http://www.ifad.org/events/past/hunger/envir.html
At a IFAD conference on hunger and poverty the topic of "Combating Environmental Degradation" was presented. IFAD is one of the leading multilateral investors in the livelihoods of poor rural producers in developing countries. One of the leading points outlined in this article was that "humanity has the ability to make development sustainable and to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This mainly means that at the rate of development we are going at now and the way we develop we are seriously endangering future generations. The Commission stated that as much as 70% of the world's consumption of fossil fuel and 85% of chemical products is attributed to 25% of the world's population. This means that though the environmental crisis affects everyone on the planet the amount that people living in different parts of the world contribute to the crisis depending on the level of their economic development and their consumption patterns. Another example that the Commission states to support this is that the per caput water consumption in the U.S. is about 2,300 m cubed per annum, in Canada it's 1,500 m cubed and in the UK it is 225 m cubed.
This related not only to the readings we did this week but also the discussion we had in class on Tuesday. Conca's problematique states that states have been a major factor leading to environmental degradation and therefore they need to be part of the solution. In this article that is what the commission is trying to prove that though it is a global problem the states that are part of the problem, the most, should be the ones responsible for spear heading the solution. As said in class it is very difficult to find where the authority lies on environmental degradation issues. For example, with dams and water pollution, though it may start in one nation it could flow and pollute the water of the other nation. Therefore, I guess a concluding question could be with globalization do we accept that the environment is suffering and its everyone's problem to solve, or should the responsibility lie in the hands of those most responsible?
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Globalization: Compatible with the Environment?
Globalization: Compatible with the Environment?
This article touches on many of the things we discussed in class on Tuesday, specifically that globalization has caused many of the environmental problems occurring today but that globalization can also help to solve many of the very same problems that it has spawned. The article illustrates the effects of globalization on the environment through graphs and pictures, then goes into specific ways that globalization has damage the environment. First, the article says that globalization has increased greenhouse gas emissions through increased transport and increased competition in which businesses pollute to cut costs. Then it mentions some of the struggles of dealing with environmental problems, specifically that they are often transnational in scope but that the solutions must come from the national level.
In my opinion, environmental problems are actually going to reinforce the current state system. In order for activists to achieve any meaningful change, they must lobby the state to regulate businesses polluting or must put pressure on the state to protect the environment. As we have seen with international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, states are not bound to follow international regulations and often break them due to a lack of enforcement. Regulation and preservation of the environment must come from within a state through citizens putting direct pressure on their state to change. Despite the global nature of environmental problems, the solutions must come from direct pressure on the state from the citizens, thus reinforcing the legitimacy of the state and the state system.
This article touches on many of the things we discussed in class on Tuesday, specifically that globalization has caused many of the environmental problems occurring today but that globalization can also help to solve many of the very same problems that it has spawned. The article illustrates the effects of globalization on the environment through graphs and pictures, then goes into specific ways that globalization has damage the environment. First, the article says that globalization has increased greenhouse gas emissions through increased transport and increased competition in which businesses pollute to cut costs. Then it mentions some of the struggles of dealing with environmental problems, specifically that they are often transnational in scope but that the solutions must come from the national level.
In my opinion, environmental problems are actually going to reinforce the current state system. In order for activists to achieve any meaningful change, they must lobby the state to regulate businesses polluting or must put pressure on the state to protect the environment. As we have seen with international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, states are not bound to follow international regulations and often break them due to a lack of enforcement. Regulation and preservation of the environment must come from within a state through citizens putting direct pressure on their state to change. Despite the global nature of environmental problems, the solutions must come from direct pressure on the state from the citizens, thus reinforcing the legitimacy of the state and the state system.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Globalization And Pollution: Can We Stop One And Not The Other?
The Globalization of Pollution
The above article was written in the Washington Post about the global effects that pollution, coming from China in particular, is having on the rest of the world. The article opens in a very interesting way, crediting the smog that can be seen in Los Angeles to the factories in China. Because of the rampant industrialization in China, emissions have been so high that they are beginning to waft across the Pacific and hurt the U.S. The countries closer to China are effected even worse. The author is basically calling on the world to continue to make improvements in eliminating emissions, building off of the success of the Montreal Protocol.
This article directly correlates to our discussion of globalization as it pertains to the environment that we discussed in class Tuesday. The pollution in China is just a microcosm of the pollution that is happening in industrializing nations throughout the world. Many of the BRIC countries are using high levels of emissions to become competitive in the economic marketplace, but it is coming at a major cost to the environment. I believe that this would make any widespread emissions standards difficult to reach the efforts we would intend them to, simply because many of the countries would not be willing to adhere to it. I believe that as the world is becoming more globalized and countries are trying to become more competitive, pollution will continue to rise. It will be difficult to come to a conclusion to lower emission standards, and it seems as though we may be far off in the future from seeing another Montreal Protocol.
