Neoliberalism, Globalisation & International Financial Institutions

Neoliberalism, globalization and the developmental efforts of International Financial Institutions (IMF & World Bank) have severely affected the economic security of nations and individuals: 

(a) Defining concepts: Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Human Security;

(b) International Financial Institutions-The IMF and World Bank: Background, Functions and Developmental efforts; 

(c) Globalization: Nature, Benefits, and relationship with conflict, violence, and crime; 

d) The failure of Neoliberalism and globalization and impact on Human security (Economic Security);

(e) The impact of globalization and neoliberalism on human security in Africa.

Abstract:

Since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall, capitalism through neoliberalism and globalization has spread like an infectious disease, giving the U.S.A. through “their” Bretton Woods established International Financial Institutions, namely the World Bank, The IMF and WTO, hegemonic free reign to impose their neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation on the rest of the world, with severely negative effects on The Third World/ South/ Developing nations.

By: Henry Badenhorst

20 April 2010

Introduction

Since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Berlin Wall, capitalism through neoliberalism and globalization has spread like an infectious disease, giving the U.S.A. through “their” established International Financial Institutions, namely the World Bank, The IMF and WTO, hegemonic free reign to impose their neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation on the rest of the world, with severely negative effects on The Third World/ South/ Developing nations, of which the most notable the erosion of the nation-state, consequent failure by the state to ensure economic security for its citizens, the state losing its legitimacy and consequent state collapse that leads to violence, conflict and crime. Globalization through neoliberal policies has widened the income and wealth fissure between the Industrialized North and Developing South instead of narrowing it, increasing human (economic) insecurity for most in the developing world. The concepts of neoliberalism and globalization will be conceptualized. 

The International Financial Institutions, specifically the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will be discussed in terms of their functions, background, and developmental efforts, specifically their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP’s). The failure of neoliberal policies and the consequent impact on economic security will be explored in detail. Globalization, its dichotomous nature, its benefits for the wealthy segment in the industrialized world and its relationship with the collapse of the nation-state and consequent ensuing conflict, in establishing a ‘new world disorder’, receive attention. The impact of neoliberal policies and globalization on human security in Africa is the last point of discussion.

Conceptualizing Neoliberalism and Globalization

What are globalization and neoliberalism? “Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Kotz.2000:8). According to the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) “Globalization is the present worldwide drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments“(www.genderandhealth.ca).

Neoliberalism is “the political view, arising in the 1960’s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces” (Encarta.2006) Neoliberalism is thus “characterised by the significance attached to private property, market relations and acquisitive individualism and was initially introduced to the developing world through the implementation of structural adjustment policies with their established practice of devaluation, increased producer prices, reduced wage bills, elimination of subsidies and privatisation of state-owned assets” (Willett.2001a:1157). According to Friedman (in Conteh-Morgan.2006:90-91), neoliberalism is the primary discourse of globalization and within neoliberalism, the emphasis is on a system of beliefs, ideas, and values, presented as the only credible economic and political system.

The idea of territorial security has overlooked the fact that for millions of people their greatest threats are not that of invasion, rather threats like disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, political repression and environmental hazards (Willett.2001b:1175). This has led to a shift in the referent point of security from territoriality to one of human security (Willett.2001b:1175). The state in many developing countries has been eroded to the extent where it can no longer provide security to its citizens. This has led to a new notion of security which can capture the vulnerabilities of people and communities to the forces of change brought about by globalization and neoliberal policies, namely human security (Willett.2001a:1158). Human security is understood as ‘freedom from fear and freedom from threat and is concerned with economic security, food security, health security, community security and political security (Willett.2001b:1175). It embraces people’s right to have a certain quality of life and that anything that erodes that quality of life, erodes their basic right to security (Willett.2001a:1159). Human security is concerned with ‘structural violence that emanates from non-territorial security threats (Willett.2001a:1159).

International Financial Institutions: Background, Functions and Developmental efforts (SAP’s)

The spread of capitalism reinforces the sense of an emerging global civilization, defined by universal standards of economic and political organization and which is effusive with its own instruments in the form of the IMF, WTO and World Bank. These institutions promulgate the neoliberal discourse on globalization. They have considerable leverage and have incorporated most of the economies of developing countries and transition economies into their post-Cold War liberal order (Willett.2001a:1156).

