John Quiggin

The first bestseller on ‘globalisation’ is reputed to have been published in 1943. Wendall Wilkie, a Republican presidential nominee defeated by Roosevelt in 1940, published One World, based on the idea of a shrinking and increasingly interdependent globe. The concept itself, however, didn’t come into broad use until after the Cold War, even though Marxists, for example, had long talked of the global economy, and indeed the concept was implied by Smith. Globophiles generally trace the origins to Adam and Eve, with a post-modern creationism narrative. The intro and supporting chapters for Globalisation: Australian Impacts still stand up as a tour of globalisation’s many meanings. What’s interesting is how the conept relates today. I recently did a paper on “Perpetual War in the Era of Globalisation”, which I hope to publish soon. My conclusions won’t be popular, but we all might agree the question is valid.

Have you tried the New Palgrave for the first three? If not, I’ll check it out for you. Some entries there are quite accessible to the non-specialist reader; others not at all.

Crowdig out always brings Keynes to mind:”abra would rise, cadabra would fall.”

Wikipedia is my first go-to for any single topic query.
Crony Capitalism
Globalisation
Karl Marx was the first prophet of globalisation with any real intellectual credentials:

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.
It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

forget:

Workers of the World Unite.

p just made a snarky remark at my expense: “it’s shame that everytime you comment here, to me or anyone else, you have to be such a condescending prick.” Is this true? Well ok, it is true. But surely I am not just a “consdescending prick” always and everwhere? What about the wise-cracks and unpleasant facts?

I guess you might claim that Adam Smith didn’t have any genuine intellectual credentials Jack, but in 1776 he did write:

“A merchant, it has been said very properly, is not necessarily the citizen of any particular country.”

I thought of Smith, but he did write the “Wealth of Nations”, which sounds a little parochial.
In general, it is capital, rather than labour, whic has no flag. Its alot easier to shift money and goods than house and family. Which is why the WSJ Op-Edders are such frantic Open Borders.

You’re quite right, and wrong Jack. Smith’s logic anticipated globalisation, but he didn’t anticipate that this would amount to the transcendence of nations.

Oh dear, another fine Blog to read Nicely done. I will enjoy visiting.

Jack, no dragging outside blogspats into my comment boxes!

Anne, thanks and call back soon!

Which “Crowding Out” are you referring to? The one in financial markets, or Frey’s psychological Crowding Effect?

Barry Hughes, in “Exit Full Employment” seems to attribute “crowding out” to Prof. Warren Hogan, as a contributor to the Feb. ’75 Coalition economic policy document. See “Exit Full Employment” p.40 (A&R, 1980, soft cover) or index.

I know this is digressing a little, but it’s worth looking at Poul Anderson’s “Polesotechnic League” fiction, and comparing and contrasting its assumptions with the situation today. Bear in mind that it was anchored in US perspectives of the ’60s which were then supposed to be in retreat and a long way from realisation.

I meant the financial markets example, 2dogs, but Kieran Healy over at CT gave me some great references on psychological crowding out, which I can use

John: first – many thanks for the comment over at Angrybear that told me to read your and Simon Grant’s paper. Great article. Per “crowding-out”, I wish I knew who coined this term. It has a couple of different meanings: (a) the usual Keynesian context where we are below full employment; and (b) in the full employment context – where it is really the same as the law of scarcity. If and when someone figures out its origin, I’d love to see how the author originally defined it.

Hi John,

Re stuff for Globalisation – personally I’m really frustrated by anyone saying that globalisation started any earlier than the late 60s because to do so renders the word useless.

Anyway, good core readings on Globalisation would be things like (and admittedly from a pretty Left-wing position): Anthony Giddens – Run away world, John Wiseman – Global Nation? (I think – good and Australian too), Stiglitz – Globalisation and its discontents, Hirst and Thompson – Globalisation in question, L. Skliar – The Transnational Capitalist Class, Klein’s No Logo is also excellent.

For some essays on globalization and culture
http://www.the-rathouse.com/revglobcult.html