The above article was written in the Washington Post about the global effects that pollution, coming from China in particular, is having on the rest of the world. The article opens in a very interesting way, crediting the smog that can be seen in Los Angeles to the factories in China. Because of the rampant industrialization in China, emissions have been so high that they are beginning to waft across the Pacific and hurt the U.S. The countries closer to China are effected even worse. The author is basically calling on the world to continue to make improvements in eliminating emissions, building off of the success of the Montreal Protocol.
This article directly correlates to our discussion of globalization as it pertains to the environment that we discussed in class Tuesday. The pollution in China is just a microcosm of the pollution that is happening in industrializing nations throughout the world. Many of the BRIC countries are using high levels of emissions to become competitive in the economic marketplace, but it is coming at a major cost to the environment. I believe that this would make any widespread emissions standards difficult to reach the efforts we would intend them to, simply because many of the countries would not be willing to adhere to it. I believe that as the world is becoming more globalized and countries are trying to become more competitive, pollution will continue to rise. It will be difficult to come to a conclusion to lower emission standards, and it seems as though we may be far off in the future from seeing another Montreal Protocol.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Terrorism and 'Weak' or 'Failed' States
My apologies (again) for the late blog post - I was in Chicago on an Alternative Break without internet access for the past week and change. In hindsight, I should have posted before break.
http://www.academia.edu/3335627/_Weak_States_State_Failure_and_Terrorism_Terrorism_and_Political_Violence_vol.19_no.4_2007
The above article is incredibly long and, truth be told, I have not read it in its entirety. It is useful however for its abstract (italicized part in the beginning) as well as the evidence it presents in the first few pages in contrast of the traditional viewpoint that Weak and Failed States are a necessary condition from which terrorist groups emerge.
In class, we cited the 9/11 commission report. It stated that "they were more globalized than we were". It seems that terrorist groups are typically/traditionally viewed as being primitive, reactionary groups that ferment in poor, undeveloped regions of the world, angry at the 'Western utopia' that they believe is oppressing them. The argument that "terrorists come not from global rival powers but from weak states" (Newman, 464) is rather problematic in that it assumes a causal (rather than correlational) relationship that historical data does not back up. Thus, while it may be true that terrorist organizations operate in failed or weak states more often than they operate in strong ones (i.e. a correlation), the strength of a state is not a precursor or necessary condition for their existence (i.e. a causation). It should be noted that, however, failed or weak states are very conducive to terrorism. It is much easier for a terrorist organization to quite literally set up shop in a weak state than a strong state, and this is rather intuitive.
At its core, terrorism is about using violence to make political changes - the article points out that this is still a largely local phenomenon. International terrorism is not nearly as prevalent in actuality as it is in the media. Thus, terrorists are not exploiting an absence of state structure but rather are challenging the existing structure in an attempt to gain influence and legitimacy.
http://www.academia.edu/3335627/_Weak_States_State_Failure_and_Terrorism_Terrorism_and_Political_Violence_vol.19_no.4_2007
The above article is incredibly long and, truth be told, I have not read it in its entirety. It is useful however for its abstract (italicized part in the beginning) as well as the evidence it presents in the first few pages in contrast of the traditional viewpoint that Weak and Failed States are a necessary condition from which terrorist groups emerge.
In class, we cited the 9/11 commission report. It stated that "they were more globalized than we were". It seems that terrorist groups are typically/traditionally viewed as being primitive, reactionary groups that ferment in poor, undeveloped regions of the world, angry at the 'Western utopia' that they believe is oppressing them. The argument that "terrorists come not from global rival powers but from weak states" (Newman, 464) is rather problematic in that it assumes a causal (rather than correlational) relationship that historical data does not back up. Thus, while it may be true that terrorist organizations operate in failed or weak states more often than they operate in strong ones (i.e. a correlation), the strength of a state is not a precursor or necessary condition for their existence (i.e. a causation). It should be noted that, however, failed or weak states are very conducive to terrorism. It is much easier for a terrorist organization to quite literally set up shop in a weak state than a strong state, and this is rather intuitive.
At its core, terrorism is about using violence to make political changes - the article points out that this is still a largely local phenomenon. International terrorism is not nearly as prevalent in actuality as it is in the media. Thus, terrorists are not exploiting an absence of state structure but rather are challenging the existing structure in an attempt to gain influence and legitimacy.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
The World Bank...Good? Bad? I don't know?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/09/poverty-growth-and-world-bank
I have never been one to be interested and really good at
economics, but I chose this article to stir up a little debate. I am going to
ask you guys whether or not you think the World Bank benefits poorer countries?
