The debate over globalisation is going nowhere: we need a new way of looking at the issues behind it, writes Peadar Kirby.
Disagreements over globalisation have fast become one of the most important fault lines in today's global politics. Yet, both sides are talking past one another with no prospect of even finding a way of debating the issue. We urgently need to break this logjam.
On the one side, those actively promoting a deepening of globalisation, including most major international organisations, are convinced this is the best solution to global poverty.
On the other, the so-called "anti-globalisation" movement, has shown an astonishing ability to mobilise large numbers of people based on the threats posed by globalisation.
The pro-globalisers marshal evidence to claim such fears are unfounded. The article by Dan O'Brien in these pages recently, arguing that globalisation reduces poverty and inequality while finding no evidence of a "race to the bottom" in employment standards, is a typical example.
But there exists an avalanche of books that present equally credible evidence to argue the opposite.
As Martin Ravallion, one of the World Bank's leading poverty researchers, has written: "A 'numbers debate' has developed, underlying the more high-profile protests and debates on globalisation."
Due to differences in definition and in the methods used to gather the data, both sides can find plausible evidence to support their case.
This debate is going nowhere - each side quotes the evidence that suits them, but there seems no attempt to find common ground. Both sides are essentially missing the point.
If we are to understand the distinctive way in which globalisation is impacting on all our lives and why it scares so many people, we need a new concept.
In Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalisation I propose that vulnerability is such a concept. This entails an increase in risk coupled with a weakening of the mechanisms we use to cope with this risk.
The book shows how it is a growing reality for countries, regions and individuals everywhere in the world.
As British sociologist Anthony Giddens puts it, there is "a new riskiness to risk" in today's globalised world. This manifests itself in many spheres: (1) financial - experts worry about the volatility and unpredictability of vast capital flows;
(2) economic - ever intensified competition increases survival pressures on firms and individuals; (3) social - a dynamic of deepening inclusion/exclusion is evident in all our countries and, most dramatically, at a global level; (4) political - our democratic systems are under threat from inside due to the rise of the new right and growing abstentionism, and from outside through the so-called "new terrorism";
(5) environmental - environmental change is having ever more destructive impacts on livelihoods in many parts of the world;
(6) personal - leading sociologists like Ulrick Beck point to the pressures on individuals as we are thrown more on our own resources to survive.
Alongside this increase in riskiness, we find a weakening of our coping mechanisms.
High levels of indebtedness make us vulnerable while the welfare state is under pressure, leaving it more and more to the market to solve social problems.
Social capital in the form of strong families and other social networks, including organisations like trade unions, is being eroded. Environmental assets, such as clean water and biodiversity, can no longer be taken for granted.
Growing vulnerability is one of the fundamental realities of our globalised world. Focusing on how this is happening and what it means to people will help us understand why so many fear globalisation. Even if poverty is declining, (and this is by no means sure), more and more people feel their livelihoods are more insecure.
Both the UN and the Commonwealth have an index of what countries are most economically vulnerable and Caribbean countries are drawing up an index of social vulnerability. Even the EU has an index of ageing vulnerability.
"So what should we do?" is one of the most insistent questions one gets in lecture halls and meeting rooms today when one speaks of these matters.
In answering the question, I point to the difference that ordinary people can make through their consumption patterns, lifestyle choices and political action.
However, state action is also needed to offer more robust mechanisms to protect people against risks through legislation, welfare and social provision.
In other words, the state needs to take a more active role in helping cushion the impact of risks on people's lives.
The struggle against growing vulnerability, to counteract threats and strengthen coping mechanisms, looks set to dominate the new century.
Peadar Kirby is senior lecturer in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University. Vulnerability and Violence (Pluto Press) is to be launched by Noam Chomsky in Dublin this week