by Utsa Sarkar 11 April 2021
The definition of “globalization” has remains an important aspect for consideration in the era of 21st century amongst academic scholars or in the realm of political discourse. It remains a contested terminology in the political, economic global political order circumscribing various movements and world’s leaders’ views. Amidst the ongoing debate among scholars the contemporary social theorists believes “globalization to be the fundamental change in the spatial and temporal contours of social existence and due to which the significance of space or territory undergoes shifts in the face of a no less dramatic acceleration in the temporal structure of crucial forms of human activity”[i]. The history of globalization dates back to the historical technical and technological introduction that had changed local groups’ lives. The shifting has occurred in the form of change in social activity in a diverse geographical area. John Rawls mentioned bonded communities and stated a structure of “self-sufficient co-operation schemes for all essential purposes of human life.[ii]” This traditional concept surpass the international arena to domestic frontier, since they considered domestic arena to be the privileged site for representing normative ideals such as liberty, justice etc.[iii] However, there has been a significant change in the position that states are no longer “self-sufficient” in all aspects of human life. The various economic activities in the global financial market or the escalation of social activities in transnational boundaries are all glaring examples of such shift.
In contemporary times, different countries have introduced various policies in consonance with the idea of globalization in a global political world. However, the idea poses a question in this pandemic world. It’s been often said now that India is on a mission of self reliance[iv]. In 2014, the Modi government was set up after a decisive victory. One of the policies that were being announced was “Atma Nirbhar Bharat” or maybe what the idea evolves in this pandemic period is “Vocal for Local.” The connotation of the terminology is the idea and need to strengthen the local values by creating growth in the country. Various policies were formulated and steps taken that pointed that India is considering being self-reliant as one of the primary goals in the era of globalization[v]. For instance, with the rise of COVID-19, manufacturing of PPE Kit and N-95 masks was started, which was not the position so before the disease. These policies have strengthened the feeling of nationalism among India’s citizens that we must not depend on any other countries but to be self-sufficient to have access to all amenities. The current situation of Indo-China conflict points towards that India is trying to grab the opportunity of rising as the leading manufacturer in this global village. But how practical is the approach in a globalized world? Is it a conflict between cosmopolitanism, globalization, and communitarians? Or the approach is synchronizing globalization with a de-centralized co-operation. As opposed to the idea of nationalism, the idea of individual consumerism, cosmopolitanism is pertinent to note while discussing India’s recent trend. In common parlance, cosmopolitanism believes that all human beings live in a single community irrespective of their political affiliations[vi]. However, the different terminologies of “vocal for local”, “self-reliance” bring up a question of anti-cosmopolitanism or anti-globalization in the eyes of world’s view. Cosmopolitanism challenges the attachment of fellow citizens with the local state considering socio-cultural importance.
Thus, this paper attempts to analyze the idea of “vocal for local” in the light of cosmopolitanism and globalization, considering the idea of “world citizenship.” Part I of the paper examines the different theories of globalization and analyzes the concept of ‘vocal for local” in the Indian scenario during these unprecedented times. Part II of the paper deals with the global scenario of global market through Amartya Sen and Adam Smith’s idea and tries to analyze the context in India. As India is on the self-reliance mission, this paper encompasses the meaning and vision of the global economy and globalization. Part III of the article finally concludes by considering the analysis of the theories and points out what can be the plausible situation for the same.
GLOBALIZATION vis-á-vis- INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERISM: VOCAL FOR LOCAL
The rise of globalization has impacted human civilization to a great extent. The idea of globalization has increased interdependence between the states in terms of trade, production, and integration[vii]. The traditional political theories have asserted the existence of boundaries that differentiate one community from the other. However, contemporary philosophers argued the non-existence of such borders in the global community. The concept has become a point of contention in terms of opportunities and risks involved. The conflict of globalization encompasses the idea between those who want to integrate beyond the national state’s idea by allowing border crossings of goods, people on the one hand, and those who want a clear “demarcation” of the state[viii]. The philosopher John Rawls stated self-sufficient schemes of cooperation for all the essential purposes of human life[ix]. The notion of a nation-state is always considered for the existence of justice and sovereignty. The progressing globalization has slightly changed its view and in the words of David Held, “Not only has contemporary globalization triggered or reinforced the significant politicization of a growing array of issue areas, but it has been accompanied by an extraordinary growth of institutionalized arenas and network of political mobilization, decision-making and regulatory activity which transcend national political jurisdictions.[x]” In the era of deterritorialization and the diminishing idea of state boundary, the idea of self-sufficiency within the limited boundary seems to be faded. There has been a considerable shift from traditional concepts to the intensification in social relations across political borders[xi]. Globalization has accelerated social activities’ interconnectedness like an increase in technology, communication, transportation, etc. The current policy adopted by the Indian government asking the citizens to go local is also inextricably connected with the concept of progressing globalization. During the pandemic, every other small-scale industry have been affected to a considerable extent. This concept prioritized state boundaries and highlighted the idea of the nation-state in the era of globalization.