I have heard nothing but back and forth arguing on this exact matter. Some say that
the World Bank provides good loans that successfully help poorer countries
build up their infrastructure through good capital investment projects. Other
people argue that the World Bank either takes advantage of poorer countries
through unfair interest rates or with built in ‘fine print’ stipulations in the
loan/ capital investment project contracts. An example of this could be that
the World Bank may give two billion to the country of Chad for the construction
of a new runway for an airport. The catch is that next to that runway there
will be UN and United States hangers that must not be touched. Chad, as a
country does not have a strong economy or infrastructure. The World Bank will
look as if it is giving meaningful money to the country of Chad, but the people
truly benefitting from this deal are the ones who are acting as if they are
helping.
Just to clarify, the World Bank is defined as a United
Nations international financial institution that gives loans to developing
countries for projects aimed at benefitting the country involved. According to
its website, the goal of the World Bank is to diminish world poverty as well as
to promote international trade. The
World Bank also identifies goals that it wishes to achieve by the end of this
year. The eight goals are the following: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,
achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child
mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDs, malaria, and other
diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership
for development. Now for my opinion, I think those eight goals sound all sweet
and good but I hold more of a pessimistic view when it comes to the World Bank.
This is not because I found a great deal of information for or against it (I
found a great deal of both), it is because I think developing countries are
still behind in times. I hate to say it, but any of us who have been to a developing
areas can see it. Last month I was in St. Lucia, one of the most beautiful
islands I have ever seen… healthcare, basic infrastructure, and even the
schools that I saw made the country seem sad once I was outside the nice white
gates of my resort. My point is even if you think the World Bank is helping
these countries… there is no way it is helping out fast enough.
Please feel free to add any arguments for or against the
World Bank. Please share specific research or articles that you think would
raise eyebrows or stir up even more debate on this matter.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Terrorism and Social Media
The article published by Newsweek discusses the increasing
growth and threat of terrorism in a heavily globalized and interconnected world.
The spread and popularity of social media makes it easier than ever for
terrorism to spread its messages, create awareness, and recruit followers. The
article said the CIA finds it increasingly difficult to combat terrorism when
the perpetrators use social media because it allows them to spark reactions all
around the world. It also makes it so the attacks are decentralized which in
turn can make it hard to discover and prevent the plans from happening. ISIS
has taken advantage of this. ISIS spreads its videos of beheading journalist to
illustrate their message. They also use these videos to recruit members in
other nations. The article argues that because of globalization and new
technologies, terrorism is increasing and becoming a larger threat.
This week in class we discussed terrorism and its relation
to globalization. One theory we discussed relating to globalization causing terrorism
was technology. An increase and advancement in technology makes it much easier
for terrorist groups to recruit from around the world and ignore traditional
state borders. An increase in technology made it possible for ISIS to spread
their message and recruit members from other countries. New technology also made it possible for them
to instill fear in larger groups, for instance more people are able to see the
beheading videos therefore more people are aware of a growing threat. One could
argue that we have seen a growth in terrorism due to the new ideological war
and the increasing power of technology and social media. An inter-connected
world makes it easier to spread ideas and messages; these messages may be
considered terrorism depending on the group.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
US Policy on Transnational Crime
US Policy Regarding Transnational Crime
This is a rather short article regarding the definition of transnational crime and how the United States should attempt to combat it. The beginning of the article goes into a short description of what types of crimes are considered transnational and what each of them means, before going more into what the US and other states should do on their own and together to combat the threat. This article directly relates to class because it is another article defining transnational crime, much like the one we were going to read for class on Thursday but that was postponed until next week.
One of the most interesting parts of the article is when it starts to talk about what the US (and thus other states as well) should do to combat transnational crime. Specifically, one line says that policing activities must go beyond national borders. I found this to be interesting for several reasons. The first being that the article is advocating for increased international cooperation between the US and other states in their intelligence and policing activities. To me, I saw this as an increase in globalization and the further interconnectedness of the world as states join together to fight other global actors. I think that transnational crime has inadvertently reinforced the power of the state. Further, however, I think there is now a question of where jurisdiction over transnational crime ends and begins. I think this could challenge the sovereignty of some states as powerful states begin to impose their will to combat transnational crime organizations, even if that organization is not in their state's borders. This could be the future of globalization as some states may fail to recognize the sovereignty of others if they harbor transnational crime organizations, leading to an increasingly murky future for the state system.
