Transcript: Jagdish Bhagwati on A Case for Globalization | Feb 28, 2004

Jagdish Bhagwati stands at a wooden podium in front of an audience. He is in his forties and has black hair that is parted in the middle and wears glasses. He wears a black blazer, white shirt and pink tie.

A caption reads "Jagdish Bhagwati. Columbia University. A Case for Globalization."

Jagdish says I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT GLOBALIZATION,
BECAUSE IT IS AT THE CENTRE OF A
MAELSTROM. THE DEBATE
IS NOT AS ONE SIDED AS ONE MIGHT
THINK FROM LOOKING AT THE ANTI-
GLOBALIZERS IN THE STREETS AND
AT ALL THESE MEETINGS OF THE
WORLD BANK, THE IMF, THE WORLD
TRADE ORGANISATION.WHENEVER
YOU GO TO THESE BIG MEETINGS,
YOU HAVE THESE ANTI-GLOBALIZERS,
AND, OF COURSE, THE MEDIA PICKS
IT UP.
AND IN FACT, THAT IS THE
INTENTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
AGITATING IN THE STREET.
IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT IT, THE
PRO-GLOBALIZERS ARE STILL VERY
MUCH IN COMMAND IN MY JUDGEMENT.
LOOK AT POLLS, FOR EXAMPLE.
A CANADIAN FIRM HANDED DOWN A
POLL OF 25,000 URBAN VOTERS, IN
25 COUNTRIES, SO 1,000 EACH, A
NUMBER OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES,
A NUMBER OF OECD COUNTRIES, AND
WHEN ASKED WHAT GLOBALIZATION...
WHETHER IT WAS GOOD FOR THE
WORLD, FOR THEM AND SO FORTH, I
MEAN, FOR THEIR SOCIETIES, THE
VAST MAJORITIES WERE IN FAVOUR
OF GLOBALIZATION, RATHER THAN
AGAINST.
NOW THESE ARE URBAN PEOPLE, BUT
OF COURSE IN THE RURAL AREAS,
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT
THEY THINK ABOUT GLOBALIZATION.
I THINK URBAN REACTIONS ARE
IMPORTANT, BUT THEY WERE ALL
UNIFORMLY AGAINST THE OTHER
POLLS THAT I WON'T BORE YOU
WITH.
SO ACTUALLY, FOR THOSE WHO THINK
GLOBALIZATION IS SORT OF, KIND
OF DOOMED AT THE MOMENT, BECAUSE
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT, I MEAN
THAT'S SIMPLY, I THINK, A MEDIA
ILLUSION AT THE MOMENT.
ANOTHER INTERESTING THING FROM
THAT POLL, THE CANADIAN FIRM'S
POLL, WAS IN FACT, THAT THERE
ARE LARGER PLURALITIES IN FAVOUR
OF GLOBALIZATION IN THE POOR
COUNTRIES THAN IN THE RICH
COUNTRIES, AND OF COURSE YOU
KNOW THAT I MEAN, MOST OF THE...
MOST OF THE STREET PROTESTS,
ETC, AND EVEN THE CIVIL SOCIETY
PARTICIPATION IS FROM THIS PART
OF THE WORLD, NOT THE OTHER PART
OF THE WORLD.
AND IN FACT THERE'S A SORT OF
IRONIC REVERSAL FOR THOSE OF US
WHO HAVE BEEN WITH THESE ISSUES
FOR DECADES, OF INTEGRATION OF
THE WORLD ECONOMY, OR NON-
INTEGRATION PROS AND CONS, THAT
IN FACT, THE DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES DID OPT FOR [unclear]
INWARD LOOKING POLICIES, FEARING
INTEGRATION, WORRYING ABOUT ITS
MALIGN IMPACT ON THEIR
ECONOMIES, ON THINGS LIKE BRAIN
DRAIN.
WE HAVE CARDOSO, WHO IS JUST
ABOUT TO LEAVE THE PRESIDENCY OF
BRAZIL, HAS DONE SO PROBABLY
ALREADY, WELL, ANY DAY.
HE WAS A GREAT SOCIOLOGIST WHO
WAS TALKING ABOUT DEPENDENCY
THESIS, WHICH I USED TO TEACH IN
MY CLASSES, THAT ANY EMBRACE OF
THE RICH AND POOR IN THE GLOBAL
ECONOMY WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE
POOR ECONOMIES, BECAUSE THEY
WOULD BE IN A NEAR COLONIAL
DEPENDENCY OF RELATIONSHIP.
