Discussion On Whether The Way The World Is Organized Economically Today Can Be Considered Violent
Introduction
How is the world organized economically? What is violence? How are they interrelated? In order to explore this question, one must first identify and define the key terms used in it, namely the economical organization of the world, and ‘violence’; it is important to realize what is meant by these concepts in order to draw possible connections between the two.
Firstly, it has been convincingly argued that the current global economy must be described as a global political economy, due to the significant political influence within it. This will be explained and examined more closely when looking at existing scholarly perspectives. Secondly, one of the many descriptions of violence is “the moment when the usual order of things break down, when the political and legal institutions that protect us recede or fail”. This definition is particularly fitting when placing the concept of violence in a political context, as this essay will more closely examine exactly where and when “things break down, ” and to what extent this is caused by political or economic factors. This essay will attempt to resolve the issue raised by the research question by first introducing relevant existing responses to the issues of the global political economy and violence. For the former, two key points of analysis have been the neoliberal and Marxist perspectives, and the latter will be explored with the arguments of key thinkers such as Clausewitz, Tilly and Arendt in relation to violence.
Subsequently, the current narcotics industry in Colombia, specifically as a part of the informal economy, will be used as an illustrative example and will serve as a lens through which to analyze the existing scholarly responses, as well as a starting point to scrutinize the interrelation between violence and the economic organization of the world. Consequently, the essay will conclude with the argument that the organization of the current global economy can indeed be described as violent, largely due to the deeply engrained political influence in it.
Literature Review
Several important developments have resulted in the current state of the global political economy. Over time, there has been a movement from local markets to a global economy; long-term causes such as industrialization and colonization led Advanced Industrialized Countries (AICs) to “dominate the world order and cultivate economic development models that sustained western supremacy”, the key model being that of a liberal capitalist system. This includes western economical ideas of a global free market and open trade, which is closely linked to globalisation. In this way the economy is heavily politicised as powerful and developed states, mainly in the global North, have the most influence of the way the global economy is structured. The first, and perhaps most obvious, important school of thought to mention in relation to the economical organization of the world is the neoliberal approach, which is considered to be the best way to describe the contemporary capitalist global economy. This response emerged in the 1980s with the predominant thought that governments must ‘roll back’ and not intervene in their domestic economies. It is closely related to the ‘Washington Consensus’, a set of policy prescriptions required of countries in order to receive loans, such as lowering state involvement and operating a free market and open trade across international borders. It also perceives humans as predominantly ‘economic subjects’, who will perform as rational, profit-seeking actors in a functioning economy. The neoliberal, capitalist perspective dominates world media and public consciousness, and is considered by many to be ‘common sense’, however it fails to address some of the most pressing issues in society today, such as growing inequalities and the dangers these pose.
Another significant response to the global political economy is the Marxist approach, which is the most widely recognised alternative to the neoliberal approach. Marxists criticise the capitalist system to be promoting “the concentration of resources and power in a minority at the expense of the majority”. In this way, Marxists significantly perceive power as a key factor in defining the structure of institutions, including both domestic and global economies. In contrast to neoliberals, Marxists are aware of the existing economic disparities across the globe, blaming this on the current capitalist system and highlighting that these inequalities lead marginalised populations to impoverishment and, in turn, conflict. However, it must be noted that all responses to the global political economy are not necessarily as dichotomous as this. The Marxist and neoliberal approaches, while often discussed extensively and used to explain economies, rarely extend analyses further than economical structures and often fail to examine cultural and social indicators, such as higher unemployment for females or sustainable development issues.
Similarly, the existence of violence has been identified by several schools of thought as being closely tied to political influence, in the same way as the global economy. For instance, Clausewitz, a key scholar in the area of war during the nineteenth century, famously defined war as “the mere continuation of politics”, thus perceiving war as an integral part of the political process and struggle for power between countries. However, this idea was formed during a time when wars were mostly inter-state. The question of violence has moved beyond simply wars; conflict within states or where borders are difficult to determine are becoming more common, thus Clausewitz’s interpretation may not be fitting for modern forms of violence. A scholar who therefore looks beyond war as the main tool of violence is Charles Tilly, who perceives all forms of violence as “episodic social interactions” that have the same underlying characteristics despite the size or nature of the interaction. This theory highlights the changing nature of violence, from Clausewitz’s traditional warfare to forms that are becoming more common today, such as terrorism and the use of civilian targets.