This is a rather short article regarding the definition of transnational crime and how the United States should attempt to combat it. The beginning of the article goes into a short description of what types of crimes are considered transnational and what each of them means, before going more into what the US and other states should do on their own and together to combat the threat. This article directly relates to class because it is another article defining transnational crime, much like the one we were going to read for class on Thursday but that was postponed until next week.
One of the most interesting parts of the article is when it starts to talk about what the US (and thus other states as well) should do to combat transnational crime. Specifically, one line says that policing activities must go beyond national borders. I found this to be interesting for several reasons. The first being that the article is advocating for increased international cooperation between the US and other states in their intelligence and policing activities. To me, I saw this as an increase in globalization and the further interconnectedness of the world as states join together to fight other global actors. I think that transnational crime has inadvertently reinforced the power of the state. Further, however, I think there is now a question of where jurisdiction over transnational crime ends and begins. I think this could challenge the sovereignty of some states as powerful states begin to impose their will to combat transnational crime organizations, even if that organization is not in their state's borders. This could be the future of globalization as some states may fail to recognize the sovereignty of others if they harbor transnational crime organizations, leading to an increasingly murky future for the state system.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/12/does-slacktivism-work/
The article in the Washington Post, “Does slacktivism work?”
by Laura Seay begins by explaining what slacktivism is and then goes in to how
it works. The explanation she gives is very similar to what we discussed in
class: slacktivism or “armchair activism” is a form of advocacy related to
social media. A lot of the support for a specific cause is shown through a “like”
on a Facebook post, or retweet, or posting a picture on Instagram. Following
that advocates often ask supporters to wear a particular color on a certain day
or by a piece of jewelry or shirt to support the cause. Seay explains that
campaigns target slacktivists because they believe that an increased awareness
of a cause is a worthy reason. Additionally advocates believe that the more
attention a cause receives the more likely public officials will pay attention
and provide tangible benefits. Then Seay referenced a study done at the
University of British Columbia that finds the determining factor for getting
people engaged. The paper states that “the socially observable nature (public
vs. private) of initial token support is identified as a key moderator that
influences when and why token support does or does not lead to meaningful support
for the cause. Consumers exhibit greater helping on a subsequent, more meaningful
task after providing an initial private (vs. public) display of token support
for a cause.”
This
study explains the support seen for different campaigns that we discussed in
class. For example, the KONY 2012 campaign the people who show their original
support privately by writing to members of Congress and starting petitions are
the ones to be more engaged throughout the campaign. However, those who simply
supported it publicly, through Facebook or Twitter, are less likely to engage
more deeply. This is similar to what we saw recently with the “#BringBackOurGirls”
campaign where the campaign itself promotes slacktivism among all except for
those highly connected to the cause. Another example, briefly mentioned in
class, is the “Ice Bucket Challenge” that many people participated but not as
many donated except for those who were actually passionate to the cause.
Slacktivism: Effective Advocation or A Psychological Phenomenon?
Does Slacktivism Work?
The above article written for the Washington Post focuses on the effectiveness of slacktivism. The author describes slacktivism as a form of activism, primarily done through social media, where average people "get involved" in a cause in a minimal fashion. Advocates of various causes encourage people to "like" or "retweet" their message in hopes of spreading the word through technology. Although many people may think that slacktivism is not effective, the article defends that advocates believe that these "likes" will lead to deeper involvement by the participants. Research done by faculty at the University of British Columbia found that slacktivism can be effective, but there are variations between public and private slacktivism. They use the example that people who (privately) write to their Congressman are more likely to become deeply involved in an issue compared to people who (publicly) tweet about an issue. In all, the author defends that slacktivism has some merit.
The phenomenon of slacktivism has become extremely salient in our culture today, and has been a recent topic in globalization. In Tuesday's lecture, we discussed how the influx of technology has allowed people around the globe to get involved in various causes, whether it be #bringourgirlshome or the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. People are using slacktivism as a way to show that they are connected to the issues effecting the world today. The widespread nature of technology and global connectedness has allowed people across the globe, from China to Brazil, to become connected to one another through various causes.
However, I do not know if slacktivism is truly as effective as the author may say. Yes, the word is being spread through "liking" and "tweeting", but how much is really being done? I think that the study in the article shows a valid point regarding the difference between public and private activism. I think the public slacktivism is more related to cognitive dissonance, where people are trying to separate the lack of comfort they feel between two issues. People want to show their support for the issue, but do not want to fully invest their time and funding in the cause, which creates stress. So they use their social media platforms as a means of alleviating the stress of the dissonance. This public display of slacktivism then may not be as helpful as advocates want.