SO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE POOR
COUNTRIES WERE ACTUALLY IN...
TEMPERAMENTALLY AND POLICY WISE,
WERE LOOKING INWARDS, EXCEPT FOR
THE FAR EASTERN ECONOMIES WHICH
OPTED OUT IN THE '60s AND '70s
FOR OUTWARD INTEGRATION.
WELL, YOU LEARN BY OTHER
PEOPLE'S SUCCESS, AND BY YOUR
OWN UNDOING.
A LOT OF COUNTRIES WHICH REALLY,
LIKE MY OWN, WHERE I COME FROM,
INDIA, REALLY WENT YOU KNOW...
HAD VERY LOW GROWTH RATES, VERY
LOW IMPACT ON POVERTY, VERY LOW
ACHIEVEMENT IN TERMS OF YOU
KNOW, REAL SELF RELIANCE.
I MEAN SELF RELIANCE COMES FROM
STRENGTH, NOT FROM BAD POLICIES
WHICH KILL YOUR ECONOMY, AND
THEREFORE YOU CAN'T GO AND ARGUE
WITH THE UNITED STATES OR CANADA
OR WHEREVER YOU WANT TO, TO HAVE
YOUR WAY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
ECONOMIC POWER, FORGET IT, IN
THE REAL WORLD.
SO SELF RELIANCE, IN THAT SENSE,
WAS UNDERMINED BY BAD POLICIES.
SO MANY OF THE LEADERS,
INCLUDING CARSOSA, WAS TRYING TO
INTEGRATE BRAZIL RATHER THAN YOU
KNOW, MOVE BACK INTO A SOCIOLOGY
DAYS, MANY OF THEM HAD ACTUALLY
CHANGED THEIR MINDS.
SO IT'S WHAT I CALL AN IRONIC
REVERSAL, BECAUSE IN OUR PART OF
THE WORLD HERE, EVERYBODY WAS IN
FOR LIBERALISATION OF TRADE,
INVESTMENTS, GOING INTO
CURRENT...
FROM CURRENT IN TO CAPITAL
ACCOUNT [unclear] INVEST IN
EUROPE, IT TOOK A LONG TIME,
SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE
REMEMBERED, BECAUSE WE WERE
TRYING TO DO IT TOO FAST NOW,
WHICH LED TO THE FINANCIAL
CRISIS IN ASIA AND SO ON.
BUT YOU REALLY HAVE AN EMBRACE
OF THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL
ORDER, OUTWARD INTEGRATION INTO
THE WORLD ECONOMY, IN THE
WESTERN PART OF THE WORLD, AND
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, FEARFUL
NOTION ABOUT THE WORLD ECONOMY
IN THE POOR COUNTRIES.
WELL THE POOR COUNTRIES CAME A
CROPPER BY AND LARGE, AND SO
THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE THEIR
ATTITUDES, AND YOU ACTUALLY PICK
IT UP IN THE POLLS BECAUSE IN
THE POOR COUNTRIES, YOU DO FIND
IN THE POLLS, GREATER, YOU KNOW,
GREATER DESIRE, MORE BENIGN
ATTITUDES TO OUTWARD
INTEGRATION.
HOW DO WE APPROACH THE PEOPLE
ADDITIONALLY WHO ARE ACTUALLY
AGITATING AGAINST GLOBALIZATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN TWO SORTS OF PEOPLE, AND
THEN LEAD INTO MY MAIN THEME.
ONE, OF COURSE IS...
I MEAN, THERE ARE TWO TYPES.
THEY ALL WANT TO BE
STAKEHOLDERS, AND I DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN TWO TYPES OF
STAKEHOLDERS, THOSE WHO WANT TO
DRIVE A STAKE THROUGH THE
SYSTEM.
[Audience laughter]
LIKE IN DRACULA MOVIES, AND
OTHERS WHO WANT TO EXERCISE
THEIR STAKE IN THE SYSTEM.
NOW THESE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT
THINGS.
THE FORMER ARE INDULGING IN
STREET THEATRE, THEY WANT TO BE
HEARD, NOT LISTENED TO.
THE OTHER
LOT, LIKE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND,
SIERRA CLUB, YOU KNOW, EVEN
RALPH NADER AS PUBLIC CITIZEN, A
LOT OF YOU KNOW, THESE CIVIL
SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS ARE IN
FACT, WANTING TO PUT ON SUITS
WITH US, YOU KNOW, AND THE
LADIES COME WITH PEARL NECKLACES
AND THEY DO...