According to the Bank Information Centre (www.bicusa.org), “The World Bank was originally established to support reconstruction in Europe after World War II but has since reframed its mission and expanded its operations both geographically and substantively. Today, the Bank's mission is to reduce poverty. It has over 184 member countries and provides over $24 billion annually for activities ranging from agriculture to trade policy, from health and education to energy and mining.” The International Monetary Fund (IMF) “is the international organization that oversees the global financial system by following the macroeconomic policies of its member countries, in particular, those with an impact on exchange rate and the balance of payments. It is an organization formed with a stated objective of stabilizing international exchange rates and facilitating development through the enforcement of liberalizing economic policies on other countries as a condition for loans, restructuring or aid. It also offers highly leveraged loans, mainly to poorer countries” (www.wikipedia.org)

At the end of the Cold War, Washington in a renewed zeal sought to implement neoliberal policies of market liberalization and deregulation (Willett.2001b:1168). A new ideology of ‘Liberal Internationalism’ sprang up that advocated the notion of ‘democratic peace’ which maintained that the global spread of capitalism would induce stability and peace (Willett.2001b:1168). These ideas coalesced within the World Bank and IMF to form the Washington Consensus, which in terms of the debate on the development strategies of transition economies of the former Soviet Union and the developing world (Willett.2001b:1168).

International Financial Institutions (Multi-lateral institutions), such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, in their interventions, emphasize the reduction of state power in economic management at the national and international level. State economic management is replaced by liberalized markets to improve output and productivity growth rates in the developed world and establish economic convergence between the North and the South. The developmental state model of the 1960’s and 1970’s is thereby being replaced by a neoliberal model of development (Willett.2001a:1157). Conteh-Morgan (2006:88) refers to economic globalization as a process which could be defined as the exercise of transnational hegemonic power, which is reflected in the decisions, actions or impositions of the World Bank, The IMF, and WTO.

The IMF, through structural adjustment programs, and the World Bank through development aid, applied macro-economic strategies, based on trade liberalization, which included the opening up of domestic markets to foreign investment and competition, the privatization of state assets and the deregulation of markets (Willett.2001b:1168). According to Conteh-Morgan (2006:88), Third World economies are being subjected to drastic regimes in order to structurally adjust them to the global market. These SAP’s adversely affect the economic security of marginalized people in developing countries. Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP’s) enforced by IFI’s such as the World Bank and IMF, have a strategy of structural re-subordination of the South to the North and have dismantled the economic role of the state. It has in effect re-engineered a massive redistribution of financial resources from the South to the North (Willett.2001a:1158). The Bretton Woods Institutions (World Bank, IMF, and WTO) should take note of civil unrests, strikes, and protests against the effects of SAP’s that these programs not only exclude the poor but also contribute towards social unrest political instability (Willett.2001b:1171). The fact, however, is that the IMF and World Bank tend to remain distant towards their failed programmes (Willett.2001b:1171).

The IMF and World Bank, due to the East Asian crisis, had to rethink international development co-operation (Willett.2001a:1163). The IMF has undertaken two major evaluations of its lending operations to low-income countries (Willett.2001a:1163). The World Bank also undertook an in-depth evaluation of its experience with adjustment lending, seeking to implement a new development paradigm in its Comprehensive Development Framework that makes poverty reduction strategies the basis for concessional lending to low income countries through IDA (International Development Assistance) and debt relief to highly indebted poor countries (HIPC’s) (Willett.2001a:1163). The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) also made proposals for improving development co-operation through principles of partnership and policy coherence (Willett.2001a:1163).

These IFI’s tend to furthermore serve the interests of the industrialized elites with the biggest voting power, especially the U.S.A, which uses these institutions to implement neoliberal policies to their benefit. According to Linden (2003:196), the U.S. with its 18 percent voting power in the IMF managed to promote its own policies within. Countries in the General assembly that would vote insufficiently pro-U.S.A stood the chance of facing difficulty in getting loans from the IMF. The U.S. also managed to pressure the IMF in changing its articles of association as to give the IMF greater power in forcing member countries to liberalize their current accounts and to allow foreign money in and out (Linden.2003:196-197). According to Linden (2003:197), the neoliberal policies of the U.S. was responsible for the South-East Asian market crash. The hegemonic power and undue influence within these IFI’s is illustrated in the fact that it has become the international economic doctor: “Irrespective of your economic ills, the neoliberal prescription would be good for you….and anyway you had no choice” (Linden.2003:197).

