Global capitalism is the primary cause of world hunger Essay Example for Free

Global bullyist economy is the primary cause of world famish Essay organic evolution/ change are a modal value of life. People evolve, cultures evolve, and so do our economies. And with every change comes a considerable amount of resistance. The transition from feudalism to capitalism gathered its momentum in Western Europe in 18th and 19th centuries. Along with came chaos, ambiguities and insecurities. Numerous theories on Capitalism as good or bad excessively came along. Some include famous works by premier sociologists Karl Marx and Max Weber.Though Karl Marxs most popular theories on caste and conflict made him a capitalist critique, it is mainly Max Weber whos considered to stick out developed a more rational theory on capitalism. Defined in Max Webers term, Capitalism is a process where money becomes an end in itself consequently changing the values of society. Although capitalism is an age old phenomenon what makes it younger even now is the global face it has ass umed over the past two or three decades. It is now utilize in combination with globalization hence, termed as global capitalism.It has largely dominated the discourse on poverty and human growth. Patrik Aspers (1) defines global capitalism as, an economy that connects bourgeois actors from all over the world via production and consumption grocerys. The common attack on this phenomenon is that it has increased the disparity between the rich and the poor in the create world and widened the gap between the developed and the developing world. Whats perplexing is to see how the same phenomenon that is acclaimed for the growing GDP in many emerging economies is also seen as the culprit in raising world hunger.Global capitalism does not function in isolation. There are many other particularors that look disclose its nature making it good or bad for human development. This paper w swooning delve on those factors that have made this phenomenon so unpopular in particular in the deve loping world. Also, to establish that global capitalism is not alone a cause per se of world hunger. Free Trade Global capitalism means integrating the national economy into the world economy through breaking d receive of artificial trade barriers. In other words, allowing a warrant flow of capital across the globe.A more popular term given to this phenomenon is that of Free Trade. Joseph Stiglitz (2)defines it as the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought near by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge and people across borders. Free Trade versus small plateful Farmers There have been tall claims made on the benefits gained by the emerging countries out of free trade looking at their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) evolution over the past decade.While determining the effectiveness of Free Trade, most evidences ar e based on the number of jobs gene targetd in emerging economies through this system. moreover this is also dovetailed by another question on whether these jobs also gene straddle a livelihood option for the last common denominators in the developing world. The solving is quite evident from the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) that has taken a centre stage on the ongoing WTO ( arena Trade Organization) negotiations.The most affected plentifulness of the multilateral trading system are the small scale farmers in developing countries who are largely being affected by huge subsidies provided to farmers in U. S and Europe. This in turn sustains these farmers to swop their products at much reduced rates in international markets than the small- scale farmers of developing countries can afford to sell even in their own domestic markets. Hence, forcing these very farmers to sell their produce at a lesser price than that twisting in production.One could press that despite the farmers gr ievances, large flow of shabby food in developing countries could also mean that the poor and hungry benefit from floods of cheap food. The following fact answers this argument. World hunger strings from the current situation of small scale farmers in the developing world The UN report on World crave 2000, revealed failure of the 1996 target of halving the number of people who do not have enough to eat within 15 years. Robert. Drinan (3) in National Catholic reporter, states that a total of 842 million hungry in the world during 1995- 1997 increased by 13 million in the 1999- 2001 period.The First Food Program Director, Kirsten Schwind points out that a vast majority of the worlds poor make their living off agriculture. Hence, failure in this sector also suggests that 50 percent of the people who live with hunger globally are these same small scale farmers. United States and Europe are they alone responsible for world hunger? Undeniably, the huge subsidies offered to farmers in the United States and Europe disrupts the global market. But this reason is not alone responsible for devastating farmers life in developing world.This era of global capitalism also calls for a global accountability. It isnt right to put the entire blame on the US and Europe. Kenneth AJ (4) distinctly states that hunger is a multi-dimensional problem that requires a multidimensional approach and intersectoral interventions in relevant areas, such as health, markets, learning and emergency preparedness. But too frequently the necessary investments have not been made. National level strategies usually exist, but they often need to be modified to take hunger into greater consideration. patently judging the interventions made by international institutes, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is not enough. Unless countrys own systems such as, domestic policies, their implementation, and their transparency are not evaluated, the current situation on world hunger will not improve. It is a stated fact that serious policy mistakes are dovetailed by crisis in the economic sector. What keeps many developing countries from benefiting despite numerous development projects are their own infected methods. legion(predicate) people and many governments have misunderstood the meaning of liberalization.They have mistaken it to mean liberating themselves off their responsibilities. The image behind globalization was to make competition healthier. This could be done when each country facing an international competition ensures improvement on its infrastructure and provides its workers with latest knowledge on their skills. It is after all a countrys own responsibility. Unfortunately, the latest trend is to blame it all on the unhealthy competition led by free trade. Little have these governments done enabling their own citizens to face the global competition.It is after all these policy makers who take for key to development of their own nation. They a re the wheelers of the society who splice the modern, pre modern and postmodern together. When we talk about agricultural competition, besides looking at debates engulfing the distortion issue, it is also important for us to assess the countrys own performance