Contrary to globalization, nationalist or communitarians’ idea has always privileged the nation-state and viewed that the national community plays an essential role in promoting justice. The critical globalist argued that globalization’s articulating process is diminishing, and the localization is emphasized with an attachment to “rooted cosmopolitanism.[xii]” Cosmopolitanism and communatarism are the responses to the theory of globalization. However, the idea of cosmopolitanism has been rejected by modern thinkers. They based their hypothesis that all human beings are trying for their self-preservation and dismissed the notion of universal community. The idea of “vocal for local” or the “Aatma Nirbhar Abhiyaan” encompasses the concept of reducing India’s interconnectedness and dependence on other countries by increasing the country’s productivity. A close analysis of the terminology suggests that it stresses individual consumerism in the globalized world by giving more weight to the individuals within the boundaries. The communitarians believe that self-determination and collective needs within the borders is the essential factor for upholding justice.
On the other hand, cosmopolitanism views the obligation towards others, which extends beyond shared relationships[xiii]. Some outcomes of cosmopolitanism can be seen as United Nations’ establishment, the Convention on Child Rights, or the world peace ensuring bodies who viewed the entire globe to be the world. The communitarians are locally focused and prioritize the local community. For instance, the slogan “vocal for local” stress more to the local manufacturing and makes it global. The use of khadi or handloom products is being made locally, and the idea is to create a global brand then. The wake of localism is becoming the mainstream in light of local goods consumption’s economic growth in the post-pandemic world. In the wake of the pandemic, the concept of globalization, more specifically, economic globalization, has become an essential facet while considering the debate between localisms versus globalization in a global village.
The nature of globalization has shifted to a considerable extent. The increased participation of the state in the economic involvement in the production of PPE kits or N-95 masks asserted the policies’ change. And the notion of the nation-state has become the idea of the hour. Another aspect of globalization in the rise of this pandemic that becomes pertinent to consider is the concept of economic globalization. The idea of bringing the expanding market under one roof dates back to the end of the 19th century. The main economic globalization elements include trade flows, FDI composition, foreign exchange trading, and foreign direct investment. The integration of local for global perceives India as a significant power in the other nations’ eyes[xiv], aiming in the post-pandemic world. The system that operates in the world economic trade before was the idea of producing goods in some specific spheres that yield more profit for the economy. If such be the situation, then it affects the small-scale industries and the laborers. During this pandemic, the small-scale industries and the labor class have been affected massively. For instance, if the small scale grocery shop gets replaced by malls’ culture, this process affects the small scale business persons to a large extent in an economy like India. The traditional economic globalization concept focuses more on integrating goods and services rather than merely exchanging goods and services. Owing to liberalism, the countries had started sharing certain goods and services for maximization of profit. This affects the local business during the pandemic session in the light of economic convergence and economic integration between countries[xv]. The interest clashes with the nation-state to the global interest, and it is working as a significant backlash during these challenging times. India is trying to be self-sufficient and self-reliant, but such a system has its shortcomings.
With this view, India is on a drive to be self-sufficient and self-reliant in light of globalization’s phenomena existing amidst the pandemic.
GLOBAL ECONOMY AND GLOBAL MARKET: VOCAL FOR LOCAL
The pandemic has brought reform of changes in countries’ policies, and the world political leaders have reconsidered it to cope with the challenges during these unprecedented times. In India, after 2014, an initiative was taken up as “Make in India”, which was modified. The country’s prime minister asked the Indian citizens to go as “vocal for local” due to the country’s pandemic situation. This was introduced to promote socio-economic development in the country. When globalization and interconnectedness were rising its’ peak, this policy has posed a question as to where is India heading to? Is it trying to be so self-sufficient and self-reliant due to which it is going backward in the roads of globalization or trying to bring reforms in accordance with the aspect of the new definition of “globalization.” The concept of sovereignty has been changing continuously at different levels. But it comes with a duty to protect. So, in view to protect the country economically, there has been amendment in some of the policies that require attention due to increasing globalization. In lieu of it, a recent change has been made with respect to other countries’ investments policy in India to become protective of Indian companies and curtain the opportunities for other companies during these challenging times. By introducing this amendment, India has not obliged the principle of the World Trade Organization. This policy was sought to become an important power holder in the global economy at the end of the COVID-19 era. For instance, it was urged to sell Dabur- the Ayurvedic brand more in police canteens than any other foreign products to increase its own businessman’s sale.
The vision was to become ‘self-reliant’ and ‘self-sufficient’[xvi]. Before delving into the pros and cons and analyzing it from a global perspective, it is important to note the meaning or definition of the two terms with context to Indian situation during this era of the pandemic—this idea of using indigenous products dated back to the Swadeshi movement in Indian history. For instance, in the manufacturing pharmaceutical products sector, India has to depend on other countries to import raw materials. So, by becoming self-sufficient, India is trying to be less dependent on the other countries and aims to produce or manufacture bulk materials that are sufficient to cater to the country’s needs. However, it has been clarified that this does not necessarily mean that India will not open the boundaries for import or export, but to make the locals go vocal in the globally competitive market by boosting the domestic production within the country. It also supports foreign firms or foreign companies who want to choose India as the manufacturing hub. For example, I-phones were not being manufactured in India before 2020 and always imported, as a result of which the cost were exorbitant. In 2020 Apple had set-up a manufacturing unit in India that will add to its economic growth as it increases employment within the country[xvii]. This was the vision behind the introduction of the terminology[xviii]. However, standing in the 21st century, where the world has been brought to the individuals’ hands due to globalization, such a policy becomes important to analyze from the global market and global economic policy to promote socio-economic development.
To analyze this aspect, it is pertinent to consider Adam Smith and Amartya Sen’s idea and views on global market. The International Monetary Fund defined globalization as, “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through the increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services and of international capital flows, and also through the more raid and widespread diffusion of technology.[xix]” The system as we have seen before pandemic was that the markets were being opened at a global level and the boundaries were being blurred in the worldwide network operating system. As inferred from the above definition, the global economy includes those economic activities that are not limited to any single national boundary itself[xx]. There are two components in a global economy: social facilities and economic facilities[xxi].
The former refers to the people’s ability and talent in producing the goods to exchange in a local market. The latter refers to grab the opportunity for social and economic development as a whole. To meet this goal, the role of policymakers in a global economy has become very important. In an interview, Amartya Sen has mentioned that that division in the production of goods in different areas by a different number of people generates higher efficiency at the global level in a global economy[xxii]. Adam Smith’s idea on the global economy was also on a similar line that divisions of labor can one of the greatest possible reasons for maximization of production and efficiency in an economy. Sen and Smith were both of the idea that in order to promote economic growth there must be an economic interchange in the global market[xxiii]. The people use the various economic resources for consuming, producing or exchanging through the various socio-economic assets.
The government’s duty is to encourage the traders in the national and international arena to be advantageous to all sections, groups, and the betterment of the market. As stated in the above part of the paper, the concept of individual consumerism, Adam Smith, believed that for maximization of development in a global market, it is more advantageous to export goods that are expensive to produce domestically by another state. For instance, the qualities of grapes are better in Scotland. If they produce wine within the country, they may incur thirty-times its cost, which is equal to a good quality wine that can be exported[xxiv]. How far can be reasonable to prohibit such export in the name of encouraging production within the country? Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations had mentioned that it is always advantageous for the countries to grab those goods that are good at other countries at a lower cost than to invest in the production of those goods at a higher expense[xxv]. The advantage can be in the form of natural or acquired, but it is of little or no significance as long as the economy is gaining by buying goods that is not of their areas.
Considering India’s situation, the policy of “Aatma Nirbhar Bharat” aims to make India as self-sufficient in the production and manufacturing of goods and services. For instance, the market of smart phones is of high demand in today’s society. Although manufacturing units of some leading brands of smart phones are in India, but the components like chip, processor etc. are being exported by foreign countries. Suppose those were to be made in India in the light of becoming self-sufficient and reduce dependence on other countries. In that case, the cost of production may increase a lot, due to which the overall price of the phone will increase, making it unaffordable. Thus, in such a situation, if India can take advantage of those countries that are experts in manufacturing the components and export it, the efficiency and price in the global market can be maintained. The essence of globalization has been interconnectedness in exchanging goods and services. This particular concept helps in the mobility of the worldwide market in the global economy per se.
Moreover, the competition between foreign and domestic markets is essential because of imposition of tax. If a clothing brand manufactured and produced in India is being imposed to pay 18% tax, similarly a foreign cloth must also have an equal amount of tax. This system prevents the domestic policy maker from monopolizing a particular industry and maintains competition on an equal level, further enhancing the global market’s integration in the global economic situation. The policy’s idea was to give space for the country’s infant industries’ growth and put a restriction on the import of goods except for the essential ones. In a free economy, it becomes very difficult to perceive the people’s mindset as to what they want to buy and what becomes essential at what point in time. During this ongoing pandemic, the supply chains have been failed to a great extent for the countries that have depended on other countries for long[xxvi].
The above part of the paper has analyzed the implications of the terminology “Vocal for Local” in the Indian context, considering the global market and global economy in globalization. However, the question remains in the era of the pandemic will the policy work in terms of globalization or some modifications made in the definition due to the present situation. The pandemic has become the greatest challenge, and the demand of the people has been shifted. The word “globalization” is shifting to the word “glocalization.” What needs to be looked into is the people’s interest in circumscribing the world’s socio-economic development. This is an era of the global market, the global economy, and the main problem is global poverty. So, different world political leaders are concentrating on national identity using the hands of nationalism. Such policies worldwide try to bring a sense of nationalism against globalization, and the individuals want to retain their own identity.
CONCLUSION
The international economic arrangement under the internationalized concept is the main building block of the principle global state. It is the duty of an individual, state to do something for the neighbors for their upliftment and betterment. This requires higher social norms and values. The root of globalization can be found in the communication of disease, economic interdependence between countries, or the exchange of medical equipment across the world. We live in an age where a virus from one corner of the world in no time has caused mass destruction worldwide. When the world was busy fighting with the new virus, due to technological innovation, China had shared the strategy and knowledge of genome, which expanded the economic exchange. This pandemic has taught us that to meet such destructive surprises, a country have to be self-sufficient with the necessary amenities. The import and export business was high and interdependence was on full spirit before the outbreak of pandemic. But after the outbreak, the supply chains were reduced and the dependence for medical facilities falls short to meet the demands. The debate between economic openness and national resilience does not hold true in this situation. There is a difference between production during that time and cross border supply and exchange of goods. The just-in production rises only during these unprecedented times and can co-exist with the phenomena of globalization. This may incur high expenses for some countries to be utterly self-sufficient of producing food from masks and medicines to respirators. In India, as we have seen, how quickly the boutiques have transformed their business in manufacturing masks, gloves, or how the local companies have started manufacturing hand sanitizers to cope with the people’s high demands during the pandemic. When this situation has left most of the countries unprepared at the beginning, the later part of the pandemic era can be seen have a sufficient supply of necessities like masks, sanitizers, etc. Thus, a better off situation can be to boost national resilience is by utilizing and taking advantage of globalization and not moving backward on globalization’s roads.
[i]Scheuerman, William, “Globalization”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/globalization/>, (Last Accessed: January 16th, 2021).
[ii]Rawls, John. “Political Liberalism Columbia University Press.” New York 1993 (1993): 162.
[iii]Irani, F. N. H. A., and Mohammad Reza Noruzi. “Globalization and Challenges; what are the globalization’s contemporary issues.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1.6 (2011): 216-218.
[iv]Mishra, Udit. “Atmanirbhar Bharat: a brief and not so Affectionate History,” Indian Express 2020 Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explainspeaking-atmanirbhar-bharat-a-brief-and-not-so- affectionate-history-6556627/, (Last Accessed: January 1st, 2021).
[v]Ranjan, Prabhas. “What Does Being ‘Vocal about Local’ Mean for India’s Global Trade Strategy?” The Wire 2020 Available at: https://thewire.in/economy/india-global-trade-vocal-about-local, (Last Accessed: January 16th, 2021).
[vi]Scheuerman, William, “Globalization”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/globalization/ (Last Accessed: January 15th, 2021).
[vii]Zürn, Michael, and Pieter De Wilde. “Debating globalization: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism as political ideologies.” Journal of Political Ideologies 21.3 (2016): 280-301.
[viii]Kriesi, Hanspeter, et al. Political conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[ix]Rawls, John. “Political Liberalism Columbia University Press.” New York 1993 (1993): 162.
[x]Held, David.”Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective.” Government and opposition 39.2 (2004): 364-391.
[xi]Kleingeld, Pauline and Eric Brown, “Cosmopolitanism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/cosmopolitanism/, (Last Accessed: January 17th, 2021).
[xii]Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. Globalization/anti-globalization: Beyond the great divide. Polity, 2007.
[xiii]Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Cosmopolitan patriots.” Critical inquiry 23.3 (1997): 617-639.