Globalization: Dichotomous nature, Benefits and its relationship with conflict

Globalization and its core policies such as deregulation, took on a natural quality as the right ordering of economics, right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The new post-Cold War era has been characterized by this soft projection of U.S. power in a sustained policy push to finalize the unfinished business of the neoliberal projected, started after World War II (Linden.2003:190-191). According to Willett (2001a:1156), globalization has arrived as the harbinger to announce a radical new world order, which presages the demise of the nation-state, replaced by market liberalization and deregulation that shift the relationship between markets and the state, applied through multi-lateral organizations (IFI’s) and transnational corporations.

Kaplinsky (in Willett.2001a:1159) argues that the Achilles heel of globalization is economic insecurity and that mainly due to globalization’s dichotomous nature, in the sense that globalization has the power to simultaneously integrate and fragment whole economies and communities. This is apparent in the case of the end of the Cold War, where political and economic barriers were removed for global capitalism to spread, while at the same time leading to rising levels of economic and human insecurity (Willett.2001a:1159). Willett (2001a:1155) points out that the dichotomous nature of globalization has led to volatile and unstable global order due to exacerbated tensions between the centers of wealth and the broad swathes of society that remain marginalized and impoverished. “While globalization has enhanced the wealth of the already rich and powerful, it has simultaneously impoverished and marginalized many people and economies in the periphery of the global economy” (Willett.2001b:1167).

Gélinas (in Conteh-Morgan.2006:90) refers to globalization as a system as well as a process, which characterised by the transformation of the international political economy , from a regulated to a deregulated one in the spheres of trade, markets, finance, investment and politics, which results in the creation of one single global market, which encompasses health, education, money, work, and culture. Globalization according to the UNDP (1999:1), is more than the flow of money and commodities, it’s also a process whereby culture, technology, and governance are integrated, leading to people becoming connected everywhere in the world and being affected by events even in the far corners of the world. Globalization, furthermore, represents a widening and deepening of economic, political, social and cultural interdependence and interconnectedness according to Willett (2001a:1154).

Globalization is enhanced by human developments. Rapid global integration has been facilitated by technological developments in information, communications, and transportation (or ICT) systems, which have reduced previous time-space barriers (Willett.2001a:1154). Further integration was made possible by the former communist world coming into the capitalist fold due to the end of the Cold War and International Financial Institution (World Bank, The IMF, and WTO) policies of market liberalization and deregulation (Willett.2001a:1154). According to the UNDP (1999:1), globalisation, is different than what it was in the late 19th century, due to new developments, such as new markets where foreign exchange and capital markets are linked 24 hours a day with dealings at a distance in real time; new tools, such as internet links, cellular phones and media networks, new actors, such as the WTO that has authority over national governments, multi-national corporations with more economic power than many states; and new rules, such as multilateral agreements on trade, services and intellectual property, backed by strong enforcement.

Neoliberals believe that globalization is beneficial to development. De Long (1999:2) states that it leads to richer, more vibrant and tolerant world and that governments should not fight it, but instead embrace it. According to the UNDP (1999:2), globalisation is opening up many opportunities for millions of people around the world. Globalisation leads to increased trade, new technologies, foreign investments, expanding media and internet connections, that fuels economic growth and human advance, which in return offers enormous potential to eradicate poverty in the 21st century (UNDP.1999:2). “We have more wealth and technology and more commitment to global community than ever before” (UNDP.1999:2). Global markets, global technology, global ideas and global solidarity can enrich our lives and expand our choices (UNDP.1999:2). This growing interdependence calls for shared values and a share commitment towards human development for all (UNDP.1999:2). Willett points out that technological developments, such as instant information and rapid communication, the internet, improved air transportation and over the horizon weapon systems, have compressed the traditional barriers of time and space (Willett.2001a:1156). This so-called “New Economy” has become the carrier of a promise for stable and sustainable economic growth (Eanes.2009:61).

There is a relationship between globalisation established through neoliberal policies and the incidence of violence, conflict and crime. Willett (2001a:1160) argues that the failure of neoliberal policies to facilitate sustainable development, combined with debt crises, exacerbates poverty and economic marginalisation, closing off formal sector employment for large sections of the population. These factors, combined with state collapse and consequent rule of law due to the neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state assets, have led to an environment conducive to the incubation and intensification of crime, violence and conflict as groups compete in a bid for survival (Willett. 2001a:1160). 