in these areas. It is after all governments responsibility to improve upon its agricultural production meeting market needs by assisting its farmers with latest techniques and knowledge on new variety crops.Even if we agree for a while that many developing countries cannot afford the latest technologies, how do these governments hence account for the dramatic increase in their GDP growth? India stands as the best example, where on the one hand many reports reveals the increased suicidal rate of the farmers, on the other hand there are reports flashing Indias growing GDP rate. A country with 60 percent population involved in agriculture, accounts for only 22 percent of its total GDP growth. Fair Trade involves paying a fair wage to the growers for their goods.Ironically, the larger retailers involved in the selling of these goods exploit these growers by buying their goods, like coffee, cocoa and sugar, at world low prices and then selling the same goods at international markets at highly marked up prices. The unequal ratio between the production cost and selling cost forces the small scale farmers in developing countries to espouse money from the local lenders. These lenders decide their own interest rates which unfortunately keeps the farmers in perpetual poverty.There is no supervisory authority that can help these farmers get a fair share for their produce. Caught between the vicious lenders and retailers, these farmers are constantly facing a blow. The government does little in bailing out these ill fate stricken farmers. The borrowing chain does end with the farmers. This trend continues even with the government who borrows money from international bodies to finance their development through several development projects. The supervisory authorities spend little time in monitoring the international capital inflows.These authorities also do not collect info on outdoor(a) borrowing by private corporations in their respective countries and in turn to use this information for managing their domestic policies. The excessive borrowing has strike link to hunger as these payments back to creditors outside the country are drawn from funds that should instead be invested in areas that need greater backing to lift people out of poverty and hunger. The money that is initially borrowed to invest its large portions in areas like agriculture, health care, education, job creation, etc.helps little in elevating these spheres and is rather used up in dealing with the fluctuating market interest rates. Asian Crisis a result of excessive borrowing Prior to 1997, 8 East Asian countries-Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia experienced a rapid economic growth often called the East Asian miracle. Between 1965 and 1990, the GDP in these countries doubled. Their success was attributed to many factors such as free trade, macroeconomic policies and discipline, high saving and investment rates that attracted many foreign investors looking for a high rate of return.With increasing pressure felt in the foreign switch over market there was a sudden flow of Thai baht in market against the US dollar (the bills speculators rushed to buy US dollar against the Thai baht). This resulted in Thai currency devaluation followed by withdrawal of foreign capital from other East Asian countries as well. What followed was the Asian crisis in mid 1997 affecting currencies, stock markets and other asset prices of several Southeast Asian economies. opposed investors lost confidence and withdrew their invested money from these countries.Extensive borrowing in foreign currencies by corporations and other financial institutions while turni ng blind eye to currency fluctuation was the main culprit for this crisis. The ineffective financial supervision that encouraged short term borrowing underestimating while the risk involved in exchange rate proved fatal. Role of the National Government In several working papers much has been said about the international bodies and their role in the Asian Crisis. What is even a greater matter of concern is the role of national governments during the crisis. Nobody ever talks about their intervention.It is true while dealing with global market one normally expects the global bodies to be accountable for its success or failure. If that being the baptistry, why dont we abandon the idea of even being governed by national bodies if every downturn is expected to be addressed by the international ones? It is evident from the East Asian case that the supervisory authorities spent little time in monitoring the international capital inflows. The authorities did not collect information on ext ernal borrowing by private corporations in their respective countries and in turn to use this information for managing their domestic policies.In earlier times whenever there was a failure in any sector, the only remedy seen for it was nationalization. Any failure in a sector in todays time is turn over over to privatized bodies with national government taking a back seat. The national governments have completely turned a blind eye and a indifferent(p) ear to its citizens problems. In fact for any rising problem it is the international market that is held responsible. Conclusion The facts stated above clearly points out the iteration holes existing in domestic policies and governance. Lian Greenfield (2001) has argued that the driving force behind capitalism is nationalism.Many countries saw a strong economy as a way of strengthening the nation making capitalism as a means in this process. Hence, it wont be wrong to say that it isnt global capitalism that is the primary cause of w orld hunger, it is the improper governance that has led to this disaster. Food availability, food access, and asset creation are virtues of a responsible government for which we cannot hold world systems alone accountable. A good government is one that ensures a proper and organized lending to its farmers helping them to cope with international prices through establishing local banks with reasonable interest rates.This is just one of the many solutions a government can adopt to encompass failures in the agricultural sector considered one of the most important sectors of the emerging economies. A democratic country is one that lets the state make some of the economic decision, and the market and the civil society do others, though with different emphasis on these spheres.References Aspers P, Edling C, Hobson B. A Note on Global Capitalism. Sweden Department of Sociology, Stockholm University 2005. Stiglitz J. Globalization and its Discontents.New York Norton 2002. Jesuit Fr, Drinan R . Report Shows World Hunger Increasing. USA (MO) National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company 2004. Shwind K. Going Local on a Global Scale Rethinking Food Trade in the Era of Climate Change, Dumping, and Rural Poverty. USA (CA) Institute for Food and Development Policy 2005. Kenneth AJ. World Hunger Series 2006 Hunger and Learning. Italy World Food syllabus and Standford University Press 2006. Reuven G, Moreno R. Government intervention and the East Asian miracle. Business Economics 1997.