The above article written for the Washington Post focuses on the effectiveness of slacktivism. The author describes slacktivism as a form of activism, primarily done through social media, where average people "get involved" in a cause in a minimal fashion. Advocates of various causes encourage people to "like" or "retweet" their message in hopes of spreading the word through technology. Although many people may think that slacktivism is not effective, the article defends that advocates believe that these "likes" will lead to deeper involvement by the participants. Research done by faculty at the University of British Columbia found that slacktivism can be effective, but there are variations between public and private slacktivism. They use the example that people who (privately) write to their Congressman are more likely to become deeply involved in an issue compared to people who (publicly) tweet about an issue. In all, the author defends that slacktivism has some merit.
The phenomenon of slacktivism has become extremely salient in our culture today, and has been a recent topic in globalization. In Tuesday's lecture, we discussed how the influx of technology has allowed people around the globe to get involved in various causes, whether it be #bringourgirlshome or the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. People are using slacktivism as a way to show that they are connected to the issues effecting the world today. The widespread nature of technology and global connectedness has allowed people across the globe, from China to Brazil, to become connected to one another through various causes.
However, I do not know if slacktivism is truly as effective as the author may say. Yes, the word is being spread through "liking" and "tweeting", but how much is really being done? I think that the study in the article shows a valid point regarding the difference between public and private activism. I think the public slacktivism is more related to cognitive dissonance, where people are trying to separate the lack of comfort they feel between two issues. People want to show their support for the issue, but do not want to fully invest their time and funding in the cause, which creates stress. So they use their social media platforms as a means of alleviating the stress of the dissonance. This public display of slacktivism then may not be as helpful as advocates want.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
The Global Elite, Transnationalism, the Internet, and new Globalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_elite
Above is the link to a Wikipedia entry about the "Global elite". A lot of the points made in class regarding this global elite, as well as in articles like the LiPuma/Lee article, are echoed here. My reason for choosing this to incorporate into my blog post is because I believe it represents an aspect of Globalization that really has not been seen before. If Wikipedia were to have existed throughout history, this article would not have existed until this iteration of Globalization.
The article defines the global elite as the "richest and most powerful people who control the world" (Wikipedia), i.e. politicians, bankers, and even "lesser mortals". As a concept, the 'global elite' may have existed in the past. One might think back to the intermarrying of European royalty and point to this as an example of a group of people who control a dramatically disproportionate amount of power on the world stage. What's different, however, are two things: Transnationalism and the Internet. While there may have existed elites in the past, they were certainly not global, or not nearly as global as they are today; even intermarried European royalty held allegiances to their home country. Today's global elite do not hold such an allegiance. As LiPuma and Lee note, "global connections have changed the game" (LiPuma and Lee). These global connections allow the elites to operate across national boundaries, which allows their influence to transcend said boundaries. As a result of this, national allegiance no longer becomes necessary, or even desired, in the name of profits and market shares. That's what differentiates this edition, so to speak, of Globalization from ones in the past - the Internet and Transnationalism have combined to allow for the elites of the world to truly become global in nature, shedding their national allegiance for international business, essentially forming their own nation and economy.
Above is the link to a Wikipedia entry about the "Global elite". A lot of the points made in class regarding this global elite, as well as in articles like the LiPuma/Lee article, are echoed here. My reason for choosing this to incorporate into my blog post is because I believe it represents an aspect of Globalization that really has not been seen before. If Wikipedia were to have existed throughout history, this article would not have existed until this iteration of Globalization.
The article defines the global elite as the "richest and most powerful people who control the world" (Wikipedia), i.e. politicians, bankers, and even "lesser mortals". As a concept, the 'global elite' may have existed in the past. One might think back to the intermarrying of European royalty and point to this as an example of a group of people who control a dramatically disproportionate amount of power on the world stage. What's different, however, are two things: Transnationalism and the Internet. While there may have existed elites in the past, they were certainly not global, or not nearly as global as they are today; even intermarried European royalty held allegiances to their home country. Today's global elite do not hold such an allegiance. As LiPuma and Lee note, "global connections have changed the game" (LiPuma and Lee). These global connections allow the elites to operate across national boundaries, which allows their influence to transcend said boundaries. As a result of this, national allegiance no longer becomes necessary, or even desired, in the name of profits and market shares. That's what differentiates this edition, so to speak, of Globalization from ones in the past - the Internet and Transnationalism have combined to allow for the elites of the world to truly become global in nature, shedding their national allegiance for international business, essentially forming their own nation and economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)