The East-West Wire is a news, commentary, and analysis service provided by the East-West Center in Honolulu. Any part or all of the Wire content may be used by media with attribution to the East-West Center or the person quoted. To receive the East-West Center Wire, please contact John Lewis at (808) 944-7204 or EastWestWire@EastWestCenter.org.
HONOLULU (June 5) – The world is flat, according to Thomas Friedman. The flattening agent, according to many, is globalization … especially economic globalization. A concept not greeted warmly by some, according to Baldev Raj Nayar, professor emeritus at Canada’s McGill University’s department of political science. “Despite its status as a ‘master concept’ in the world today, globalization has attracted critics with powerful attacks against it.”
As Nayar points out in newly published findings, critics assert economic globalization
leads to economic stagnation, deindustrialization, denationalization, destabilization, and impoverishment with growing economic inequality. Claims that are the exact opposite of what proponents of globalization purport.
Nayar says the critics may be fashionable but wrong. At least as to how economic globalization has affected India. “Whatever the consequences of globalization elsewhere in the developing world,” the criticism, “has little merit when examined in relation to the Indian experience.”
He stakes his claim in a study titled “India’s Globalization: Evaluating the Economic Consequences” published last month as part of the East-West Center Washington’s Policy Studies series.
India was chosen, according to Nayar, because it “contains about a fifth of the population of the developing world,” and “some of its constituent states have larger populations than most developing countries.”
Turning his gaze from a flattened globe to a rising India, Nayar concedes that the large South Asian nation has not progressed as quickly economically as such dynamic economies as China, Korea, or Mexico. But, he believes India’s limited integration under economic globalization still “has enormous consequences for India.”
Nayar says contrary to the predictions of the anti-globalization naysayers, “India has accelerated its average rate of economic growth, from 3.4 percent in the pre-globalization era to about 6 percent.” He adds the growth rate could reach 7 percent soon.
He also points out India is a case that refutes the other dire forecasts.
“Instead of deindustrialization, there has been industrial growth and, indeed, acceleration in the industrial growth rate. The average annual rate of industrial growth (in India) has jumped from 5.2 percent during the period of autarky to 7 percent after 1991.” Nayar says that at the 7 percent rate, “the value of manufacturing doubles about every ten years … not exactly deindustrialization.”
Denationalization through globalization is also a myth, according to Nayar.
“Business in India is now more competitive and is venturing forth into the global market. Increased imports and the entry of foreign multinationals have not swamped it. Essentially, India is master of its own economy.”
Economic destabilization and the spread of impoverishment, also have not come to pass in India with the advent of globalization. Nayar says “The period of economic autarky before globalization was essentially one long, enduring crisis. Since the paradigm shift to economic liberalization in 1991, there has been a marked absence of economic crisis in India.” Concerning the fear of widening poverty, he notes “India has seen a long unprecedented period of welfare enhancement. The period before globalization featured high levels of poverty. There has been a secular decline in poverty since 1975 … and inequality has not increased much.”
The McGill professor emeritus, however, does not want to paint a rosy picture of poverty in India. He notes, “Of more concern is the matter of growing regional disparities in India.” Something caused more by internal factors than globalization.
Nayar maintains, “India has been a significant beneficiary of the globalization process.” But, he adds there is still work to be done. “International economic integration is a means to an end, not an end in itself. One of India’s paramount aims has been the alleviation of poverty and, for that purpose, the promotion of wider gainful employment. The fulfillment of that aim requires not just the maintenance of the higher growth rate thus far achieved but its further acceleration to 9 or 10 percent.”
To reach, and maintain, such levels of growth Nayar believes India must move toward “a major boost to investment in both agriculture and industry. The world economy can serve as both a resource for additional finance for investment … and a market for the commodities produced and goods manufactured.”
But if anything is holding India back, Nayar claims, it is not globalization. It is the particular nature of the country’s domestic political process. He says, “There needs to be, of course, prudential macroeconomic management, particularly in respect of bringing down the fiscal deficit and the public debt.” To do that, Nayar admits, there must be “movement on assuring effective governance, where institutional infirmities have accumulated to prevent India from performing to it economic potential.”
If that is done, Nayar believes, India will be able to sustain accelerating growth, “and therefore, the welfare of its people.”
###
Baldev Raj Nayar is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. He can be contacted at Baldev.nayar@mcgill.ca
Dr. Nayar’s study, “India’s Globalization: Evaluating the Economic Consequences” is available in print and PDF. Hardcopies are available through Amazon.com. The PDF is available online at www.eastwestcenterwashington.org. In Asia, hardcopies are available through the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore at http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg/
For daily news on the Pacific Islands, see www.pireport.org. For links to all East-West Center media programs, fellowships and services, see www.eastwestcenter.org/journalists