Market‐Led Globalization and World Democracy: Can the Twain Ever Meet?

Abstract

In a wide-ranging, thought-provoking and controversial contribution to this journal, Professor Keith Griffin (2003) has argued that many problems generally attributed to economic globalization, viz. the increase in and the perpetuation of global income inequality and poverty, arise because, so far, we lack effective democratic institutions at the global level that can ‘govern’ global market forces, supply global public goods, and bestow legitimacy on the institutions of global governance. We have, in Griffin’s words, a closely integrated and rapidly expanding global economy, but not a global political system. As a result of this asymmetric globalization, the present system of global governance favours the rich and the powerful — the large transnational corporations (TNCs) and rich and powerful nation states (particularly the USA). The poor and the weak (mostly in low-income countries) are placed at a considerable disadvantage, due to the continuing trade discrimination against their export products; existing restrictions on the cross-border movement of low-skilled labour; the creation of ‘intellectual property rights’ that severely restrict the flow of knowledge, ideas and technology; and, finally, the severe undersupply of such global public goods as peace, security, equity, health, a healthy global natural environment and knowledge. Griffin sets out an agenda of reform for redressing global economic governance to enhance well-being in developing countries, focusing on economic policies that need to be pursued globally to accelerate development, the constituent elements of a global institutional architecture that will articulate, enact and enforce this agenda, and the nature of democratic representation in these supranational institutions. While it would be interesting to evaluate the various substantive elements of Griffin’s reform agenda, this is not attempted here. Instead, we focus on Griffin’s (2003: 793) basic theme, underlying his reform proposals, that ‘greater globalization, not less, is desirable’ for global economic development, provided that it is regulated by democratic institutions of global governance. We do so for