Work and Trade: The Global Division of Labour and its Consequences

We live in highly complex societies today. Technological economies are based on a complex division of labour. This can be seen everywhere from assembly lines in food, textile and electronic industries, to service industries like doctors practicing in narrow sub-fields of medicine and students majoring in a field of study. This specialization in expertise creates higher standards and greater efficiency when all the workers’ labour is combined, and costs are lower.

However there are many disadvantages to having this inevitably proliferating division of labour.

Capitalist owners, ever-seeking to lower cost and increase profit, are always on the lookout for cheap labour. Workers, being so specialized in their work ironically become deskilled and are unable to move readily between positions. This makes them vulnerable as they can be easily replaced like the cogs in a great impersonal machine (Sernau, 2006)

When seeking out a comparative advantage, they also seek out child labour, depriving children of basic education. According to the UNICEF website, an estimated 158 million children aged 5-14 are engaged in child labour - one in six children in the world. They work in mines, with chemicals, with pesticides in agriculture or with dangerous machinery. They are often invisible, toiling in homes, workshops or plantations. What makes it even more difficult is that these children are burdened by their families to make money and often have a fatalist mindset. They only think of living for the day.



Karl Marx also stated that modern industrial workers in capitalist economies experience extensive alienation. Work which is meant to be ennobling and purposeful has become routine, deskilled, repetitive tasks on minute parts of products that meant nothing to them (Sernau, 2006). This can be illustrated by an incident in June 2008 in Tokyo. A distraught man, fearing losing his temp job in a small-town auto parts factory, went on a killing spree in one of the city’s busiest areas. This raised the plight of temp workers in Japan as the number of traditional “jobs for life” disappear (AFP, 2008). Jobs are not only alienating, but impermanent too.

Perhaps we can take a leaf out of Shell. Their efforts to manage their social impacts are highly publicised. Their oil and gas operations take them to various parts of the world, even to places with poor human rights records. But their actions are guided by their general business principles, which state that they “…conduct business as responsible corporate members of society, to comply with applicable laws and regulations, to support fundamental human rights in line with the legitimate role of business….”. For employees, Shell has direct responsibility for issues such as labour rights, working conditions and freedom from discrimination. They are also commited not to exploit children, through direct employment or indirectly through joint ventures, contractors or suppliers. According to their annual internal questionnaire of senior country representatives, at the end of 2007, Shell companies in 99% of countries where they operate had procedures to prevent child labour. In 98% of countries they also require their contractors to have a procedure in place to prevent child labour.

 
References

UNICEF, Child protection from violence, exploitation and abuse
http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html

Sernau, Scott, 2006, Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability, Pearson Education

AFP, 13 June 2008, Tokyo massacre raises concern for Japan's temp generation, http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Asia/STIStory_247416.html

Shell, Dealing with specific human rights issues, http://www.shell.com/home/content/responsible_energy/society/using_influence_responsibly/human_rights/human_rights_issues/specific_human_rights_issues_16042007.html

Photo credit: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Class and Inequalities: Can we bridge the gap between the rich and poor?

The world is filled with inequalities. There is the double divide: a big gap between rich and poor nations, and a big gap between the rich and poor within countries. In the centre are the global middle class.

In my essay, I will observe both Smithian and Marxist ideals and inquire of there really is a solution to reducing the world’s inequalities by merging their ideas.

Smith believed that people should be allowed to pursue their own personal, sometimes selfish, gains, individual rights and freedoms. These freedoms will lead to greater wealth. The “invisible hand” of the market will turn ambition into the greatest good for the greatest number.

Marx however, believed that communism, a system of common ownership for the common good, was the way to go.

As we have studied, intense competition created by capitalism drives the capitalist owners to exploit their workers by getting the most work while keeping wage to a bare subsistence level. This creates a gulf in the rich and poor. Communism also will not work to solve the problem of in inequalities; the Soviet Union has split into Russia and other new republics; China, Vietnam and Cuba remain communist but are open to foreign capitalist investment.

