LIBERALS VIEW ON GLOBALISATION

INTRODUCTION
Liberalism has been a dominant political philosophy of the west and in particular a
movement which was adopted to fight against authority of the monarchy, the feudal lords
and the tyranny of the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

There are various view on the liberalism as some expressed it as a faith and spiritual affairs ,
some as individualism and matter of intellectual affair and social democracy.

The essence of liberalism may also be traced in the writings of Plato and Socrates,
subsequently it was further developed by John Locke, Jermy Bentham, Rousseau, Thomas
Malthus, Montesquieue, Adam Smith, David Ricardo in seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. This phase of liberalism is known as Classical Liberalism. By the close of
nineteenth century another wave of liberalism flourished consequent to the set back of
classical notion as a theory of welfare state, this is known as Positive Liberalism. After the
second world war, a few more changes have taken place in the concept of liberalism . It is
popularly known as the Contemporary or Modern liberalism.

MAIN PRINCIPLES OF LIBERALISM

a) Primacy of individual over collectives and groups.
b) Commitment to liberty.
c) Commitment to reason.
d) Acceptance and toleration.
e) Belief in law.
f) Constitutionalism.

GLOBALISATION AS PER LIBERAL’S APPROACH

Liberals are the great supporter and advocate of globalization, there are three
variants of liberalism:
1. Liberal Internationalism : As Stanley Hoffman has claimed, liberal internationalism
appears to confront a host of political, intellectual and moral crises at exactly the
time when its victory seemed at hand (the post- Cold War period). It enshrines the
norms of sovereignty and self determination. They believe that internationalism will
help to facilitate more pacific and harmonious relation among nation
of liberal theory. A vibrant
intellectual tradition, ranging
from classical lib-
eral philosophers such as
Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and
Immanuel Kant
to modern writers such as
Richard Rosecrance, John
Mueller, and Thomas
Friedman, argues that
globalization promotes peace by
making war more
costly, trade more rewarding,
society more democratic, and
states more con-
strained from using military
force.
The belief that globalization
pacifies international relations is a
central tenet
of liberal theory. A vibrant
intellectual tradition, ranging
from classical lib-
eral philosophers such as
Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and
Immanuel Kant
tomodern
1

The belief that globalization

pacifies international relations is a
central tenet
of liberal theory. A vibrant
intellectual tradition, ranging
from classical lib-
eral philosophers such as
Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and
Immanuel Kant
to modern writers such as
Richard Rosecrance, John
Mueller, and Thomas
Friedman, argues that
globalization promotes peace by
making war more
costly, trade more rewarding,
society more democratic, and
states more con-
strained from usin
POLITICAL GLOBALISTION
The belief that globalization pacifies international relations is a central tenet of liberal
theory. A vibrant intellectual tradition, ranging from classical liberal philosophers such as
Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kantto modern writers such as Richard
Rosecrance, John Mueller, and Thomas Friedman, argues that globalization promotes peace
by making war more costly, trade more rewarding, society more democratic, and states
more con-strained from using military force.

These arguments are supported by lots of scholars that international trade is positively and
significantly related to international peace. Liberals have also proposed that globalization
makes commerce less costly than conquest for acquiring natural resources.
(Rosecrance,TheRise of the Trading State; and Rosecrance, The Rise of the Virtual state).

liberalism proposes, globalization

transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
liberalism proposes, globalization
transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
liberalism proposes, globalization
transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
liberalism proposes, globalization
transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
liberalism proposes, globalization
transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
liberalism proposes, globalization
transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
liberalism proposes, globalization
transforms societies in ways that
make
them inherently pacific
ECONOMIC GLOBALISTION
There are 5 components of economic globalization as per Joseph Stiglitz; International
Trade, Capital Market Flow, Foreign Direct Investment, Migration, Diffusion of Technology.
The prime goal of liberal’s globalization is to fulfill the rift between the poor and rich states
by providing them an opportunity of free trade, global market, freedom of occupation etc.
Liberals are the supporter of capitalism. Liberal theorist advocates the right of individual
property and private ownership of the means of production.

ECOLOGICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL GLOBALISTAION

As liberals are in favour of individualism, less interference of state in using or more precisely to
exploit natural resources, individual is free to trade and production overseas, opposes any restriction
on imports and exports. The main argument of liberals regarding globalisation as it results in
increased trade, lower prices and higher wages. Liberals were least concerned about environmental
issue or the consequence of globalization in environment. There are some key points which are
generally associated with flip side of globalization on environment.

*globalisation increases global consumer demand, this sparks an increase in production to meet
demands.

*Natural resources are exploited in the supply chains. Therefore, globalization leads to the increased
exploitation of natural resources.

As per building work of Held and McGrew (2007) four key characteristics of globalisation are
instructive for understanding the social nature of the global environment.

First, there is a stretching of the environment in both material and social terms across political
frontiers. While it is also that not all environmental problems are global in nature as it is extend in a
particular sector, locality or nation.

For example; Tuna is a case in point, swimming across national borders, between socio-cultural
regions and internationally established fishery management organisations. The sustainability of
these fish is only possible if there is international cooperation between the coastal states in whose
waters tuna are caught, with fishing states who control the fishing vessels and increasingly the
‘market states’ that shape demand for tuna (Adolf et al., 2016; Havice and Campling, 2017).

In other cases environments are globalised through the agency of consumers. Take tourism for
example Exceptional sites of beauty are stretched across borders through experiential forms of
consumption – either by those that are visiting or those that place demands on the conservation of
these environments.

Second, there is growing intensification of social and material interconnectedness in the use of the
environment and in response to environmental degradation.

Third, the acceleration of systematised transboundary interactions related to the environment. The
mobility of environmental flows continues to accelerate year-on-year. As resource trade, which has
increased dramatically in pace over the last 30 years. It takes less than 35 days for a loin of tuna to
travel from Indonesia to the shelves of Albert Heijn in Wageningen. It is not only the fish that are
moving, but also fishers and information on their practices. This has led to the emergence of what
some label hyper-globalisation linked to the rise of the digital economy (Castells, 2000; Rodrik,
2011).

Finally, there are continued deepening enmeshment of the local and the global. This dimension
reminds us that environmental globalisation is not abstracted from everyday life. It is instead
grounded in the practices of people in specific places, in specific ways and with specific social
consequences. This deepening enmeshment is not just associated with cosmopolitan institutions,
like the United Nations or WWF, but also with local actors and practices.
Globalization introduces an economic model that is incompatible with environmental protection but
the question it really the case as if globalization contributes to environmental degradation, then
periods of deglobalization would coincide with periods of reduced environmental destruction. But
this is not what happens. Since 2008, the globe has been on deglobalisation trend. Brexit , Donald
Trump’s trade war with China and opposition to multinational trade agreements are all indications of
anti- globalization sentiments reflected in protectionist policy.

But this period of protectionism has not coincided with a period of reduced environmental
destruction.