So why are those crazy protesters going to be outside the World Bank and International Monetary Fund international headquarters on April 20? What’s all the fuss about being against globalization anyway? How can you reverse an ever-changing process like globalization? How do you expect corporations to be socially responsible when they are, by definition, profit-seeking?

These kids are just a bunch idealist, hypocritical, rich, spoiled kids with nothing better to do. These crazy protesters are just revolutionaries without any revolutionary vision, to quote journalist Richard Rovere. You think you got them all figured out, don’t you?

On the surface, the above representation comes pretty close to what your average Joe thinks about the anti-corporate globalization movement. After all, it may be an accurate representation for some people who are actually in the movement.

Why? Because we, as members of the anti-corporate globalization movement, got the definitions wrong from the start. People within the movement failed to clearly define what this movement was all about. Now it’s my turn to give it a shot and try to remove some of the confusion.

We are not against globalization. I am not against globalization. I am not against the spreading of ideas, technology or culture. I am not against a process that would be impossible to reverse. I am not against the exchange of products or free flow of innovations.

But I am against some of the negative effects of globalization. Some of these negative effects take the form of disadvantages to developing countries. When the World Bank gives a loan to a developing country, it comes with strings attached. For example, the developing nation must cut its healthcare and education budget. It might have to convert many of its nationalized industries to foreign-invested private ones, which would result in jobs lost to the capital-intensive market.

I understand the developed countries that donate this money expect to get their money back. After all, the World Bank is a bank.

However, I often wonder why these developed countries impose such rigid economic reforms on developing nations. It is one thing to make rules of the game to ensure you get your money back. It is an entirely different thing to impose your own rules allowing for no flexibility in this game.

First, do developing nations actually have the free will to reject such loans when their economy is spiraling downwards?

Second, shouldn’t developing countries have the right to develop their own economic policies? Shouldn’t developed countries recommend economic reforms not imposed on them through these structural adjustment programs? Imposition from above leads one to question if developing nations have national sovereignty at all.

Third, why is it that the developed countries just happen to be the imperial countries donating money to developing countries that were previously their own colonies? Does this relationship leave the developing countries more dependent upon the developed countries?

Does colonialism now have a new face? When a previous colonizer such as Britain is continuing to support its former colony, Zimbabwe, through the carrot-and-stick approach to economic reform, I wonder if this continues to perpetuate the cycle of dependency. The colonies are free from direct governance, but are they truly free?

The World Bank and IMF’s organizational and voting power structure needs to be reformed. Share of voting power is determined by the size of a country’s shareholding, which is determined by the size of a country’s economy.

The seven richest countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), called the G-7, have 45 percent of the voting power. The United States is a 17 percent shareholder. Because of the scale of its contribution, the United States has always had a dominant voice and has at times exercised an effective veto.

Developing countries have relatively little power within the institutions, which, through the programs and policies they decide to finance, have tremendous impact throughout local economies and societies. Furthermore, the president of the World Bank is by tradition an American, and the IMF president is a European. Hence, considerable reform to structure and organization would greatly legitimize both institutions.

Am I against globalization? No. Reforms within the globalization system are far more reasonable. Change is possible.
-The writer is a sophomore
majoring in international affairs and economics.