----- Original Message ----- From: "Ulhas Joglekar" <uvj at vsnl.com>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> > It's a staple of the antiglobalization literature, at least in the
> > U.S. and other high-income countries: nations and regions compete
> > against each other to see who can offer the most attractive deal to
> > hypermobile capital, resulting in markdowns in wages and
> > environmental/social standards.
>
> If you allow me sweeping generalisations about Asia, I would say that
> regions more integrated globally have better living standards.
Enronmental
> standards are a different matter altogether. More globalised regions
are in
> bad shape in terms of environmental standards.
>
> There are, of course, countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that have
suffered
> for obvious reasons. After Asian crisis, sectors of Indonesian society
must
> have experienced sharp decline in the living standards, but I don't
have
> precise
> numbers.
>
> Ulhas
=============================
Methinks a better euphemism for discussing the dynamics of inequalities/exploitations in the world market would be something akin to a combination of "falling behind" and/or the "kicking away the ladder" slogans/arguments. It's a tricky one to get in a soundbite or on a bumper sticker which was what those who came up with "race to the bottom" were trying to do. Combined and uneven development is a mouthful in terms of agitprop even as it is useful in discussions that go beyond soundbiting. Then again, many in "the South" are beginning to reject the "development" discourse entirely, so "Northern" lefties need to do a lot more listening to the vocabularies and narratives that are being used in other countries. Ulhas probably has tons of suggestions I, for one, would love to hear/read.
Ian