[Spotykach] Europeization topic

[olhas]

Dear frinds,
For those who full of logistic and miss some 
political analisis, I wanted to propose you the 
topic for te future discussion we will have on 
the conference: this is old famous 
"Europeization". There are many materials written 
on the topic but what we want take as the basic 
one or conceptual enough to be able develop a 
discussion, it is still a question. I propose you 
one text, writtten by young ukrainian sociologits 
Alexandr Svetlov who works and lives in Berlin 
and might take part in our seminar. I asked him 
subscribe to our list, so he would be able 
support a discussion and at least will be 
available for any comments. The only small 
neuance: he asked don't publish this text nowhere 
but use just for spotykach-circle.

regards, Olga


Aleksandr Svetlov
THE CONCEPT OF ‘EUROPEANIZATION’ AS A PART
GLOBALIZATION
This work entertains no claims as to completeness 
or exhaustiveness of the subject matter. It shall
better be viewed as an attempt to spot major 
contemporary trends and embed them into a broadframed
critique. My arguments to a certain degree will 
inevitably be built upon some polemic
sufficiently backed up by factual consideration, 
designed to give potential for further analysis. It
will be submitted that ‘Europeanization’, i.e. 
‘Westernization’, ‘Globalization’ is a more
controversial and complex process than is often 
assumed, as it encompasses turbulent crosscurrents
with not only ‘winners’ but also a substantial 
amount of ‘losers’. I submit that subjective
ideological patterns may be imposed upon these 
issues. But is this process always beneficial and
just? Or does it take place at all? I would like 
to qualify the idea of ‘Europeanization’
(Globalization), which seems to be in every one’s 
mouth nowadays, showing how a rush towards
‘progress’ is likely to affect our lives and make a case to qualify it.
Europeanization as a term became an especially 
popular vogue in Eastern and Central Europe after
the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the oncoming 
of institutional, legal, economic and other
restructuring to match ‘the rest of Europe’. 
‘Europeanization’ thus means a structural adjustment
process of the Central and Eastern European 
countries economically, politically, legally and
culturally to the rest of Europe. For Goldsmith, 
the pattern of ‘Europeanisation’ is closely related to
economic interdependence, which drives national 
authorities into closer relationships with each
other, whereas in Benington's view 
‘Europeanisation’ means the greater pluralism in power
relationships.
In East European countries ‘the Europeanization 
pressure’ came from beneath, that is, the
electorate, whereas in some republics of the 
former Soviet Union it was quasi imposed ‘from
above’, due to the by then established species of 
Homo Soveticus. In the West ‘Europeanization as
a term, in my view, often lacks content, since 
there is no visible way of making ‘already European’
countries such as France or Germany even more European. But in Eastern Europe
‘Europeanization’ gained momentum and thus has 
nowadays validity of its own, due to the fact of
them being slightly different from Western Europe 
in historical, cultural, economic and other terms
and hence having inferiority complex.
I submit that it is much more appropriate to 
speak of Westernization or Globalization rather then
‘Europeanization’ for the sake of embracing the 
whole framework of those affecting and affected,
that is, those assumed to be Europe by the very 
definition and those thriving to become Europe,
though geographically they have always been Europe.
The existence of the European Union (EU), which 
has legal power over nation-states, has profound
implications for the national politics of the 
member-states and aspiring East European entrants. The
EU creates a different basis for the exercise of 
political power and authority. The future members
have to be aware of it. European regulations 
create an uncertainty and unexpected possibilities for
the participants. But the creation of a political 
potency for the whole of geographical Europe has a
historical significance, though Globalization is 
nothing new for Europeans. The particularly
compressed and intense pattern of exchange among 
them has long been one of the comparative
advantages that they have enjoyed compared to other regions.
Globalization has economic, political and 
cultural dimensions, all of which can have a social
impact. Economic Globalization can be simply 
defined as a process of rapid economic integration
between countries. It has been driven, inter 
alias, by the increasing liberalization of international
trade, foreign direct investment and free capital flows.
