Last Blog

Once again the readings pertain largely to globalization and looks at it from several different perspectives. First, Held provides a response to globalization that is largely detached and essentially suggests reform of this system. He fails to recognize the fact that he is largely focusing on a European perspective even though he uses only the European Union as evidence to defend his decision that the best answer is cosmopolitan democracy. Patomaki and Teievaned on the other hand defend why they believe cosmopolitan democracy actually would not be a good response to globalization whatsoever.

Although the explanation of neoliberalism was essentially everything I imagined it to be with a truly global market free of any government intervention, I was very impressed with the way Patomaki and Teievaned considered globalization and defended their beliefs with strong supporting evidence. When they thoroughly explained the Mercusor region, I found it extremely refreshing from the European model that seems to be what everyone turns to these days. I also found the part about the necessity for all countries to partake in globalization to be very interesting because the either extremely wealthy or extremely poor countries are the ones that find it the most difficult. This reminded me of a reading from early in the semester in my Comparative Politics class that suggested that the countries that fall somewhere in the middle are the ones that can easily prosper. Unfortunately, the wealthy are satisfied right where they are and wouldn't want to risk that, and the poor can't simply jump into globalization either, although it would be ideal.

The only problem I really had with neoliberalism is that it seems quite extreme because we all know that certainly somethings are just better off being controlled by the government. Privatization of all businesses could truly create a giant mess, and I'm not exactly sure where Patomaki and Teievaned draw the line, it seems unclear to me.