Nachhaltiges Europa Abschlusspublikation - Global Marshall Plan

legacy and pillaged resources and all the rest. But,
however you judge the colonial legacy, it is perhaps
more important to note that as a given, a
starting point from which some countries have
managed to extricate themselves and not others.
What we see in the world is that economic growth
and rising prosperity have been particularly
marked in those countries whose economic policies
have been geared towards greater interaction in
the global economy. Some East Asian economies
have recently been enjoying double digit rates of
growth in merchandise trade whilst others, particularly
in sub-Saharan Africa have fared badly. It
is very arguable that these countries have suf-
fered, not from globalisation, but too little globalisation
- their failure to be geared up to the globalisation
going on around them. Globalization has
been insufficiently global. Some are being left out
of this so-called global convergence and growth of
interdependence. Partly this is to do with the small
size of many developing economies which reduces
the incentives to invest in them. But it is also
much to do not only with the spread of AIDS, with
the domestic policy environment, which may lack
trade openness, secure property rights, the rule of
law, social policies and stable macroeconomic and
financial policies. Corruption and unaccountable
government can also be a factor.
So if we persist in blaming globalisation for all the
problems of the poor, that’s a little like saying, OK
we have a problem, there are people out there
who are drifting away from this life-raft that supports
us all; and the sharks are getting them. It’s
unfair that we’re on the raft, so here’s the answer:
break up the raft and start again with everyone
grabbing the raft-building materials they can from
the open sea. If that’s what you think, remind me
never to go rafting with you. Surely that is not an
option.
Borderless? Not entirely
So the world is getting very borderless, competition
is using this borderlessness to create a world
in which inequality may be increasing, but as a
function of increasing wealth and not increasing
poverty, indeed the spectre of absolute poverty is
decreasing. In this world the overwhelming economic
pre-eminence of Europe along with the
economies that derived from it, both in ethnic
make-up and ideology, will not last. I would argue
that this is not in itself a problem that we have to
fight against, rather it is a good thing if it goes
along with resolving the remaining underdevelopment
of the world. Our values have proved to
have a lot of universal validity and attractiveness,
so we have little to fear from the relative ascen-
Nachhaltiges Europa
dancy of those who do so whilst taking those val-
ues on as their own.
But it is important too to remember the ways in
which the world is still not entirely borderless - far
from it. Even within the EU let’s remember that
trade is three to four times more intensive within
the member states than between them. This is
partly a matter of rules. No single EU rules on
bankruptcy, company statute, … But it may even
turn out that there are some deeply ingrained cultural
constraints on a) development, and b) per-
meability of markets.
The matter of culture – for example language,
loyalties to local producers, and the ability of a na-
tional producer to understand the specific tastes of
its own public. This even applies to globalised
brands. A recent study has reported that to some
extent there is a globalised culture, but not a homogeneous
world market. The rise of a global culture
does not mean that consumers share the
same tastes or values. Rather, people in different
nations, often with conflicting viewpoints, participate
in a shared conversation, drawing on shared
symbols. One of the key symbols in that conversa-
tion is the global brand.
Companies which acted in the belief that there was
a global market to exploit by pushing out a stan-
dardised global product have had to adjust their
ideas [and concentrate on getting the economies
of global scale on backroom activities such as
technology, production and organisation whilst
customising product features and their sales techniques
to the local tastes of a particular region].
The very existence of a global brand carries nega-
tive connotations for around 1 in 10 consumers,
and companies have had to fight for their lives in
response to information campaigns that draw at-
tention to inadequate standards in their supply
lines. It has become clear that people expect
global companies to address social problems linked
to what they sell and how they conduct business.
They may turn a blind eye when local companies
take advantage of employees, but insist on transnational
businesses doing better. Global brands
cannot escape notice: they have never been more
prominent in consumers' minds. Because of their
ubiquity, people see them as powerful institutions,
capable of doing good as well as causing considerable
harm.
Procter & Gamble, for example, recently tested
such an initiative in Latin America's poorest
communities. More than 2m people die every year
from diarrhoea as a result of unsafe drinking
water. P&G developed an affordable water purifi-
47