The World Supports Globalization

[Toro]

Well, global opinion still favours globalization, or at least its instruments.

The composition of the poll

The poll of 37,572 people was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 32-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed between October 2005 and January 2006.

It excludes China and most of Saharan Africa, but includes Nigeria, Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania Senegal, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Indonesia.

But first, the bad news. World opinion on economic prospects is mixed.

As the World Economic Forum meets in Davos this week to talk about the international economy, a new BBC World Service poll of 32 nations finds highly divergent economic perceptions in countries around the world. In 15 countries majorities or pluralities see conditions in their country getting better, while in 17 they see conditions getting worse.

Evaluating the global players

NGOs 60% mainly positive v. 12% mainly negative

UN 59% v. 16%

World Bank 55% v. 18%

News media 48% v. 24%

IMF 47% v. 21%

Global companies 41% v. 26%

Rating of Global Players

The poll also asked respondents to evaluate a number of economic global players and found surprisingly high levels of approval for the World Bank given the level of criticism it has received. On average 55 percent rated it as having a positive influence in the world, while just 18 percent rated it as having a negative influence. Among the 32 countries polled, in 30 a majority (17 countries) or a plurality (13) rated the World Bank as positive. In only one country—Argentina—did a plurality (47%) say it is having a negative influence.

World Bank

Nigeria 83% mainly positive v. 6% mainly negative

Kenya 81% v. 5%

Tanzania 79% v. 8%

Ghana 76% v. 6%

Congo 75% v. 6%

Senegal 74% v. 6%

South Africa 58% v. 5%

Zimbabwe 43% v. 19%

Indonesia 80% v. 12%

Afghanistan 79% v. 7%.

India 51% v. 9%

Iraq 44% v. 18%

Iran 42% v. 21%

USA 47% v. 28%

Canada 43% v. 28%

Global companies received the lowest positive ratings (average of 41%) compared to all other global players, and the highest negative ratings (26%). In only 6 countries did a majority rate global companies as having a positive influence, though in another 16 a plurality did. Eight countries rated them negatively—7 by pluralities and one by a majority. Two countries were divided.

The International Monetary Fund is not as well regarded as the World Bank, but still, on average a plurality of 47 percent see it as having a positive influence and just 21 percent see it has having a negative influence. In 29 countries a majority (13 countries) or a plurality (16) views it positively. The only two countries in which a majority views it negatively are Argentina (60%) and Brazil (57%), which have recently paid off their loans from the Fund so as to free themselves from its influence. A plurality of 49 percent is negative in Turkey as well.

Of all the global players examined in the poll, NGOs (“Non-governmental organizations such as environmental and social advocacy groups”) got the highest grades with an average of 60 percent rating them as having a positive influence on the world, just 12 percent negative. NGOs were rated positively across all 32 countries polled, in 25 by a majority.

The United Nations was close behind with 59 percent rating it positively—however, this is down from last year’s BBC World Service Poll in which 66 percent rated it positively. Just 16 percent rated it negatively this year. In 30 countries a majority (23 countries) or a plurality (7) sees it as having a positive influence.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Economy/...s_Jan06_rpt.pdf

[tml12]

Well, global opinion still favours globalization, or at least its instruments.

The composition of the poll

The poll of 37,572 people was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 32-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed between October 2005 and January 2006.

It excludes China and most of Saharan Africa, but includes Nigeria, Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania Senegal, Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Indonesia.

But first, the bad news. World opinion on economic prospects is mixed.

As the World Economic Forum meets in Davos this week to talk about the international economy, a new BBC World Service poll of 32 nations finds highly divergent economic perceptions in countries around the world. In 15 countries majorities or pluralities see conditions in their country getting better, while in 17 they see conditions getting worse.

Evaluating the global players

NGOs 60% mainly positive v. 12% mainly negative

UN 59% v. 16%

World Bank 55% v. 18%

News media 48% v. 24%

IMF 47% v. 21%

Global companies 41% v. 26%

Rating of Global Players

The poll also asked respondents to evaluate a number of economic global players and found surprisingly high levels of approval for the World Bank given the level of criticism it has received. On average 55 percent rated it as having a positive influence in the world, while just 18 percent rated it as having a negative influence. Among the 32 countries polled, in 30 a majority (17 countries) or a plurality (13) rated the World Bank as positive. In only one country—Argentina—did a plurality (47%) say it is having a negative influence.

World Bank

Nigeria 83% mainly positive v. 6% mainly negative

Kenya 81% v. 5%

Tanzania 79% v. 8%

Ghana 76% v. 6%

Congo 75% v. 6%

Senegal 74% v. 6%

South Africa 58% v. 5%

Zimbabwe 43% v. 19%

Indonesia 80% v. 12%

Afghanistan 79% v. 7%.