Another more contemporary thinker on violence is Hannah Arendt, who argues that “violence appears when power is in jeopardy”, thus contradicting Clausewitz and rather stating that violence is the opposite of politics, occurring when regimes lose legitimacy and control. This statement is perhaps more fitting to the types of violence we see today, where states use violent suppression when they have no other means at their disposal to maintain hegemony over their populations. These approaches, amongst others, converge at the same point, which is that violence is generally enabled by political factors. It is also clear that the conduct of violence has changed significantly throughout recent history; politically motivated violence has transformed from traditional inter-state wars to an increasingly discernable phenomenon, where actors and targets are becoming more difficult to identify and predict.
Empirical case: Colombia
The empirical case that will be used to interpret the issue is that of the informal economy in Colombia, mainly concerning the illegal narcotics industry, such as the large-scale production of cocaine. In Colombia, “narco-production ranks among the most productive and lucrative sectors of the economy”, which reflects a similar trend in other informal economies of developing countries around the world. The reason for the dominant position of this informal sector is that the formal economy does not provide the same wage and work opportunities to the poor population of Colombia; as stated by Peña, “workers voluntarily exit the formal sector since they find better conditions in informality (2013). Due to the unregulated nature of this informal sector, workers lose the opportunity for benefits such as insurance and are exposed to inadequate or even dangerous working conditions, as well as no protection from violence from employers. Additionally, increased amounts of conflict, insecurity and violence related to this industry are reaching levels of influencing political leadership in Colombia, with “drugs-money fuelling armed conflict in the country on either sides of the political spectrum”.
A further effect is that, due to the unregulated nature of this sector and the fact that no tax is being paid to the government, the quality of areas such as infrastructure and education decreases, leading to a further degradation of quality of life for the poor population. It has been suggested by O’Conner that this informal economy is further “lubricated by foreign currency” (2009) from the global North. What he means by this is the fact that Colombia is also a recipient of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), mainly from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), wherein money is invested in Colombia with the condition that the economy must be adjusted according to terms set by the IMF. These forced changes include trade liberalisation and a heavy focus on economic growth, rather than arguably more pressing issues such as relieving inequalities.
Analysis and Argument
The aforementioned existing theoretical perspectives would perceive this empirical example in different ways, especially concerning how it represents the state of the current global political economy and whether it can be considered inherently violent. The case of Colombia takes place in the context of a neoliberal, capitalist system, therefore scholars of this approach would not perceive a problem, or rather not see the need for institutional changes to solve the problem. Generally, these scholars lack in focusing on informal economies because in Western economies, informal sectors do not cause these wider, societal issues. Due to the issues raised by shadow economies not being addressed, Colombia, in the same way as other developing countries, is left out of the neoliberal approach. Marxist interpretations of the informal sector in Colombia would focus their analysis on the world capitalist system enabling the existence of this illegal narcotics industry. This is exhibited by those in power, namely the corrupt political authorities in Colombia (and on a larger scale decision makers in the global North), taking advantage of their power to exert control over the majority (the poor population) in order to maintain their position of authority.
However, Marxist economic theory actually views the informal sector as “integral to formal waged production relations”, and therefore neglects to acknowledge the devastating effect that the informal sector has on poor populations. The empirical case has shown that the current global economic system allows for an informal or shadow economy to take place in Colombia. With little government intervention employers in the narcotics industry gain a significant amount of wealth illegally, who in turn provide the government with funds so as to ensure they can maintain their position of power. As a result of this, those with power can inflict violence on workers in the informal sector without fear of arrest or interruption from the government. Subsequently, violence becomes an integral part of the economic system. The aforementioned theoretical approaches to violence can be applied to this issue. For instance, Arendt argues that violence appears when politics fail, and while she places this in the context of state-led violence, similarly in Colombia the economic situation has allowed for violence to occur in place of peaceful means of control.
Overall, the current global economical organization is highly politically motivated, and in the hands of a few rich states, mainly the global North. Their approach is one focusing on economic growth, evidenced by IMF policies enforcing this, and does not address inequalities as much as it should. As a result, the gap between rich and poor is further deepened, leading populations to turn to conflict and violent measures as a means of survival.
Conclusion
From a global North perspective, it is difficult to perceive violence as an integral part of the economy we interact with every day. We are aware of the existence of an informal sector in our own states, but do not consider this to have a strong negative effect on our domestic economies. This perception has been motivated and encouraged by the neoliberal, capitalist system that has systematically grown and filled our worldview. This essay has revealed the true effects of this system to the rest of the world, exhibiting that it cannot be applied effectively to developing countries, yet it is still forced through global institutions such as the IMF. Clearly, the pressing issue of growing inequalities (and violence resulting from this) is not addressed by the main actors of the current global political economy; Extensive structural adjustments are necessary to allow developing countries to find a place in this global economy where they can enjoy the same benefits as developed countries.