When governments fail to provide social welfare, health, education and security they not only lose their legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens, it also leads to violence (Willett.2001b1171). Kaldor and Luckham (in Willett.2001a:1160) points out that the weakening of the state has eroded its traditional monopoly of violence, which led to a growth in the sub-contracting out of military functions to private security firms and mercenaries, who are only accountable to their paymasters and who poses a serious threat to human security. The proliferation and diffusion of arms, especially small arms, not only intensifies violence but also increase levels of insecurity (Willett.2001a:1161).

Neoliberal policies lead to the widening gap between the haves and the have nots, inflicting structural violence, which leads to conflict within the state, but more so eventually it leads to the rejection of development and through post development sentiment it resists neoliberalism at the grassroots level as the Zapatista movement proves. Willett (2001b:1167) points out that one of the major structural causes of conflict is to be found in the failure of neoliberal policies that underpin the current phase of globalisation. Conflict theorists also point out that poverty, the unequal distribution of wealth and the failure to meet basic needs, constitute a source of structural violence that lies at the heart of many conflicts, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the spiral of poverty, indebtedness and conflict is most visible (Willett.200b:1171). “The deep cleavage between rich and poor and the effects of the neoliberal word order on the lives of millions of people in the global periphery (boundary), represent a deep form of structural violence that lies at the heart of the current global system” According to Rogers, the neoliberal economic system embodies a form of social injustice that has produced a ‘revolution of unfulfilled expectations’ reaching a climax (culminating)in the insurgencies and instability in Latin America, North-Africa and the Middle East. The Chiapas movement in Mexico is an example of resistance against neoliberalism (in Willett.2001a:1158).

Neoliberalism’s and Globalisation’s failure and impact on worldwide economic security

Globalisation has not been able to do what supporters of neoliberalism expected it to do. Globalisation did not achieve economic convergence as expected. Very few countries have actually reaped benefits from globalisation; instead, they are being faced with increased poverty, mass unemployment, social fragmentation and political instability (Willett.2001a:1155). The neoliberal policies of IFI’s and transnational corporations to enforce and strengthen globalization has not only failed with regards to state collapse and causing structural violence and conflict, but it also impacts people, communities and states negatively in the sense that it reverses growth instead of improving it. The Pearson Commission report, 30 years ago recognized the problem when it stated that “the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries has become the central problem of our times” (UNDP.1999:11). This statement has proved right over the last three decades, with the income gap doubling between the world’s richest fifth and its poorest fifth, to 74 to 1. Add to the gap, migration, environmental pressure, conflict, instability and other problems rooted in poverty and inequality, a true picture of the dilemma is created (UNDP.1999: 11).

What impacts our human security, more specifically our economic security? Kaplinsky mentions that the Achilles heel of globalization is economic security (Willett.2001a:1159). He explored the link between globalization and economic security and came to the conclusion that there is a link between growing levels of economic insecurity and the sustainability of globalization. He found that opening of markets, whilst allowing holders of scarce skills to benefit, the less skilled were marginalized, which increased economic insecurity for these larger sections of the population (Willett.2001a:1159).

Neoliberalism has furthermore impacted the functioning and legitimacy of individual states. Neoliberal policies of market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state assets, have rolled back the role of the state on a spectrum of issues in such a serious manner as to subvert the capacity of the state to control and protect the internal life of society, which in turn has led to the contestation of state legitimacy, especially in regions where the state was already weak, and eventually to total state collapse, where state structure, authority, law and political order have fallen apart, for example, Sierra Leone (Willett.2001a:1160). Total state collapse in turn leads to fragmented societies, increased human insecurity and increased social unrest, violence, crime and armed conflict (Willett.2001a:1160). The International Forum on Globalisation points out that globalisation policies, not only increase poverty, but also that it contributes towards inequality between and within nations (Prabhakar.2003:304).