India 51% v. 9%

Iraq 44% v. 18%

Iran 42% v. 21%

USA 47% v. 28%

Canada 43% v. 28%

Global companies received the lowest positive ratings (average of 41%) compared to all other global players, and the highest negative ratings (26%). In only 6 countries did a majority rate global companies as having a positive influence, though in another 16 a plurality did. Eight countries rated them negatively—7 by pluralities and one by a majority. Two countries were divided.

The International Monetary Fund is not as well regarded as the World Bank, but still, on average a plurality of 47 percent see it as having a positive influence and just 21 percent see it has having a negative influence. In 29 countries a majority (13 countries) or a plurality (16) views it positively. The only two countries in which a majority views it negatively are Argentina (60%) and Brazil (57%), which have recently paid off their loans from the Fund so as to free themselves from its influence. A plurality of 49 percent is negative in Turkey as well.

Of all the global players examined in the poll, NGOs (“Non-governmental organizations such as environmental and social advocacy groups”) got the highest grades with an average of 60 percent rating them as having a positive influence on the world, just 12 percent negative. NGOs were rated positively across all 32 countries polled, in 25 by a majority.

The United Nations was close behind with 59 percent rating it positively—however, this is down from last year’s BBC World Service Poll in which 66 percent rated it positively. Just 16 percent rated it negatively this year. In 30 countries a majority (23 countries) or a plurality (7) sees it as having a positive influence.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Economy/...s_Jan06_rpt.pdf

Toro,

You're back!!!

Globalization can act as a good and a bad tool. If we use it for the forces of good to improve quality of life in the world, then I support it 100%.

[YankAbroad]

Depends on how you define globalization.

If globalization means 400 page "trade agreements" that constrain me because I'm an entrepreneur but give free rein to ExxonMobile to do what it wants, it sucks.

You want globalization? Here's globalization.

I'm a US citizen. I grab my American passport, leave London (England) tomorrow morning, get on a plane to Toronto, declare I want to find work in Canada and don't need a visa, the customs agent smiles and says "Welcome to Canada, good luck," and I can enter the labour, capital or other markets without any barriers whatsoever.

If I don't have that, I don't have globalization. Neither does you or anyone else.

[tml12]

Depends on how you define globalization.

If globalization means 400 page "trade agreements" that constrain me because I'm an entrepreneur but give free rein to ExxonMobile to do what it wants, it sucks.

You want globalization? Here's globalization.

I'm a US citizen. I grab my American passport, leave London (England) tomorrow morning, get on a plane to Toronto, declare I want to find work in Canada and don't need a visa, the customs agent smiles and says "Welcome to Canada, good luck," and I can enter the labour, capital or other markets without any barriers whatsoever.

If I don't have that, I don't have globalization. Neither does you or anyone else.

That is my interpretation, in other words, f**k protetcionism and protectionist policies...

[YankAbroad]

Yep. Hopefully one day we'll live to see it.

Imagine how much less smug idiotic nationalists of all stripes will be when countries transform from economic gulags into places where people choose to live because that's where the opportunity is. . .

[Drea]

Yep. Hopefully one day we'll live to see it.

Imagine how much less smug idiotic nationalists of all stripes will be when countries transform from economic gulags into places where people choose to live because that's where the opportunity is. . .

It's happening now.

I've just started reading an interesting book "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman.

It describes just how and why this is all going on and the impact it's having on our western economies.

It won't be all 'roses' - as the standard of living rises for those in third world countries, it will lower for those in first world countries - a levelling of the playing field, so to speak.

[YankAbroad]

Living standards won't lower in the west for those who are innovative and hard working -- only for those who expect government to maintain their standard of living by screwing other people out of theirs.

And there are far too many visa laws in place to allow a true mobile economy of that nature. . .

[Toro]

Yep. Hopefully one day we'll live to see it.

Imagine how much less smug idiotic nationalists of all stripes will be when countries transform from economic gulags into places where people choose to live because that's where the opportunity is. . .

It's happening now.

I've just started reading an interesting book "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman.

It describes just how and why this is all going on and the impact it's having on our western economies.

It won't be all 'roses' - as the standard of living rises for those in third world countries, it will lower for those in first world countries - a levelling of the playing field, so to speak.

I don't agree with Friedman on that. It will certainly lower the standards of living for some, but the evidence so far is that it increases aggregate incomes.

[Drea]

Living standards won't lower in the west for those who are innovative and hard working -- only for those who expect government to maintain their standard of living by screwing other people out of theirs.

And there are far too many visa laws in place to allow a true mobile economy of that nature. . .

Imagine no trade/economic barriers... now imagine you own a manufacturing company looking for a country to locate in...