AND THEY SIT DOWN, AND THEY
PRODUCE POLICY PAPERS AND THEY
WANT TO SHAPE, RIGHT, AND BRING
THEIR PERSPECTIVES, WHICH IS
WONDERFUL, BECAUSE A RICH
DEMOCRACY REQUIRES PARTICIPATION
BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT PEOPLE,
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET
PERSPECTIVES WHICH YOU DON'T GET
OTHERWISE. SO THOSE
ARE A VERY DIFFERENT LOT.
I WORK WITH, AS IS SAID, WITH A
NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE
NGOs AND SO ON, AND THERE ARE
LARGE NUMBERS OF THEM, YOU KNOW,
WHICH REALLY MEAN YOU KNOW, TO
BRING THEIR PERSPECTIVES.
SO WHAT IS ANIMATING THEM, AND
THE CONCERNS WHICH THEY HAVE
ARE...
IS ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION GOOD
FOR SOCIAL AGENDAS?
IS IT REALLY HARMING, CAUSING TO
BRING ABOUT DETERIORATION IN
WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND WOMEN'S
ISSUES?
IS IT ACCENTUATING POVERTY OR
CAUSING POVERTY IN THE POOR
COUNTRIES?
IN THE RICH COUNTRIES IS IT
REALLY HURTING THE REAL WAGES OF
OUR WORKERS, WHICH IS A
DISTRIBUTION ISSUE OF REAL
CONCERN TO MANY PROGRESSIVE
PEOPLE?
IS IT REALLY GOING TO PUT
PRESSURE AND REDUCE OUR LABOUR
STANDARDS, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS, WHICH HAVE BEEN HARD
WON POLITICALLY WITHIN THE
POLITICAL SPACE IN A VERY HARD
FASHION, LABOUR RIGHTS,
CERTAINLY, LABOUR RIGHTS OVER
DECADES OF FIGHTING FOR THEM?
IS IT GOING TO UNDERMINE
DEMOCRACY IN SOME SENSE, BECAUSE
PEOPLE ABROAD SOMEWHERE ELSE ARE
GOING TO BE DOMINATING YOUR
DECISIONS AND SO ON, WHERE YOU
DON'T HAVE A...
SO IS ECONOMICS AND POLITICS A
DISCONNECT HERE?
IS POLITICS OF INTERDEPENDENCE
THROUGH INTERNATIONAL
INTEGRATION HAS GONE SO FAR,
THAT MANY THINGS HAPPENING TO
YOU, WHICH UH...
OVER WHICH YOU HAVE NO CONTROL.
SO YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE
CONCERNS, AND THESE ARE, I WOULD
SAY, SOCIAL IN A BROAD SENSE OF
COURSE, CONCERNS.
IF YOU'RE A GOOD CITIZEN, IF YOU
BELIEVE IN YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF
VALUES I THINK YOU SHOULD,
BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO HAVE THEM,
THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT THESE ISSUES.
AND IF ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION IS
PRODUCING A LARGER PIE, YOU
KNOW, IT'S GOOD FOR PROSPERITY,
AND SO ON, BUT IS REALLY
UNDERMINING ALL THESE GOOD
THINGS, I WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE
TO THROW IT OUT OF THE WINDOW.
THE PROBLEM THEN IS, EXACTLY
THIS, THAT THE ANTI-GLOBALIZERS
HAVE MADE UP THEIR MIND, AND SO
HAVE THE POLITICIANS OF THE
THIRD [unclear], LIKE TONY
BLAIR, GERHARDT SCHROEDER, A
LITTLE LESS SO, AND PRESIDENT
CLINTON.
THEY'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT HOW
GLOBALIZATION NEEDS A HUMAN
FACE.
BY HUMAN FACE, THEY MEAN EXACTLY
THESE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS, YOU
SEE.
AND WHEN THEY SAY IT NEEDS A
HUMAN FACE, THEY MEAN IT LACKS
ONE, RIGHT?
SO IF YOU ARE THEN THINKING OF
POLICY INTERVENTION, AND YOU ARE
NOT A LIBERTARIAN OR SOMETHING,
AND YOU SAY, LOOK HOW THEN DO I
REACT TO THIS?
THEN YOU WILL SAY, LOOK, I'M
GOING TO CHALLENGE THIS,
CONSTRAIN IT, RESHAPE IT,
INHIBIT IT, HANDICAP IT, THROW A
LITTLE SAND INTO THE GEARS, AND
IF YOU'RE THE ANTI-CAPITALIST
CONVERGENCE AND PEOPLE LIKE
THAT, YOU WOULD WANT TO THROW
SAND INTO THE TANK AND STOP THE
WRETCHED MACHINE, RIGHT?
