Directed Response Essay 1A:

Globalize This! Whose Globalization is this Anyway?

Margaret Zhu
250665873
CGS 1022F LEC 550
Wendy Russell
Due: Wednesday October 3rd, 2012

Introduction
This paper will investigate some of the key problems that have resulted from
globalization. Using a case study, maize production in Mexico following liberalization through
the 1990s, I will demonstrate how and why different communities are continuing to produce
corn, defying the pressures of liberalization.
The effects of globalization cannot be categorized as solutions and problems in a blackand-white manner. Proponents of modernization and world system theorists view the most recent
policies of globalization, neo-liberalist policies, in drastically different ways. Proponents of
modernization believe that globalization is the reordering of a globally integrated economy in
ways that create many new opportunities. Whereas, world system theorists believe that reforming
global trade rules on agriculture tends to open markets for already dominant producers to export.
While many different views were considered in researching this paper, primarily through
scholarly journals, my personal beliefs will be the basis of the problems outlined below. The
key problems created by recent policy can be classified as environmental destruction and the
reduction of biodiversity, and exploitation and repression.

Environmental Destruction and the Reduction of Biodiversity

Globalization inevitably means more trade, and as a result, more food miles. Huge
transportation costs and energy costs in packaging and distribution contribute to rising CO2
levels. A typical plate of food in the United States, for example, has accumulated some 1,500
miles from source to table (Norberg-Hodge et al, 2002, 17). This is only the tip of the iceberg,
as environmental costs exist not only distribution but also in production.

Environmental problems that have arisen in production are in large part a result of largescale monoculture farms replacing traditional small-scale farms. Large-scale farms are created to
meet global demand in the face of globalization. To thrive, these massive production facilities
require chemical fertilizers. However, water, food, fodder and the atmosphere all suffer from
contamination effects. For example, a 20, 000 square kilometer dead zone [in the Gulf of
Mexico] is a consequence of agricultural run-off from farms, that enters the gulf from the
Mississippi River (39).
Furthermore, these large-scale practices are unsustainable because they destroy fertile
land. Mega-farms frequently have excessive reliance on large-scale irrigation networks, which
results in salinization of the soil. Historically, when conducted on a small scale, irrigation had
little environmental impact (40). Simultaneously, industrial practices have led to the loss of
topsoil at an alarming rate. On small farms, land was allowed to return to the wild for long
periods or soil nutrients were replenished (42).
Impacts on biodiversity are also very concerning. The thousands of seed varieties
developed by careful and precise traditional farming are being lost due to consumer monoculture.
Now, 96 percent of pea production comes from just two pea varieties (37). The implications of
this lack of diversity include greater vulnerability to pests and disease.
As a solution to pollution by fertilizers and vulnerability, GM crops were developed.
Noted by Rivoli, Criticisms of GM technologies sound to the [US cotton] farmers to be
criticisms of progress itself (Rivoli 2009, 47). These cotton farmers focus on short-term
personal gains such as free time as opposed to long-term global damages such as genetic
pollution. The necessity for these GM crops to continually be adapted further demonstrates the
unsustainable nature of this practice.

Thus, globalization and free trade [][are] neither free nor possible to sustain
(Njehu 2005, 399). The sacrifice of water, land and other limited resources are key steps in
current production techniques. The high price of pollution and environmental destruction (399)
cannot be paid for by monetary profits.

Growth of existing inequalities

Detrimental environmental destruction is coupled with exploitation in the face of
neoliberal policies. Two entities are guilty in exploiting the poor, both corporations and
governments. Corporations have come to have similar economic influence as countries. In fact,
51 of the 100 largest economies in the world in 1999 were corporations, not countries
(Norberg-Hodge et al 2002, 13).
World system theorist Njoki Njoroge Njehu (2005, 400) contests the process of
globalization intensifies existing inequalities and insecurities, while Janice E. Perlman (2007,
2), a proponent of modernization, stated in a startlingly similar way the process of globalization
over the past several decades has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and divergence. While it
is debatable whether these policies were a well-planned project (Njehu 2005, 398) intent on
exploitation or instead an unintentional result of market forces, the majority of theorists can
agree that liberalization has allowed for deepening inequalities.
Whether it is in support of favedelos or for women, government policies have largely
failed to bridge inequalities both domestically and trans-nationally. In large countries, subsidies
have made it impossible for developing countries to compete in the global market. There is no
doubt that the [US] subsidies are big and little doubt that they are unfair to poor countries
(Rivoli, 2009, 6). In contrast, governments have the potential to have tremendous domestic

influence through policies similar to those regarding American cotton production. However,
governments do little to support the exploited.
Governments are also doing little to protect their citizens from corporations. Corporate
control is increasing in the lives of people and communities around the world (Njehu 2005,
399). A lack of corporate social responsibility has been fatal to poor communities. Current
multinational corporations [] can profligately use human and natural resources from various
places in the world seemingly with impunity (Poff 2010, 12). Even the IMF and World Bank
are a part of this trend of exploitation as they have imposed an increasing number of measures
to be adopted by borrowing countries as a condition of their access to foreign credit. These have
included contradictory monetary policies (Weisbrot et al 2003). Consequently, developing
countries are facing historically unprecedented levels of foreign debt (Weisbrot et al 2003).

Case Study: Mexican Corn Production

This rampant exploitation has largely been due to structural adjustment programs, which
have forced unfair liberalization. The most detrimental effect has been the inability for small
maize-producing farms to compete in the global corn market, especially given the economic and
cultural importance of corn. Cord producers defied trends and found ways to continue farming.