In North America your company will have to pay $15/hr per worker plus benefits. In India your company will have to pay $15/day per worker, no benefits.

Which country are you going to locate your manufacturing company?

Also, Yankabroad, you've spoken of being able to freely travel from country to country and work/live/play anywhere on earth with no restrictions.

Imagine 15 million young Chinese people doing the same thing as you. Are you going to get hired? You're competing with 15 million people with a higher education standard than you!

Sure opening the world will be a benefit to those who own businesses, but for the average American/Canadian our living standards will decrease.

Not to the extent that we'll be living in huts/igloos, but be prepared to keep that new car for 10 years instead of 2.

Personally I support globalization even if it's a detriment to me personally. It's the only way to stop all the friggin' wars.

"Ok, all you people of the world have equal access to everything"

There would be no reason to fight wars anymore.

[YankAbroad]

Which country are you going to locate your manufacturing company

It depends.

Perhaps I'll put the actual factory in India -- assuming I can get reliable electricity, transport, etc. and employees who are capable.

In terms of design, and marketing, and engineering, and other value-added services, I will put it where it's necessary.

Also, your example of manufacturing is rather piss-poor too because it ignores the transport and quality issues which are vital to manufacturing. Hyundai discovered this, and as a result, they've opened up a factory in Alabama -- thousands of miles away from their home-base of "low cost" Korea. Half their manufactured products will be built in the USA as a result.

Imagine 15 million young Chinese people doing the same thing as you. Are you going to get hired?

Absolutely I'm going to get hired. The more intelligent people who are in the market, the bigger the market is and the more opportunities I have.

I suppose, as a libertarian, my focus is on hope and opportunity. I believe that when others get opportunity, I get opportunity.

The political establishment of today trade in fear. They fear that when others get opportunity, they will lose what they have. They believe, therefore, that they must punish and impoverish others in order to keep what they have.

However, history is on my side. If immigration, free markets and growth were evil things, the United States never would have been a superpower. Canada would be a poor backwater 3rd world nation. Australia would be a pathetic also-ran. The most powerful civilizations on earth would be immigration-restricted, closed societies like Bhutan.

for the average American/Canadian our living standards will decrease

Not true.

The average American and Canadian would benefit tremendously from the additional economic volume which immigration would support! It's how the US and Canada came up from nowhere to become two of the world's seven richest countries in under 100 years.

[geoffrey]

Depends on how you define globalization.

If globalization means 400 page "trade agreements" that constrain me because I'm an entrepreneur but give free rein to ExxonMobile to do what it wants, it sucks.

You want globalization? Here's globalization.

I'm a US citizen. I grab my American passport, leave London (England) tomorrow morning, get on a plane to Toronto, declare I want to find work in Canada and don't need a visa, the customs agent smiles and says "Welcome to Canada, good luck," and I can enter the labour, capital or other markets without any barriers whatsoever.

If I don't have that, I don't have globalization. Neither does you or anyone else.

Completely agree you Yank, thats real globalization. Thats the way it'll have to work if we all want to be more financially well off.

I've just started reading an interesting book "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman.

It describes just how and why this is all going on and the impact it's having on our western economies.

It won't be all 'roses' - as the standard of living rises for those in third world countries, it will lower for those in first world countries - a levelling of the playing field, so to speak.

I just finished that one up Drea, Thomas is a great writer and its a good book, I highly recommend it.

I personally feel we will all be better off with a broader, richer marketplace.

[tml12]

Depends on how you define globalization.

If globalization means 400 page "trade agreements" that constrain me because I'm an entrepreneur but give free rein to ExxonMobile to do what it wants, it sucks.

You want globalization? Here's globalization.

I'm a US citizen. I grab my American passport, leave London (England) tomorrow morning, get on a plane to Toronto, declare I want to find work in Canada and don't need a visa, the customs agent smiles and says "Welcome to Canada, good luck," and I can enter the labour, capital or other markets without any barriers whatsoever.

If I don't have that, I don't have globalization. Neither does you or anyone else.

Completely agree you Yank, thats real globalization. Thats the way it'll have to work if we all want to be more financially well off.

I've just started reading an interesting book "The World is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman.

It describes just how and why this is all going on and the impact it's having on our western economies.

It won't be all 'roses' - as the standard of living rises for those in third world countries, it will lower for those in first world countries - a levelling of the playing field, so to speak.

I just finished that one up Drea, Thomas is a great writer and its a good book, I highly recommend it.

I personally feel we will all be better off with a broader, richer marketplace.

It is the future...

[YankAbroad]

Which is why the political classes of the moment are so against it!

They want us to go to war over cartoons, or close our borders to "protect our markets," or let them eavesdrop on phone sex with our spouses/partners in able to "protect us from terrorists."