SO YOU GET A VERY DIFFERENT SET
OF POLICY OUTCOMES.
BUT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT
CAPITALISM, OR GLOBALIZATION HAS
A HUMAN FACE, LIKE I DO, MEANING
BY AND LARGE ON ALL THESE
DIMENSIONS VIRTUALLY, I CAN
ARGUE REASONABLY WELL, AND I
HOPE TO GIVE YOU A SAMPLE, A
TASTING MENU OR SOMETHING, OF
THE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS, THEN
WHAT KIND OF...
THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A
DIFFERENT SET OF POLICY
INTERVENTIONS.
WHAT WOULD THEY BE?
WELL IF I BELIEVE IN CHILD
LABOUR, THAT IT REALLY HELPS
REDUCE IT, RATHER THAN
ACCENTUATE IT, THEN, I'M GOING
TO BE BASICALLY SAYING, LOOK,
HOW DO I ACCELERATE THE RATE AT
WHICH CHILD LABOUR IS BEING
REMOVED, BY ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
BROUGHT ABOUT BY ECONOMIC
GLOBALIZATION.
SO THEN MY POLICY RESPONSES ARE
GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT.
LIKE, HOW DO I SUPPLEMENT,
COMPLEMENT, ACCENTUATE, ENHANCE
THE OUTCOMES WHICH ARE
DESIRABLE, RIGHT?
TO ADD TO WHAT ECONOMIC
GLOBALIZATION WOULD BE DOING, SO
MY WHOLE ATTITUDE, AND MY POLICY
FRAMEWORK, MY POLICY YOU KNOW,
MEASURES WOULD BE COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT, DEPENDING ON WHETHER
I BELIEVE, LIKE THESE GUYS, LIKE
MANY OF THE GOOD NGOs, WHO KIND
OF COME AT IT WITH FEARS AND
PHOBIAS AND ALREADY MAKING UP
THEIR MINDS ON THESE ISSUES IN
THIS WAY, WHEREAS WE, PRO-
GLOBALIZERS, I MUST CONFESS,
THIS IS WHY I LIKE THESE GROUPS
AND WORK WITH THEM, IS BECAUSE
WE ECONOMISTS DID NOT RAISE
THESE QUESTIONS, I HAVE TO
CONFESS.
SO THEY BRING THESE QUESTIONS TO
YOU, BUT THEY ALSO GIVE YOU
READY MADE ANSWERS ON THE
PESSIMISTIC SIDE, THAT THIS
WHOLE THING IS SCREWED UP BY
GLOBALIZATION.
SO I SAY,
ALL RIGHT LET'S...
I'D NEVER THOUGHT OF IT 10 YEARS
AGO, BUT NOW I KNOW THESE ARE
THE KINDS OF THINGS WE NEED.
SO LET ME ASK WHAT HAPPENS ON
CHILD LABOUR AS A RESULT OF
GLOBALIZATION?
WHY DIDN'T WE ASK WHAT HAPPENS
TO GENDER ISSUES AS A RESULT OF
GLOBALIZATION?
LET ME FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS TO
POVERTY AS A RESULT OF
GLOBALIZATION.
LET ME FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS TO
LABOUR STANDARDS HERE, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.
SO THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT
THESE PEOPLE HAVE RAISED, SO
THAT IS...
SPEAKS TO THEIR IMPORTANT ROLE
IN DEFINING OUR...
OR CHANGING OUR PERSPECTIVES OR
COMPLEMENTING OUT...
BUT THEIR ANSWERS, YOU'D HAVE TO
BE A DAMNED FOOL TO ACCEPT THEM,
BECAUSE THEY CAN HAVE THEM, AND
THEY DO HAVE THEM WITH GREAT
CONVICTION, AND PASSION, BUT I
THINK THAT MOST OF THE TIMES
THEY'RE WRONG.
BUT THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE TO
ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE, SO LET ME
JUST TAKE POVERTY, WHICH IS A
SIMPLER ONE.
DOES GLOBALIZATION ACTUALLY
IMPROVE OR REDUCE POVERTY?
WE HAVE TRIED FOR WHAT, HOW MANY
MILLENNIA, SINCE THE GARDEN OF
EDEN PROBABLY TO ELIMINATE IT,
AND PROBABLY IT WILL ALWAYS BE
WITH US.
