This is a short essay response to the ideas presented by Deepak Lal in "Globalization, Imperialism, and Regulation". It provides an overview of Lal's assertions and the grounds on which to challenge these. Key ideas include globalization as a purely economic occurrence, imperialism, deregulation, American hegemony, and what Lal calls moral hazard.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 25, 2018, 1:52 pm ad1c9bdddf
See the attached file.
The intention of the article Globalization, Imperialism and Regulation, is clearly to defend the process of globalization. It is the argument of the author that the term globalization has been overused and over-extended and now needs to be defended as it really exists. For Lal, a neoliberal economist, globalization is strictly economic. It is a positive process best measured using economic methodology and is neither ideological nor a form of imperialism. To this end he separates globalization- as he defines it as solely economic- from what he calls "ethical imperialism" (Lal, 2000: 1). He makes this distinction because he believes this ethical imperialism will destroy globalization and that it is also responsible for much of the global homogenization people are challenging when they incorrectly protest against globalization. It is also Lal's argument within this article that two global common goods are not being supplied under today's hegemon, peace and an effective international financial institution. These are discussed as they relate to globalization, one being necessary and the other, not.
Central to Lal's paper is his argument in support of globalization as a positive methodology rather than an ideology. He promotes it as an economically benign process (Lal, 2000: 2) that needs to be examined using a "positive economic methodology" that will allow for an objective assessment of its effects. As an ideology, as it is currently evaluated, it is not surprising for Lal to find that concerns are raised as they relate to the provision of global public goods. As an ideology, too many questions abound with regards to the unbalanced nature of the provision of these goods, for whose benefit they are produced, by whom they are produced and about who controls the processes as well as the very nature of them. A ready example can be found in the "supranational contrivance" developed to maintain globalized free trade and capital mobility, now known as the World Trade Organization (WTO). If the WTO is discussed as a part of an ideological understanding of globalization it is easy to find concerns about the nature of its apparatus, whom it directly benefits and harms, and about how and where decisions are made. These concerns are unfounded, however, since globalization is a process and cannot be seen as a western ideology for a process cannot be ideological (Lal, 2000: 8). As a process it is good because it is creating a greater common economic space for a greater division of labour and thus greater prosperity. In this way, as an economic process, it is doing exactly what it should by making workers and markets more competitive. But as a process, it is also under a great pressure because of the ideological issues being raised and attached to it and because of an American unwillingness to protect it. These last points are the concerns that Lal addresses in his paper.
Lal's discussion surrounding the establishment and maintenance of peace stems ...
The solution provides a response to Deepak's Lal's "Globalis