Old globalization was marked by the quest of colonial powers such as France and the Netherlands for more raw materials, cheap labor and new markets, conditions that translate into an ultimate objective for more profits. Countries such as Malaya and Vietnam were transformed into markets and suppliers of people and products via combinations of military conquest and cultural subjugation. The old globalization was carried out through direct colonial rule or a government composed of compliant local elite ultimately responsible and accountable to the colonial power. After World War II a concerted effort was made to revive international trade and investment.
Liberalization of international trade and liberalization of international investment are the objectives of globalization advocates. Liberalization is considered as the answer to the marked decrease in the rate of corporate profits particularly in the US in the past two decades.
Neo-liberals have praised free trade as the way to promote the interest of small agricultural and industrial producers. Through free trade, the logic goes, these people will be able to offer their products to a wider market, increase their sales and therefore their income, and help wipe out global poverty.
Unfortunately, in real life, liberalization seems to work more for multinational corporations than small agricultural producers and workers. The problem is today’s free trade is really not free trade. There is no level playing field when their governments give subsidies to multinational corporations, enabling the latter to sell their products below cost of production in the international market, a practice aptly called dumping. It is understandable, in this context, why globalization and liberalization have become increasingly unpopular concepts and programs among the global poor.