I'M NOT BEING ENTIRELY CYNICAL,
BECAUSE MANY YOU KNOW, UH...
WE CAN TECHNOLOGICALLY DO IT,
BUT YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GET INTO
POLITICS AND SO ON, AND THE
ABILITY TO DELIVER, IT SIMPLY
DOESN'T WORK.
THE MILLENNIUM SUMMIT IN
MONTEREY, SIMPLY REITERATES WHAT
EVERY POLITICIAN SINCE I GREW
UP AND WENT BACK TO INDIA TO
WORK ON POVERTY IN 1961, THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS DOING FOR THE
INDIAN PLANNING COMMISSION.
HOW WOULD WE BRING UP MINIMUM
INCOMES FOR THE BOTTOM 30 PERCENT OF
THE POPULATION AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE?
THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING.
AND IT'S THE PROBLEM IS GOING TO
STAY WITH US.
IT'S NOT THAT INDIANS DIDN'T
TRY, BUT THEY FAILED, AND WHY?
BECAUSE IT'S A POLICY, STUPID
ALSO TO SOME EXTENT.
YOU KNOW, WE DID NOT REALLY HAVE
THE PROPER WAY OF EXPLOITING
INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION AND SO
IN, IT WAS TOO [unclear].
WE HAD 3 ½ PERCENT GROWTH RATE FOR 30
YEARS, AND SOMETIMES ECONOMICS
AND COMMON SENSE, AND DO GO
TOGETHER, AND IF YOU HAVE A VERY
STAGNANT ECONOMY, 3 ½ PERCENT GROWTH
RATE FOR 3 DECADES, 2 PERCENT GROWTH
RATE IN POPULATION, THEREFOR 1
½ PERCENT PER CAPITA INCOME GROWTH,
HOW COULD YOU DRAW PEOPLE INTO
PULL THEM UP AND TO GAIN FULL
EMPLOYMENT AND BETTER INCOMES
AND STANDARDS OF LIVING, SO AS
SOON AS WE SHIFTED INTO REFORMS
STARTING IN THE '80s, AND
INTENSIFYING THEM IN THE '90s,
YOU HAD A 6 TO 6 1/2 PER CENT
GROWTH RATE.
AND WE DIDN'T LIBERALISE OUR
CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND GET INTO
THOSE FINANCIAL CRISES ALSO.
THAT HAS IMPACTED ON POVERTY.
ALL ESTIMATES NOW SHOW THAT WE
HAD A HUGE IMPACT ON POVERTY,
WHICH, AS A PROPORTION OF THE
POPULATION, HAD BEEN VIRTUALLY
UNCHANGED DURING THOSE 3 YEARS
OF STAGNATION.
SO GLOBALIZATION, MEANING, NOT
ALL THE WAY, BUT MOVING TOWARDS
GLOBALIZATION, IN A SIGNIFICANT
WAY, WAS JUST PART OF THE
PACKAGE OF REFORMS, HELPED US
GET TO MORE PROSPERITY, WHICH
HAS THEN BROUGHT MORE PEOPLE OUT
OF POVERTY INTO GAINFUL
EMPLOYMENT.
AND INDIA, OF COURSE, HAS HUGE
NUMBERS OF POOR PEOPLE AS YOU
KNOW, IT'S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE
IN IT.
AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES, CHINA,
AGAIN, UP TO THE EARLY '80s,
VERY BAD GROWTH RATES, TOO.
THEY GOT, BEFORE THEY STARTED
INTEGRATING INTO THE WORLD
ECONOMY AT THAT POINT, THEY GOT
TO SUPPORT A VERY HIGH GROWTH,
BUT THAT WAS DUE TO
DECOLLECTIVISATION OF
AGRICULTURE, WHICH THEY DID IN
THREE YEARS.
AND THEY WENT FROM VERY LOW, BAD
GROWTH RATES IN AGRICULTURE, TO
VERY HIGH ONES FOR YOU KNOW, 8
TO 9 PERCENT FOR THREE YEARS.
AFTER THAT, THEY REJOINED THE
HUMAN RACE ON AGRICULTURAL
GROWTH, BECAUSE THE BEST GROWTH
YOU CAN GET IN AGRICULTURE
AROUND THE WORLD, ANYWHERE, ANY
SYSTEM, IT'S ABOUT 4 PERCENT ON A
SUSTAINED BASIS.
