Could the trend towards globalisation be reversed a second time ? Doing so might be more difficult than before. New technology and new types of financial instruments make it tricky for governments to impose effective capital controls. Likewise, the growth of multinational firms that can switch production from one country to another would make it harder to erect effective trade barriers.
New technology also creates distribution channels that protectionist governments will find it hard to block. A French government that wanted to shelter its film industry from American competition by restricting imports may find it impossible to stop foreign films being beamed by satellite or passed over the Internet. Foreign films will be able to squeeze through electronic windows that cannot be closed.
Another reason to suppose that globalisation is more durable this time around is that free trade is built upon firmer institutional foundations than earlier in this century. At that time, free trade proceeded largely through bilateral treaties rather than multilateral institutions such as the WTO. Withdrawal from the WTO would not be done lightly.
Nonetheless, past experience shows how quickly faith in markets and openness can be overwhelmed by big economic shocks, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Faced with another severe downturn, some governments may still be foolish enough to try to use protectionism and capital controls to shield workers and firms from global forces. That would also shield economies from powerful sources of growth.
VOCABULARY
| 1. globalisation | глобализация, интеграция мировой экономики |
| 2. cross-border | межнациональный, международный |
| 3. productivity | производительность труда |
| 4. living standard (s) | жизненный уровень |
| 5. division of labour | разделение труда |
| 6. economies of scale | экономия на масштабе |
| 7. productive investment | эффективные инвестиции в развитие производства. |
| 8. flows (of goods, capital, e.t.c.) | движение, потоки (товаров, капитала и т.д.) |
| 9. trade barriers | торговые барьеры |
| 10. protectionism | протекционизм |
| 11. restrictions | ограничения |
| 12. Great Depression | Великая депрессия |
| 13. slump | экономический спад |
| 14. capital control (s) | ограничение движения капитала |
| 15. fixed exchange rate (s) | твердый валютный курс (ы) |
| 16. Bretton Woods (system) | Бреттонвудское соглашение о системе твердых валютных курсов |
| 17. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) | Генеральное соглашение по тарифам и торговле (ГАТТ) |
| 18. World Trade Organisation (WTO) | Всемирная торговая организация (ВТО) |
| 19. to «float» | «плавать» (о валютных курсах) |
| 20. floating exchange rates | плавающие валютные курсы |
| 21. inflow of capital | приток капитала |
| 22. outflow of capital | отток капитала |
| 23. liberalisation | либерализация |
| 24. product market | товарные рынки |
| 25. ratio of trade to output | (со)отношение объема торговли к объему выпуска продукции |
| 26. inefficient distribution network | неэффективная сеть сбыта (реализации товаров и услуг) |
| 27.current account surplus | положительное сальдо платежного баланса по текущим операциям |
| 28. capital market | рынок капитала |
| 29. labour market | рынок рабочей силы |
4. Переведите отрывок «Old News» с английского на русский язык.
5. Напишите реферат и аннотацию к данному тексту.
Text B.
1. Прочитайте и переведите следующий текст:
EXPAND THE DEBATE ON GLOBALISATION.
Asia’s financial crisis is stoking the debate over globalization. It can be a whirlwind of trade and investment that builds economies and spurs development in even the world’s poorest nations. But it can also bring economies low overnight.
Globalization’s effects have been overwhelmingly good. Spurred by unprecedented liberalization, world trade continues to expand faster than overall global economic output, inducing a wave of productivity and efficiency and creating millions of jobs. Even more impressive is the stunning increase in international investment that is building roads, airports and factories in poorer countries. In the 1990s alone, foreign investors have poured $1 trillion into developing economies. This trade and investment is raising living standards in some countries faster than many thought possible. Until recently, it took at least two generations for living standards to double, but in China, living standards now double every 10 years.
But while globalization has raised living standards for many, it has made life more difficult for those dislocated by change and it threatens to leave part of the world behind. It is no coincidence that the disappointing economic performance in much of Sub-Saharan Africa reflects a failure to integrate into the world economy and, thus, to trade successfully and attract investment.
The foremost challenge of globalization is to ensure that its fruits extend to all countries. Most forecasts say that economic growth in the developed world will continue to slow, and that expanding markets in developing countries are needed to ensure that living standards continue to rise.
The second challenge of globalization is to allay the fear that the growth it brings is inherently destabilizing. The Asian crisis, threatening some of the most formidable economic competitors in the world, amplifies these fears. Nevertheless, the costs of being left behind by globalization are usually much greater than the losses caused by instability.
The third challenge of globalization is to address the concern in wealthier nations that international competition will harm living standards. There is ample evidence that stagnant wages in the United States and unemployment in Europe have other causes - technological change, poor education, Europe’s inflexible labor markets, high taxes and an aging workforce. But polls show more and more people believe the causes lie in worldwide trade and investinent. This undermines the kind of leadership needed to respond to the Asian financial crisis and deal with other global pioblems.
The fourth challenge of globalization is to tackle the problems complicated by expanded trade and investment-environmental degradation, disease, migration, crime and terrorism. Our ability to confront this set of new, post-Cold War challenges will require greater global cooperation.
There is no doubt that globalization of trade and investment has in some ways weakened the independence of national governments and made life less predictable for many individuals. But those who would erect barriers to trade and investment to try to recapture an earlier era of independence confuse the cause and effect of globalization. In pursuit of higher living standards, we have created this new world of global markets and instant communication to deliver gains in efficiency and competition that are beyond the powers of national governments. The goal is not.to disenfran-disenfranchise the individual, but to lower costs, broaden choices, deliver more capital and open more markets, giving the individual more power to control his or her destiny.
The challenges raised by globalization yield no easy answers. They strain the abilities of national governments to confront them independently.
VOCABULARY
| 1. to stoke debate | вызывать бурные споры |
| 2. whirlwind of trade and investment | высокая степень активизации мировой торговли и инвестиций |
| 3. challenges of globalisation | 1) движущие силы глобализации; 2) цели (задачи), возникающие в условиях глобализации (обеспечить, достичь, преодолеть и т.д. в зависимости от контекста) |
| 4. to address the concern ... | зд. решить проблемы, которые вызывают беспокойство (заняться проблемами...) |
| 5. to tackle the problems | решить проблемы |
| 6. post Cold - War challenges | зд. проблемы и тенденции в период после холодной войны |
| 7. disenfranchise | лишить гражданских прав зд. Лишить национальных различий. |
| 8. overall global economic output | общемировой ВВП |
2. Напищите аннотацию к данному тексту.
Text C.
1. Прочитайте и найдите ключевые слова и предложения в следующем тексте:
Much of the world simply does not have the values needed for free markets. We pretended otherwise. Now comes the reckoning.
Tumbling world stock markets contained a large, though muffled, message: global capitalism - whose triumph once seemed inevitable - is now in full retreat, perhaps for many years.
Who would have guessed this? After the cold war, global capitalism offered a powerful vision of world prosperity and, ultimately, democracy. Multinational companies and investors would pour technology and capital into poorer regions, creating a transnational mass market of middle-class consumers who would drive Toyotas, watch CNN, eat Big Macs - and, incidentally, demand more freedom. World trade and investment did indeed surge, but not with the expected consequences. Global capitalism is now destabilizing the economies of poor countries and inflicting large losses on investors in rich countries. Worse are the collapses of economies around the world.
The only good news is that most American economists think-perhaps naively - that the United States will avoid a recession. The Blue Chip Economic Indictors survey of 49 economists finds only one predicting a slump. “Demand is strong, inflation is low and employment is high,” says Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers. But dangers are rising. Exports could disappoint, because economies in Latin America and Canada are weakening. With Asia, these areas buy nearly three quarters of U.S. exports.
And economists may underestimate how much the dropping stock market demoralizes consumers and cuts their spending. David Wyss of Standard & Poor’s DRI says that the total value of U.S. stocks (the market’s “capitalization”) has dropped about $2 trillion since the market’s peak. Wyss figures that consumers reduce current spending by 2.5 cents for each dollar of stock losses. The math: 2.5 percent of $2 trillion is $50 billion. That’s less than I percent of GDP. What might undo such estimates? Perhaps this: because more Americans own stocks than ever, the adverse effect could be larger than ever.
But however the U.S. economy fares, global capitalism is under siege. The idea was to open up markets to trade and foreign investment. But some markets were being shut.
What went wrong?
On one level, the answer is simple. Countries became overdependent on foreign capital, which, having entered in huge amounts, is trying to leave the same way. What initially triggered the reversal was the recognition that much foreign money had been squandered through «crony capitalism» or misguided industrial policies. Asia was dotted with empty office buildings and surplus factories. Overseas banks refused to renew their loans; mutual-fund investors sold shares and converted their funds back into dollars.
But now the fear of capital flight is feeding on itself - and spreading to Latin America. If people fear the Mexican peso will be devalued, they may convert pesos into dollars. The frightened include locals, not just foreign investors. But countries need hard currencies to pay for imports; and they can’t afford a depositor run on their banks. High interest rates are one way to halt the process by rewarding people for keeping funds in local currencies. The trouble, of course, is that punitive interest rates also crush local economies.
If a few economies face this squeeze, it’s their problem; if many economies do, it’s everyone’s problem. This is happening. The threat of capital flight has shoved so many countries toward austerity that it’s inducing a worldwide slump. And, again, the process feeds on itself. Feeble economic growth has depressed prices of raw-material exports.
Earning less abroad, the raw-material exporters must slow their economies to cut imports. This depresses U.S. exports and the profits of multinational companies operating in these countries.
Thus does the Third World’s distress threaten the First World’s stock markets and prosperity. But global capitalism’s failure demands a deeper explanation. After all, capitalism is supposed to excel at allocating investment funds efficiently. In this case, it didn’t. The deeper explanation is that market capitalism is not just an economic system. It is also a set of cultural values that emphasizes the virtue of competition, the legitimacy of profit and the value of freedom. These values are not universally shared. Other countries have organized economic systems around different values and politics.
As a result, spreading capitalism is not simply an exercise in economic engineering. It is an assault on other nations’ culture and politics that almost guarantees a collision. Even when countries adopt some trappings of capitalism, they may not embrace the basic values that make the system work. This is what happened. Led by the U.S., global agencies (the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund) sought to persuade poorer countries to become more open to trade and global capital. These countries tried to maximize the benefits of the process while minimizing changes to their politics and commerce.
Mutual deception flourished. Countries like Korea and Russia pretended that they were changing more than they had. American, European and Japanese bankers, executives and government officials pretended the claims were true—or might become true. Loans were made on the basis of incomplete or faulty financial statements. Or they were made on the faith that, if a loan went sour, someone (the government, the IMF) would cover the losses.