The core premise on which I would like to proceed 
is the quotation from Van Tulder:
Globalization means the projection of power by 
the core entity to shape a global
trading system and force others into an 
international division of labor controlled by
this core entity. It doesn’t pertain to every 
region. It is induced and shaped by
political and economic rivalry between great 
powers, thus it depends on the rise
and decline of these great powers.
In my opinion, Globalization is a 
multidimensional process, which includes technological, legal,
organizational, ideological and economic 
dimensions. Its origins can be traced back to the second
half of the nineteenth century when Britain 
emerged as the financial and trade leader of a growing
global economy. However, the institutional 
expression and mechanisms of the world economy were
set in place only after the end of the Second World War.
According to Modelski, the process of 
Globalization is a range of waves coming from frictions
between different civilizations. In my view, 
Globalization phenomena imply a special
reorganization of production, inter-dependence 
between macroeconomies, mobility, diffusion and
transfer of factors of production. Many agree 
with Sachs, that development is often the cause of
rather than the solution to our problems, some of 
which include the dissolving family ties, hostile
environment, lack of reliability and predictability.
Robertson argues, that Globalization as a concept 
refers both to the compression of the world and
intensification of the consciousness of the world 
as a whole. World Wars, proliferation of
international, transnational and supranational 
institutions and attempt to coordinate ‘global
economy’ played crucial parts in the twofold 
process of objective and subjective Globalization.
The facts for Globalization seem to be hard: a 
sweeping rationalization and introduction of lean
production are but a few indicators. On the other 
hand, it may also mean that the claim of the
Globalization to be universal deserves some 
reservations. It is submitted that Globalization means a
one-way expansion of the capitalist system of 
values and a growing gap between rich and poor,
whereby the lesser-taxed MNCs get richer at the 
expense of the labor force. It also encompasses a
devastating destruction of the environment and a 
sweeping westernizing of the whole globe,
whereby traditional cultures disappear and common 
standardized patterns of consumption emerge.
Having defined the process of Globalization we 
shall leave for an impact consideration.
For developed countries the main concern is a 
competition of cheaper imported goods. Countries of
Eastern and Central Europe fear that they may be 
unable to compete in a liberalized environment
and that they may become marginalized in the 
international economy. At the moment there are
some changes taking place in the economic 
structure: a shift from mass production and Fordism to
lean, flexible ‘Toyotaism’, ‘deindustrialization’ 
and ‘servicization’, whereby an efficient scale is
slashed to the minimum. The human capital becomes 
an important factor. The patterns of skill
requirement changes in labour demands are faster 
than the labor supply can adjust. Result is a rising
inequalities in income distribution and long-term 
unemployment. How much of inequalities and
unemployment is transitional?
Globalization represents a challenge to the 
capacity of the state to formulate and implement
policies. In my view, the process of 
Globalization is consistent with the concept of the economic
man and neo-liberal philosophy. I submit that all 
governments have nowadays to pay regard to
Globalization, the New Economy and the US 
economy. But the US economy is a special case, not
possible to imitate for small countries, due to 
the technical reasons. Many attempts of smaller states
to keep up with the current Globalization trend may be destined to failure. .
European enlargement may pose substantial 
problems for such concepts as, say, democracy. One
element that may well determine the future of 
democracy is whether the pan-European and national
institutions will prove themselves capable of 
adapting to new changes. Democracy has always had a
peculiar relationship with scale. For a long 
time, it was considered to be appropriate only for very
small, spatially compact and economically 
self-sufficient units. Subsequent "inventions" in voting
procedures, representation, federalism, mass 
enfranchisement, proportionality, subsidiarity, checks
and balances, devolution of powers, separation of 
public and private spheres, property and civil
rights helped to break this barrier and make a 
new practice of democracy compatible with much
larger and more interdependent units. To some, it 
offers an unprecedented opportunity to expand
systems of governance and accountability beyond 
the confines of the national state; to others, the
threat must be met with protection and exclusion offered by national democracy.
Baum noted that societies are converging in some 
respects (economic, technological) but diverging
in other (social, etc). This makes a case that no 
country can hide from the process of Globalization.
