a program of structural reforms designed to adjust the national economies to the dictates of the new world order. The hallmark of this order is economic freedom—to liberalize trade and financial flows and to deregulate product, labor, and capital markets, thereby removing restrictions on foreign investment and the free movement of commerce. Interestingly enough, the one factor of global production that has not been freed from government control and allowed to circulate and move freely across the world is labor, distinguishing the globalization movement of the 1980s and 1990s from an earlier period of globalization, from 1870 to the First World War, characterized by free trade, the export of money capital, and an enormous flow of migrant labor, most of it from the old world of Europe to the new world of the Americas, both south (Spanish and Portuguese) and North (mostly British).

Globalization has to do with the free international trade in products and services, and the free circulation of labor, the major source of value added to economic production, as well as capital, the money invested in the process of production, money chasing profits, i.e., put up at the outset to generate a return in the form of profit for the investors. In theory, the idea is that the free market—a free movement of production, trade, capital, and labor—is the best or most efficient means of deciding who gets what in terms of wealth and income (the global marketed social product) and that attempts by governments to restrict international trade or the movement of capital and labor, the basic factors of production (land, natural resources, and technology being others), would distort the proper workings of the laws of the market, generating all sorts of problems such as the lack of robust economic growth (increase in the national output or the GNP), the informalization of labor, unemployment, and poverty.

Conceptual Overview

It is an interesting and politically revealing anomaly that the current wave of globalization, and the politics behind it, is fundamentally concerned with freeing international trade and the movement of capital, but not so the global movement of labor. In fact, it is commonly understood by development economists that globalization has been at the expense of the nation state, which as a result has had its capacity to dictate and exercise political power and determine and legislate macroeconomic policy drastically reduced, having had to surrender a lot of this power to both international governments and subnational organizations. However, this has not been so in the case of labor. Countries in the North are the major recipients of migrant flows—both in regard to economic refugees, most of whom are families and individuals seeking to improve their economic fortune and situations regarding work and income, and political refugees, individuals choosing to migrate for political reasons. But governments in these migrant-recipient countries have not surrendered their powers to regulate the flow of migrants, nor have they been under any pressure to do so, as they have been in the case of capital and trade, where international organizations and financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization have worked hard to bring about “structural reform” in government policy.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading