Globalization and Its Discontents - Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Laureate for Economics, 2001. And I thought, well, if he has an opinion on the problems of globalization, I might as well listen. The blurb says – From a leader of the anti-globalization movement, a statement like this [how globalization is not working] would not be remarkable. But coming from Joseph Stiglitz – former Chief Economist at the Worlkd Bank – it is startling and challenging. Exactly my opinion. And the Chief economist was also the Chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors. And if anyone would have a pro-globalization agenda, it would be him, considering his loyalties.
But the author doesn’t have any loyalties so to speak. And he raises his voice as an economist working towards the “greater good”. He analyzes the failings of globalization in varied situations; which leads to the revelation that it is not globalization in itself which has failed, but the manner in which “Globalization” has been imposed on countries not ready for it, through economic and political pressures, or downright blackmail if one were to not mince words.
At some point the book does tend to get repetitive and feels like it is basically a vent to bash IMF. But then whatever the motive of the author, the theories as proposed by the author do seem very credible. I would love to read a counter-view of the author’s allegations against the IMF.
The most disturbing chapter would be the “The IMF’s other agenda”, where the author suggests that IMF, more than acting to bring about a global financial stability, is working for the benefit of “international financial community”. And international financial community for all practical purposes translates to the global mammoth banks and other financial organizations. This does provide a lot sense behind the actions of IMF during the financial crises across South East Asia, Mexico, or Russia. The stand of IMF on trade deficits, fiscal deficits, interest rates, monetary policies, etc. which seem without any reason or logic, with the new agenda in mind, seem perfectly logical. And this is alarming. If we have an international organization working with a bias, it cannot be good for the world.
The book ends with the hope of promise, which is just as good, since the overall picture looks extremely grim and gloomy. A lot of things that matter so much to us seem so paltry and trivial in the larger scheme of things. And the world desperately needs who have the intent and the authority to set things right at the larger stage. It’s a question of yours and mine daily bread.