Thus, in an increasingly ‘globalized’ world many 
relations become ‘sharpened’. These include:
i) Relativization of societies;
ii) Relativization of self-identities;
iii) Relativization of citizenship;
iv) Relativization of societal reference;
v) Individual – society problematic;
I am convinced that many societies have embarked 
on the trip to we-know-not-where.
People regret now about building nuclear power 
stations in the 1960s, they will regret in the same
manner later a current rigid adherence to 
Globalization. A ‘good’ example of Globalization may be
the EC regulations, which were a virtual knockout 
blow to the largely self-sufficient economies of
most of the European countries.
In my opinion, the Internet technologies, which 
are said to ‘empower’, are the most powerful tool in
the hands of financial speculators and global 
corporations able to control and adjust at a strike of a
key. Meanwhile biotechnology already enables the 
enclosure and commercialization of the internal
wilderness of the gene structure, which will have 
a profound impact on agriculture, ecology and
even human rights (Kimbrell).
Often, the press ignores the connection of 
different crises, and Globalization causing it. Many
public protests of 1995 in France were condemned 
but the press did not report that it was caused by
the ‘single currency agreement’ according to 
which the government had to cut expenses drastically.
I submit that the problems of structural 
engineering, downsizing and efficiency have to be presented
within their wider social, economic and 
ecological context. It is frequently overlooked that the
corporate restructuring is hooked to the 
imperatives of Globalization. “Competitiveness” in this
respect means the lowering of wages, “efficiency” 
is replacing of employees with machines and
“flattening” is a disposal of middle managers. 
Lowering of wages while stock prices soar and
elimination of local social services are the 
products of the same global policies. I hold that
restructuring of the world in the name of 
accelerated global development designed by corporations
and encouraged by subservient governments will 
undoubtedly pose a major problem to
contemporary societies.
Dr. Stiglitz during his lecture given at PAN in 
Autumn 2000 underlined some typical economic
mistakes made by states:
i). Stress on fluidity of capital; as a result 
(by way of example) – up to $ 2 billion a month was
transferred from Russia and invested in a booming Wall Street market.
ii) Ignoring the fact that capital growth and 
poverty usually have a universally positive correlation.
I think that consolidation of economies leads to 
creation of global oligarchic structures, which are
more interested in ‘tunneling’ and personal 
wealth accumulation than in the ‘public good’. It is
striking that only 1% of US population possesses 
around 40% of the country’s wealth. It is
reasonable to think that a finite earth cannot 
support an economic system based on limitless growth.
A system feeding on itself cannot keep eating forever.
According to Morris, ‘the new freedom’ provides 
corporate players with capacity to deprive
democratic nation states of their culture, 
communities, economies and environment. Guehenno
rightly links emerging global networks with the 
death of the state structure and nation states.
Garett submits, that a growing financial 
integration reduces governments’ ability to pursue
expansionary macroeconomic policies, which leads 
to convergence of interest rates and is reflected
in stagnation of some states. The facts available 
give us to understand that the Globalization process
is a one-way road with governments effectively 
disappearing. According to Boyer, each nation will
resemble a small firm in an ocean of pure and 
perfect competition. But this account is flawed, as it
is virtually impossible due to the asymmetries of 
information, power and different infrastructures.
I think, Ostry mistakenly holds that a lack of 
international convergence gives rise to international
tensions. I see it the other way round: 
convergence makes the countries more competitive with their
interests mutually contradictory, interdependent 
and conflictual. Convergence is the triumph of
unrestrained market forces, given the passive 
governments. World Bank’s loans, for instance, are
granted only to those countries that agree to 
dismantle their economic and social structures, and
adopt a new ideology, which according to Bello includes the following:
i) elimination of price controls and imposition of wage controls;
ii) reduction of social and health programs and 
privatization of governmental agencies;
iii) removal of protective tariffs and control 
over foreign access thus endangering local industry;
iv) conversion of self-sufficient, small-scale 
diverse agriculture to corporate export-oriented
monocultures;
The trans-nationalization creates tensions and 
contradictions between the liberal concept of the
modern state, with its emphasis on domestic 
responsiveness and accountability, and the economic
imperatives of the global economy. The result is 
a crisis of authority arising from the state's
increasing inability to respond to its domestic needs and demands (Rosenau).
I submit that there are a lot of market failures, 
which have to be effectively addressed by the state.
For example, common property resources which 
otherwise will be overexploited privately, as well
as public goods (police protection, national 
defense) and externalities. The reasons for government
intervention may also include paternalism and 
imposition of social values to ensure a fair and
equitable distribution of income and wealth.
According to Schumpeter’s model, all new 
technological developments once developed become
available to all. But research on diffusion shows 
just the opposite, because the companies keep their
inventions secret; a facilitating structure is 
required for technology adoption as well.
The WTO constantly stresses that the new economic 
arrangements will produce more than a $ 250
billion expansion of world economic activity with 
the benefits trickling down to all of us. In other
words the rising tide will lift all boats. 
Globalization has a new scale of the old form. It has a selfpropelling
effect. Barnet describes it as the casino economy 
ruled by currency speculators. The new
ideological principles are not that new, they 
still include the primacy of economic growth and free
trade in a free market, consumerism and advocacy 
of uniform worldwide development reflecting
Western corporate visions. It also includes 
adoption of the same global economic model,
homogenization resulting in monoculture, which 
implies disposal of local traditions. Very soon
there will be barely a reason to leave home. The 
present development in consumption can not
sustain itself. Sachs argues that the only thing 
worse than the failure of the present global
development experiment would be its success. Even 
at its optimum performance level the long-term
benefits go only to the tiny minority commanding 
the parade. So it is only their boats that can be
lifted, all the rest will be on the beach facing the rising tide.
As a matter of principle, the integration process 
is not unique. In 1950 5% of trade was
international, in 1973 12%, in 1995 16%. Just 
before WW II the trend was very similar and before
the WW I the world trade grew by almost 50% per 
decade. So the Globalization (Europization) is
not necessarily beneficial to all. Descriptions 
of Globalization usually come from its advocates.
Corporate leaders and global trade bureaucracy 
ensures us that it is panacea for all ills. But
application of these strategies leads to the 
current grim situation: poverty, homelessness, alienation,
violence, anxiety about the future and a near breakdown of the natural world.
There is also abundance of reasons to rethink the 
concept of democracy in respect of its
applicability, because the One Global Nation 
concept is being seen as utopia now, mainly due to the
fact that culture is largely perceived as an 
American conception of nationality. It ignores the
possibility that other countries may have more 
deep-seated traditions. Therefore, opening of the
economy and society may be achieved at a high 
price. The social and union consensus can be easily
eroded, as in France in 1995. States thus face a 
dilemma either to join the powerful majority and
thus fortify the trend or get cut out of economic 
development. Characteristics of Globalization may
include aggressiveness of the driving forces, 
eruption of nationalism, fundamentalism as a product
of identity and homogeneity lost by nation 
states. MNCs, for instance, can play one state against
another (Renault closing its factories in Belgium 
and heading for Spain). States find their social
systems under threat if they don’t bow to 
stateless corporations. There’s also a general trend for
devolution of state sovereignty to the local 
politics (Standsortpolitik) trying to attract investment,
which means that democracy loses its content and 
gives way to populism. Local authorities respond
to the competition by increasing its ability to 
access public and private resources. There just
emerges a patterned trend towards competition.
For those underdeveloped there seems to be only 
one recipe, that is, to follow the western pattern of
development, which is declared to be the 
universal law of nature. Its major criticism is that a
considerable proportion of people are left out 
with no means. That is the reason why the popular
word now is an alternative need-oriented 
development, which encompasses a more even income
distribution, a better medical care and 
education, introduction of the Tobin tax, fair international
trade in raw materials, debt release, and sustainable and balanced growth.
Globalization resembles a ‘global casino’ of 
unlimited competition and predatory capitalism,
described as a magic trick of “invisible hand”. 
Globalization may be expressed in other terms as a
process whereby the material misbalance 
increases. It demonstrates that ‘free trade’ is not that free
at all.
We should really speak about the 
“Rationalization” of economies and not Globalization. According
to Khor, the labor-intensive techniques are 
abandoned for a more capital intensive and antienvironmental
ways of production. The effects consist in a 
higher unemployment rate, environmental
degradation with local economies becoming more 
dependent upon foreign capital. It is a
well-known fact that many of unsafe and outdated 
technologies have been transferred to the Eastern
Europe. As submitted by Beck, the unification of 
individual cultures (McDonaldization) as a side
effect of the Globalization process brings some 
vehement resistance, which may eventually take a
very threatening shape. Indeed, people in all 
parts of the world see their social environment (inter
alias, attitude to work and values, changing).
As the promise of full employment is still in a 
distant future, the MNCs escape political control of
societies. A slogan of the past “what is good for 
the economy is good for people” does not hold true
any more. Companies plead for reduction of tax 
burden for the sake of better competitiveness on the
world markets. It means that the state receives 
less money for the social projects. May has recently
asked asked with a touch of irony: ‘how many 
employees are still to be sacked for the full
employment to come true?’ If economic actors 
refuse to take care of the societal environment, a
logical question may be put about the very need 
for existence of the corporate sector at all. I submit
that a movement towards Globalization is merely 
an economic experiment for promotion of some
actors’ interests.
Western investment in Eastern Europe is 
traditionally considered to have a positive value. It creates
new work places, increases supply and demand 
sides of local economies, improves the balance of
payment and produces an economic growth. But in 
reality the situation sometimes seem to be quite
different. The big foreign firms buy local 
suppliers on the cheap, introduce lean production and
downsizing, drive other rivals off the market and 
thus gain a nearly monopolistic position. The premanufactured
goods would be imported from a third country, 
production costs left to be paid by the
state, environmental laws (if any) ignored and 
huge amount of profits transferred to ‘tax havens’
(case of Daewoo in the Ukraine). The central 
point of success of East Asian ‘tigers’, in spite of the
overall pattern, was keeping of certain legal 
principles in place, which ensured the fulfillment of
positive effects; e.g. the obligation on foreign 
firms to create new jobs, acquiescence of locally premade
intermediary products, transfer of technologies, etc.
The fundamental base of the globalized economy 
consists of intensive economic growth built on
export and accumulation of commodities rather 
than local needs. That current state cannot be
sustained for a long time. There is an urgent 
need to protect communities and environment. It may
be done by trade unions, environmentalists, human 
rights groups, farmer associations and other
activist organization. Another way of separating 
oneself from the global economy may lie in the
keeping the local currencies instead of 
introduction of the Euro, just to escape from the global
economic grid. According to Goldsmith, a shift 
towards a more local direction is mandatory, as it is
utopian to keep up with the speed of development, 
which denies any natural limits or social and
economic equity.
As Mander put it, if we look at the international 
marketplace today, we see much of the unregulated
and anarchic capitalism that our predecessors 
saw. But westernization has been sold to societies as
a panacea. It may safely be concluded, that 
destruction of national economies cannot improve
people’s lives. So an assumption that a rising 
tide will lift all boats does not necessarily hold true.
The slightest sign of an economic crises will 
definitely do more harm to the developed countries’
economies that that of poor, where the touch with 
simple, self-reliant and manageable technologies
(which are not dominated by outside forces) has 
not been lost yet and people can always lean back
on their traditional way of living. But once 
dependency on a global economy comes to life, it
rapidly develops and countries do not have an 
option of exit any more. Therefore, a viable
alternative to it may be a return to local, 
self-sufficient, diversified small-scale economies.
If the direction we are going is wrong, we have 
to stop first and then change direction. But is the
current process stoppable? We must understand 
that no national traditions, culture or historical
legacies can restrain market forces by 
themselves. Berger puts that insulated economies are
unlikely to survive. But Kosai sees national 
diversity as a key to adaptation as countries can learn
from each other. The future of Globalization is 
likely to be shaped by growing political opposition
to changes as a response to external pressures. 
There is an enormous potential for encouraging
governmental interference, but there is also an 
enormous potential for wasteful failures. But at the
moment expectations are bleak for a major 
break-through from the Globalization process.
The evidence presented displays a world in 
transition, as there are countervailing forces operating
simultaneously at a global and local level. Thus, 
another trend is ‘Deglobalization’, i.e. attempts to
undo the compression of the world. It sometimes 
has a negative ring of “one-worldism”. But in my
opinion, it is much needed, as Globalization has 
to be modified and made more balanced.
Bibliography:
Allen, Tim / Thomas, Alan: Poverty and 
Development in the 1990s. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Altvater, Elmar / Mahnkopf, B.: Grenzen der 
Globalisierung. Muenster: Westpf. Dampfboot, 1996.
Arrow, Kenneth: Social Choice and Individual 
Values. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1973.
Barnet, Richard: Global Dreams. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1994.
Beck, Ulrich: Freiheit oder Kapitalismus. Suhkampf, Frankfurt am Main, 1999.
Beck, Ulrich: Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997.
Berger. S.: National Diversity and Global 
Capitalism. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1996.
Bello, Walden: Dark Victory: The US and Global Poverty. FF,1999.
Dahrendorf, Ralf : Zu einer Theorie des sozialen 
Konflikts, in Zap 1971, p. 108-123.
Dahrendorf, Ralf : Der moderne sozialer Konflikt. Muenchen:dtv, 1992.
Etzioni, Amitai: Jenseits des Egoismus Prinzips. 
Ein neues Bild von Wirtschaft, Politik und
Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel, 1994.
Etzioni, Amitai: Die Entdeckung des Gemeinwesens. Frankfurt am Main: FIS,1995.
Falk, Rainer: Die Asienkrise nach einem Jahr: 
eine grosse Depression, in Informationsbrief
Weltwirtschaft und Entwicklung, Nr. 7-8/98.
Friedmann, John: Empowerment.The Politics of 
Alternative Development.Cambridge/Oxford,1992.
Fukuyama, Francis: Das Ende der Geschichte. Muenchen: Kindler, 1992.
Galtung, Johan: Eine strukturelle Theorie des 
Imperialismus, in Senghaas 1972, p. 29-104.
Goodland, Robert: Growth has reached its Limits, 
in: Mander / Goldsmith 1996, S. 207-217.
Garett, S.: Inc. and Grow Rich!. London, Sage Intl, 1999.
Goldsmith, Edward: The Case Against The Global 
Economy. S.C.B., San Francisco, 1996.
Guehenno, J.-M.: The End of the Nation State. Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1995.
Herman, Edward / McChesney, Robert 1997: The Global Media. London: Cassel.
Hewitt, Tom 1992: Developing Countries 1945-1990, 
in: Allen / Thomas 1992, p. 221-237.
Hirsch, Joahim 1995: Der nationale Wettbewerbsstaat. Berlin: Edition ID-Archiv.
Kimbell, Andrew: In Ecologist, Vol. 29, Issue 3.
Khor, Martin 1996: Global Economy and the Third World, in: Mander 1996.
Khor, Martin: in New Internationalist, Apr.1998, Vol. 3000.
Kosai Y.: Japanische Wirtschaft. Oldenbourg, Muenchen, 1997.
Lipsey, Richard: Economics. Routledge Press, London, 1998.
Mander, Jerry: The Case Against the Global 
Economy. Sierra Club Books, San Franc. 1996.
May, H.: in Journal of Commerce, vol. 319.
Modelski, George: Leading Sectors and World 
Powers. University of South Carolina Press, 1995.
Morris, Tom: True Success: A New Philosophy Of Excellence. Berkley P.G., 1995.
Ostry, S.: The Post-Cold War Trading System: Who 
is on First. Univ. of Chicago, 1997.
Robertson, A.F.: The Big Catch: A Practical 
Introduction to Development. Western Press, 1995.
Rosenau, Hartmut: Allversoennung. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1993.
Sachs, Jeffrey: Developing Country Debt and the 
World Economy. Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988.
Schumpeter, Joseph: Capitalism, Socialism and 
Democracy. Routledge, London, 1994.
Van Tulder: in International Relations and 
Organizations, by Tooze, Roger, in International
Affaires, Jan. 1997, Vol. 73.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.nadir.org/pipermail/spotykach/attachments/20060125/6e49ff16/attachment.htm