[xiv]Naidu, Y. Gurappa. “Globalisation and its impact on Indian society.” The Indian Journal of Political Science (2006): 65-76.
[xv]Enderwick, Peter, and Peter J. Buckley. “Rising regionalization: will the post-COVID-19 world see a retreat from globalization?.” Transnational Corporations Journal 27.2 (2020).
[xvi]Mishra, Udit. “Atmanirbhar Bharat: a brief and not so Affectionate History,” Indian Express 2020 Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explainspeaking-atmanirbhar-bharat-a-brief-and-not-so affectionate-history-6556627/, (Last Accessed: January 1st, 2021).
[xvii]Lund, Susan, et al. “Globalization in transition: The future of trade and value chains.” McKinsey Global Institute (2019): 25.
[xviii]Zakaria, Fareed “India has to go more for globalization”, Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/society/india-has-to-go-for-more-globalisation-fareed-zakaria/article33248733.ece (Last Accessed: January, 18th, 2021).
[xix]Staff, I. M. F. “Globalization: a framework for IMF involvement.” Washington, DC, IMF, Mar (2002).
[xx] Hout, Wil. “A global economy, polycentric world or system of nation-states?.” Global Political Economy and the Wealth of Nations. Performance, Institutions, Problems and Policies, London & New York, Routledge (2004): 19-38.
[xxi]Pagliari, Carmen, Edgardo Bucciarelli, and Michele Alessi. “From Adam Smith to Amartya Sen: global market as a possible instrument to promote socio-economic development.” investigación económica 70.278 (2011): 129-156.
[xxii] Sen, Amartya Kumar. Amartya Sen. Routledge, 1999.
[xxiii] Pagliari, Carmen, Edgardo Bucciarelli, and Michele Alessi. “From Adam Smith to Amartya Sen: global market as a possible instrument to promote socio-economic development.” investigación económica 70.278 (2011): 129-156.
[xxiv] Smith, Adam. “The wealth of nations [1776].” (1937).
[xxv] Id.
[xxvi]George, K. Varghese, “Vocal for Local, but no snub to Globalization.” The Hindu 2020, Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/news-analysis-vocal-about-local-but-no-snub-to globalisation/article31577760.ece, (Last Accessed: January 18th, 2021).
REFERENCES
- Chakraborty, Udayan. “Vocal for Local: Reviewing Global Experience with an Indian Insight.”
- Enderwick, Peter, and Peter J. Buckley. “Rising regionalization: will the post-COVID-19 world see a retreat from globalization?.” Transnational Corporations Journal2 (2020).
- Garrett, Geoffrey, and Jonathan Rodden. “Globalization and decentralization.” Annual meeting of the Midwest political science association, Chicago. 2000.
- He, Zhining, and Zhe Chen. “The Social Group Distinction of Nationalists and Globalists amid COVID-19 Pandemic.” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences(2020): 1-19.
- Jotia, Agreement Lathi. “Globalization and the nation-state: sovereignty and state welfare in jeopardy.” (2011).
- Kendall, Gavin, Ian Woodward, and Zlatko Skrbis. The sociology of cosmopolitanism: Globalization, identity, culture and government. Springer, 2009.
- Khondker, Habibul Haque. “Globalisation to glocalisation: A conceptual exploration.” Intellectual Discourse2 (2005).
- Leka, Dukagjin. “Challenges of state sovereignty in the age of globalization.” Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica2 (2017): 61-72.
- Myint, Hla. “Adam Smith’s theory of international trade in the perspective of economic development.” Economica175 (1977): 231-248.
- Nayar, Baldev Raj. “Economic globalisation and its advance: from shallow to deep integration.” Economic and Political Weekly(2003): 4776-4782.
- Pagliari, Carmen, Edgardo Bucciarelli, and Michele Alessi. “From Adam Smith to Amartya Sen: global market as a possible instrument to promote socio-economic development.” investigación económica278 (2011): 129-156.
- PlenterVowles-Sørensen, Kate C. “Cosmopolitans and Communitarians: An Ethical Battleground for a Globalised World.”
- Sharma, Chanchal Kumar. “Emerging dimensions of decentralization debate in the age of globalization.” (2008): 47-65.
- Teney, Céline, et al. Elite survey of the bridging project:” The political sociology of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism”. Technical report. No. SP VI 2018-105. WZB Discussion Paper, 2018.
- Tsai, Kellee S. “Cosmopolitan capitalism: Local state-society relations in China and India.” The Journal of Asian Studies(2016): 335-361.’
- Van den Anker, Christien. “The role of globalization in arguments for cosmopolitanism.” Acta Politica1 (2000): 5-36.