This is a volume by a votary for globalisation. The author, Bimal Chakraborty sees it as a trend that cannot be bucked. The only condition attached is that developing countries must shed old mind-sets to benefit from the largesse that globalisation has on offer.
To judge the effects of globalisation, the author focuses on the third world and the role of the United Nations. The book is divided into eight chapters dealing with the defining characteristics of the third world, the need for unity in the third world, UN intervention in third world affairs, global economic problems, neo-colonialism and the role of non-alignment. The volume also includes more general discussions on disarmament, human rights and the world order sans communism.
The book has absolutely nothing new to offer. And because of its generalised tone, there will be little that readers can disagree with. Unfortunately, though, logorrhoea makes the book tedious reading. For instance, take the sentence where the author thanks his Japanese wife: Having lived in two different worlds, she feels, with trepidation, that consensual societies develop faster than others and Japan needs more third world exposure in the context of the new global role it assumed by sending peace-keepers, for the first time after the Second World War, for the unsupervised Cambodian elections in 1993.
Now consider this in the light of the fact that the volume emerged after the author read The Economists Style Guide. A reading of the guide apparently provoked him into writing this lean prose.
To put it very broadly, the book makes a diagnosis of what happened in the past. It also offers prescriptions for the future, both from the point of view of the third world.
Lets have the past first. Over time, the UNs focus has shifted from security to development. It is acknowledged now that new problems have national solutions. But developing countries have never been successful in their negotiations with the UN, thanks to a confrontationist approach.
An example the author cites is the third worlds Olympian disdain for colonialism. This contempt though is reserved for Western colonialism; it does not take in its ambit the Soviet-type colonialism.
There was ambivalence in the third world attitude to industrialisation as well. Statism and bureaucratic interference led to imperfect competition at home. But the tendency was always to focus on global imperfect competition while turning their backs on the lack of competition at home. Developing countries argued for a global order based on social justice and economic equity, but paid scant attention to polarised and stratified societies at home. And the demand for fair global terms of trade between agricultural and manufactured products conflicted with the less favourable terms of trade for agriculture domestically.
While arguing against growing militarism, many developing countries patronised and subsidised domestic armament industries. The author details these incongruities, paradoxes, inconsistencies and contradictions which have contributed to irresponsible behaviour. His contention: In order to protect its own interests and stop further vassalisation within the existing framework of political independence, the third world should avoid angry rhetoric and concentrate more on cooperation with the first world.
Moving on to the future, Chakraborty says: Globalisation is the newest religion. MNCs are its priests... Dealing with change is a challenge. The third world must face it. But how? By giving up outdated mind-sets of socialism and large scale government participation in economic activity. Competition, communication, accountability and innovation are the new buzzwords. The nation state is no longer important.
The ideal example suggested by the author is Japan. Japan polished the Western work ethic while the third world states sought salvation through isolation. Japan, he contends, is the only non-Western country that combines the best of both the Orient and the Occident. If all third world countries ape Japan, the required paradigm shift will take place. Instead of confrontation with the first world, there will be cooperation and conciliation.
So, whats new? Nothing. The author quotes with approval Joseph Schumpeters remark on Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations to the effect that the book did not contain a single analytic idea, principle or method that was entirely new. The same applies to his own book too. This volume merely calls for a critical appreciation of international cooperation based on trust and well-defined goals to fight poverty, promote global trade, ensure financial stability, curb nuclear proliferation, combat pollution and terrorism which no individual nation-state can cope with single handedly. Read that sentence once again and you can skip reading the book.