Is there an ideal hybrid method of bridging Smithian and Marxist ideas to create a utopian state?

A key step is to limit the power of the government and to encourage privatization. The previous US president Bill Clinton and former Brazil president Fernando Cardoso endorsed policies for sustainable development, in which a smaller but active government promotes trade, while also protecting the rights of workers and assist those who have not reaped the benefits of globalization. This approach sounds ideal but both these countries are now in recession.

Another example is Sweden’s capitalist welfare system. Sweden’s social democrats had maintained a free market. Property rights and the rule of law facilitated economic growth. Between 1870 and 1970 Sweden had the second highest economic growth in the world, second only to Japan. However, during the 1960s, a large scale expansion of the welfare state occurred. Income taxes increased, and the public sector grew. The larger role of the government slowed down entrepreneurship. Sweden has gone from being the fourth richest country in the world in 1970 to being the fourteenth richest in 2002 (Sanandaji, 2005). By adopting communist traits so as to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, the country has instead destroyed the foundation for economic growth and personal accountability.

There seems to be no optimal hybrid. Perhaps, as Marx thought, capitalism must emerge first, so that communism can harness its productive might (Sernau, 2006). But this has yet to occur in any country. And what happens in reality always turns out much different from what seems ideal, so no one knows for sure if it will work.

References

Sernau, Scott, 2006, Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability, Pearson Education

Sanandaji, Nima, June 8 2005, Sweden, Capitalism, and the Welfare State, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji1.html

Globalization and social problems

First of all, globalization can be defined as the world and its citizens coming together and being linked although not physically or geographically being together.

I feel that the today’s globalization doesn’t differ much from that of ancient times. From then till now, people venture out for commerce, control and curiosity.

For much of the ancient and medieval world, the greatest centre of power and culture was China. In their sphere were other centres Japan, Vietnam, Mongolia and Tibet. They were constantly in interaction with each other, trading, fighting and exchanging ideas.

Today, the concept of globalization hasn’t changed much. USA are the global superpower. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are its rivals in terms of economic, cultural and political might. The intensity of their rivalry is illustrated by the fact that all the above-mentioned nations have nuclear arms capabilities. This rivalry also causes much insecurity and fragility for each country.

The starkest difference between ancient and modern globalization is probably communication and the speed of information and goods exchange. In the past, for example, the Silk Road was relied heavily upon by ancient Chinese to exchange cultural and technological ideas with the rest of central Asia and even parts of Africa. However, in the modern world, all these exchanges can be done at the click of a mouse or dialling of a telephone.

I feel that globalisation has created many problems as well as benefits. The USA is the epitome in the illustration of the many facets / paradoxes of globalization. The US are the world’s greatest superpower, but it is also a country where poverty is widespread on a scale that is unmatched by any industrial society.

Globalization encourages a high level of competition. Opportunities for prosperity and progress await all. But this has also encouraged greed. The wealthiest become the strongest, while the extremely poor are the weakest. The wealthy take advantage of the poor by exploiting cheap labour, for example. Pick up a Nike product and chances are that it is made in a third-world country where labour is cheap and abundant. The thirst for unilateral power also rears its ugly head: The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq purportedly to fight terrorism and dictatorship, but critics note the countries’ assets of vast oil fields and accuse the US of plotting to control the world’s oil market.

This monopoly of the world that the US possesses has led to disdain and resentment from the marginalised, which leads to the formation of terrorist cells. With globalization, terrorism has become more widespread.

With globalization, companies operate businesses in many countries, people lose sense of their original roots and identities when they go overseas to work or live for extended periods of time.

With the age of the aeroplane, the classic symbol of a shrinking world, it also means viruses are carried from country to country much easier than before. For example the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome was carried from Hong Kong to Singapore and created a huge pandemic. Most recently, Chikugunya, a mosquito-borne disease was brought into Singapore by Indian carriers.