Although Neoliberal policies of trade liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation, to emphasise globalisation’s dichotomous nature again, led to a growth in world output and increased global volumes of trade and capital mobility, the evidence of greater weight suggests that globalisation leads to increased economic volatility, undermining the economic security of millions of people, widening the gap between the winners and losers, losers that represents 1.3 billion people in 89 developing countries, who are worse off now than 10-15 years ago (Willett.2001b:1168). While certain nations have been strengthened by the process of economic integration, the twin forces of globalisation, namely the ICT revolution and market liberalisation, has weakened many other (Willett.2001b:1171). This two sided, dichotomous characteristic of globalisation, which simultaneously includes and excludes, integrates and fragments the global community, is impacting people worldwide, either negatively or positively, depending on which side of the global fence you are. The elite in industrialised nations cannot complain with their increase in wealth, but for most in the developing world, this decrease in wealth and widening fissure, signals increased economic insecurity.

Not only states are transformed by neoliberal policies that enforce globalisation, other institutions are being transformed and are forced to make changes. Ghai (1997:1) points out that globalisation has contributed towards major changes to the role and responsibilities of a wide range of institutions, such as families, civil society institutions, business corporations, states and supranational organisations. He further points out that one of the important consequences of the changes associated with globalisation has been the increased insecurity at the level of the individual and family (Ghai.1997:1). 

Globalisation has also impacted the power relations among social groups and has greatly increased the power of business and financial groups that replace the collapsed state and may affect not only the stability, but also the economic security of citizens (Ghai.1997:7-9). He further mentions that it is the rapidity of change that enhances economic insecurity even more and , “when institutions and mechanisms in place to cushion security begin to crumble under the impact of the same forces, the effect is intensified” (Ghai.1997: 8-9). The social insecurity due to the effects of globalisation, also adversely affects individuals and families with regards to mental stress and strain, manifested in different forms of psychological and physical ailments, ranging from depression, heart attacks and strokes to suicide (Ghai.1997:10). The human, social, and economic costs insecurity are almost never taken into account by decision makers(Ghai.1997:10.

The impact of neoliberalism and globalisation on human (economic) security in Africa

Africa, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa, has been severely impacted by the consequences of neoliberal policies, such as market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state assets, not taking Africa’s special needs into consideration. Africa’s explosive demographic situation, with high birth rates; excessive child death rates due to malnutrition and the AIDS epidemic, have led to the establishment of a program to halve extreme poverty by 2015, under the name “Millennium Development Goals”, by IFI’s like the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD, as well as the UN and other NGO’s (Eanes.2009:60) Eanes, however, thinks that these goals are too ambitious (Eanes.2009:6) The MDG’s are critiqued by many.

Amin (www.debtireland.org) critiqued each MDG and then outlined the ‘real goals’ of these processes in 5 points, which we might call ‘The Real Millennium Development Goals’, namely extreme privatization, aimed at opening new fields for the expansion of capital; the generalization of the private appropriation of agricultural land; the commercial opening within the context of maximum deregulation, the equally uncontrolled opening up of capital movement; and the fact that States are forbidden in principle from interfering in economic affairs. The MDG’s seem to enhance the neoliberal principles of globalisation, and the goal of halving extreme poverty, serve only as a mask to hide the IFI’s real intention.

According to Eanes (2009:62) has globalisation impacted African people and governments in the following way, namely: the fact that African economies has been integrated into the capitalist economy, has made “colonialism” provide a legal tool for the dependence of African economies on western economies; Privatization has intensified the integration of African countries in production and finance global systems, encouraging the flow of capital investment and attracting the ownership by foreign capital of former public-held companies; Africa became the dump place of a series of products ( literature, cinema or music) that have little to do with African people, obliterating African culture and leading to a Eurocentric vision of reality; Globalization has subverted the autonomy and self-determination of African peoples ( The burden of external debt of the developing countries in 1994 had already reached 2 trillion dollars, according to the World Bank. Mass poverty has caused citizens to be deprived of a meaningful existence); The lack of governmental incentives to local production, the subversion of local production by high imports, the exchange rate devaluation and the depletion of foreign reserves caused by marginalization and underdevelopment by development agents; The fact that it has not been easy for governments to ensure social protection, one of their core functions and the one that has helped many developed nations maintain social cohesion and domestic political support; and lastly, the damaged the natural environment of Africa. (The Niger Delta and the Ogoni people in particular, affected by oil exploration in the region, which has ravaged marine life and environment, has affected the supply of drinking water and caused a number of diseases)

An example being mentioned within the South-African context is the 300 000 Chinese working in the wholesale business, based in South-Africa (Matsamuto.2009:115). They have set up eight wholesale centres in Johannesburg with more than 2000 shops. During the Christmas season of 2007, they reportedly sold more than one billion US$ in merchandise. These businesses do not contribute towards the South-African economy. Goods are brought in from China and profits are sent back, so the capital does not rotate in South-Africa. Yet, the South-African government has done nothing to limit Chinese business activities, which has led to many small-scale business people in South-Africa losing their jobs due to this phenomenon (Matsamuto.2009:115). Market liberalisation and deregulation has thus led to unemployment in South-Africa.