SO THEY'VE REJOINED THAT, BUT
THEY HAD THIS BIG SPURT, BUT THE
REALLY BIG SPURT CAME FROM
OPENING UP THE ECONOMY ON THE
INTEGRATION SIDE, AND HAVING A
LOT OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT COME
IN, AND REALLY GO OUT AND EXPORT
LIKE HELL, WHICH IS NOT BEING
FEARFUL OF THE WORLD MARKETS,
WITH BEING ACTUALLY INTEGRATING
AND USING THEIR OPPORTUNITY.
SO IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE
EVIDENCE ON POVERTY, BETWEEN
THEM, THESE TWO COUNTRIES HAVE
SOMETHING LIKE 60 PERCENT OF THE
WORLD'S POOR, AND THEY...
AND THESE TWO COUNTRIES'
EXPERIENCES SHOW DRAMATICALLY
THAT OUTWARD INTEGRATION, NOT
JUST BY ITSELF, BUT ALSO THE
OTHER GOOD THINGS, POLICY
PACKAGES ALSO, LIKE
DECOLLECTIVISATION, AND YOU
KNOW, ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE
LICENSING AND CONTROLS WITHIN
INDIA.
ALL OF THESE HELPED, BUT AN
IMPORTANT COMPONENT WAS OUTWARD
INTEGRATION.
TAKE WOMEN'S ISSUES.
ONE IS, YOU TAKE THE JAPANESE.
THAT'S A COUNTRY WHERE LADY
MORASAKI IN THE 11th CENTURY WAS
THE FIRST GREAT FEMALE NOVELIST.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN THAT TIME AND NOW, BUT
TODAY'S SITUATION IS, WOMEN ARE
NOT TREATED THE WAY THEY'RE
TREATED IN THE RICH COUNTRIES.
THEY HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW...
SO WHEN THEY CAME OUT WITH THEIR
FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE '80s
AND '90s, SENDING SHIVERS DOWN
AMERICAN SPINES, MAYBE CANADIAN
SPINES, TOO, LIKE THEY'RE GOING
TO TAKE OVER YOU KNOW
EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THEY WERE
BUYING ALL KINDS OF REAL ESTATE.
WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT?
THE MEN CAME IN, BECAUSE WOMEN
ARE NOT TREATED...
BUT THEY CAME AS WIVES.
AND WHEN THEY SETTLED IN NEW
YORK AND BONN AND LONDON AND SO
ON, THEY SAW HOW WOMEN WERE
TREATED HERE, RIGHT?
IT OPENS UP THEIR MINDS.
IT OPENS UP POSSIBILITIES.
THEY BECOME AGENTS OF CHANGE WAY
BACK, AND THIS OF COURSE HAPPENS
AT SEVERAL LEVELS ON TOP OF THE
GLOBALIZATION, BUT GLOBALIZATION
ACCENTUATES IT.WE SEE THAT
WITH STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN
COMING FROM JAPAN.
THEY'RE THE LARGEST BODY IN
COLUMBIA, IN THE SCHOOL FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND 15
YEARS AGO WHEN THEY USED TO
COME, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE VERY
RESPECTFUL, YOU KNOW, THEY
CALLED PROFESSORS SENSEI, YOU
KNOW, THE REVERED TEACHER.
AND THEY
WOULD BOW, AND I LOVED IT,
ABSOLUTELY.
[Audience laughter]
NO, NO AMERICAN STUDENT WILL
EVER TREAT ME THAT WAY.
NOW THEY PUT THEIR FEET UP ON
THE TABLE, THEY BLOW THOSE
HORRIBLE BUBBLE GUMS AND SO ON,
YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE THE
AMERICANS DO, AND ACTUALLY,
THEY'VE LEARNED HOW TO DEAL WITH
AMERICANS IN THE SAME WAY.
LIKE WHEN WE, IN THE STATES HAVE
HAD TRADE PROBLEMS WITH THEM,
THEY JUST SAY, SEE YOU IN COURT,
THE WAY AMERICANS DO.
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT A VARIETY
OF THESE THINGS, AND SAYING,
LOOK, THE ISSUE IS NOT ALL ONE
WAY, AND ON BALANCE, MY
JUDGEMENT, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH,
IS THAT REALLY GLOBALIZATION HAS
A HUMAN FACE BY AND LARGE, AND
THAT WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO
DOWN AND SAY, LOOK, ECONOMIC
GLOBALIZATION AND SOCIAL AGENDAS
ARE FOES... THEY'RE FRIENDS.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY.
THANK YOU.

[applause]

Watch: Jagdish Bhagwati on A Case for Globalization