Conclusion

Market liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation are neoliberal policies created and enforced by International Financial Institutions, which are in fact mere puppets of the U.S to strengthen globalisation, with the end result the growth of capitalism, which in turn benefits the already rich industrialised North, at the expense of the masses in the Third World, whose human, specifically economic, security is being adversely affected by the collapse of the state and consequent increases in conflict, violence and crime. The dichotomous nature of globalisation makes change very difficult, since there are a lot of people, especially the already rich and powerful who benefit from neoliberal policies. 

The IMF, World Bank, WTO and OECD, with structural adjustment programmes, development aid and established Millennium Development Goals, seem on the surface at least to address issues of poverty reduction and human security, but a lot of evidence points toward the fact these attempts further increase human insecurity worldwide. It seems the Developmental State model of the 1960’s and 1970’ had better results as the current neoliberal model of development, but reverting back to the old system, is a lot to ask, with the hegemonic US dictating everything.

Bibliography

1. Amin, S. 2006. The Millennium Development Goals: A Critique from the South. Available at: http://www.debtireland.org/resources/The-Millennium-Development-Goals-southern-view.doc (accessed on 13/5/2010)
2. Bank Information Centre. 2010. World Bank. Available at: http://www.bicusa.org/en/Institution.5.aspx?gclid=CNir-I39z6ECFRI-lAodEwsJJQ (accessed on 13/5/2010)
3. Conteh-Morgan, E. 2006. Globalization, State failure, and collective violence: The case of Sierra Leone. International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 11, Number 2. Available at: http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol11_2/11n2C-M.pdf
4. De Long, J.1999. "Globalization" and "Neoliberalism". Chronicle of Higher Education: Berkeley University. Available at: http://www.ub.es/prometheus21/articulos/archivos/GlobNeo.PDF (accessed on 11/5/2010)
5. Eanes, A. 2009. International Conference: Africa & Globalization “Learning from the past, enabling a better future” Available at: http://www.unu.edu/globalization/2009/files/UNU-UNESCO_2009_Africa.pdf (accessed on 8/5/2010)
6. Gender and Health. 2010. What is globalisation? Available at: http://www.genderandhealth.ca/en/modules/globalization/globalization_what_is-01.jsp (accessed on 13/5/2010)
7. Ghai, D.1997. Economic Globalization, Institutional Change and Human Security. Available at: http://www.pogar.org/publications/other/unrisd/econ-glob-97e.pdf (accessed on 10/5/2010)
8. Kotz, D. 2000. Globalization and Neoliberalism. Available at: http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Glob_and_NL_02.pdf (accessed on 10/5/2010)
9. Linden, I. 2003. The Global Political Economy, in Analysing Contemporary Development Debates and Issues: a reader, compiled by PDS Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
10. Matsamuto, J. 2009. International Conference: Africa & Globalization “Learning from the past, enabling a better future” Available at: http://www.unu.edu/globalization/2009/ files/UNU-UNESCO_2009_Africa.pdf (accessed on 8/5/2010)
11. Prabhakar, A. 2003. A critical reflection on globalisation and inequality: A new approach to the Development of the South, in Analysing Contemporary Development Debates and Issues: a reader, compiled by PDS Stewart. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
12. UNDP.1999. Human Development Report: “Globalization with a human face”. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1999_en_overview.pdf (accessed on 10/5/2010)
13. Wikipedia. 2010. International Monetary Fund. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund (accessed on 13/5/2010)
14. Willett, S. 2001. Introduction globalization and security, in Human Security and Development: a reader, compiled by L Cornwell. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.
15. Willett, S. 2001. Insecurity, conflict and the new global disorder, in Human Security and Development: a reader, compiled by L Cornwell. Pretoria: University of South-Africa.

- Soli Deo Gloria -