A Brief History
The Mexican Revolution in 1910 marked an important time of agrarian reform including
land grants to marginalized, poor, and indigenous campesinos (Keleman 2009). Throughout the
20th century, the government continued to provide broad support for farmers, including the cornproducing sector. BanRural (National Rural Credit Bank) provided credit to farmers at

subsidized rates through a specialized bank. As well, import and export prices were controlled by
CONASUPO (National Company for Popular Subsistence). ASERCA provided compensation for
farmers when the market price of corn was below local production costs (Keleman et al 2009).
These were only a few of the many agricultural support programs that existed.
These supportive policies were slowly phased out following 1982 when Mexico defaulted
on its foreign debt (Presibisch et al 2002). International lending institutions, a powerful domestic
private sector and transnational capital imposed a neoliberal policy framework. While
deregulation occurred in the years leading up to 1994, the formation of NAFTA produced a
significant change in Mexican agricultural policy.
Following the formation of NAFTA, small-scale corn production in Mexico was intended
to dissipate. Instead, a transition into the production of foods such as fruits and vegetables where
it had a comparative advantage was intended (King 2005). This hypothetical competitiveness
is challenged by Wise, who based on empirical data, claims that a limited number of countriesmost notably, Brazil, Argentina, China, and those of the former Soviet Union- have
demonstrated the competitiveness to take advantage of such market openings (Wise 2011, 863).
Following liberalization, Mexican governments failed to help farmers transition into the
global market. Without BanRural, markets outside of corn, which may have resulted in some
greater success if not a complete comparative advantage, were not grown in Mexico due to a lack
of credit availability to farmers (Keleman 2009).
While tariffs on imports were meant to drop at regular intervals, tariff quotas were never
applied due to inflationary pressures. The United States capitalized and its exports grew from 1.6
million to 6.3 million tons (1994-2003) (King 2005). As Wise (2011) predicted, in a liberalized
global economy high-income countries capture the vast majority of the benefits. Due to this

rush of imports, and American dumping of surplus commodities below production costs, corn
prices in Mexico were pushed down 66% (Wise 2011).
Programs, which were implemented, tended to favor larger farmers and did not support
the development of small farms. PROCAMPO (Program of Direct Support to the Countryside)
was a government program which made a cash transfer to producers of corn on a per hectare
basis. However, these funds were frequently spent on basic needs such as clothing and medicines
instead of being re-invested into farming. Some go so far as to say that PROCAMPO was
hijacked by agribusiness, with $1,4 billion going to large-scale farmers (The Americas 2008).
Thus, with rising costs of production and lack of government financial support to expand or
diversify crops, many Mexican farmers developed ingenious ways of dealing with the new
pressures of competing on a global market.

Solutions
Just as Perlman indicated that globalization is not unidimensional, small corn farmers
resisted the forces of being swallowed up. Perhaps the primary cause of the perseverance of the
Mexican corn production was the deep-rooted cultural attachment and pride associated with
corn. Corn sold in small shops is considered dirt in Emilio Portes Gil (EPG, an indigenous
Mexican community of the central highlands) (Preibisch et al 2002).
Mexican communities were largely faced with two choices and often chose a mix of both.
First, increased household consumption of corn as subsistence good. For example, in Almos,
Sonora maize was not generally sold. Corn is seen at times as more secure than cash. In this
Mazahua community, as in many parts of the world, food securitythe ability to feedis a
source of power for women (Preibisch et al 2002, 74). This is a positive step not only for

economic inequality, but also gender inequality. Women only receive 10 percent of the worlds
income and own 1 percent of the worlds property (Njehu 2005, 400).
Second, low-income farmers could diversify income sources. Common sources of income
came from migration or other off farm-employment such as laborers in larger farms or in larger
cities. In Emilio Portes Gil, women engage in microenterprises or as traders in local markets
(Preibisch et al, 2002). In La Frailesca, it was a combination. 95.4% of farmers engaged in both
the market and their own subsistence while 2.9% of farmers chose to farm exclusively for
themselves (Kelman et al, 2009).
In the Totonocan region of Veracruz state, farmers searched for niche markets for new
and added-value products. The commercialization of totomoxtle (corn husks) provided a
solution. The husks had long been used domestically. However, with the growth of permanent
and transitory Latino communities in the US over the last 10 years, another export market was
found. This cornhusk market is a silver lining in US domination of Mexico in the corn industry.
The intended effect of neo-liberalism took place where the integration of international trade
helped a locally produced resource take on value (King 2005). Similarly to American cotton
farmers, Mexican corn farmers were able to coax more value out of existing corn production.
(Rivoli, 2009, 50). In EPG, Rastrojo [another byproduct of corn production] was indispensable
as a household fuel source (Preibisch et al 2002, 75).

Conclusion
These solutions, however, are likely only temporary. While farmers in Mexico have
found ways to increase their income and self-sufficiency, US imports continue to flow into the
country, affecting prices. In 2011, Mexico imported almost half of its basic grains including

more than 1/3 of its corn. There is a need for more extensive and far-reaching policies to regain
national self-sufficiency in corn production (Wise 2011). Globalization has led to the
marginalization of otherwise perfectly viable enterprises (Wise 2008, 868), namely small
farms. While Perlman (2007, 2) stated, What is certain is that globalization is not reversible
there is no going back, I would beg to differ. The effects of large reductions in trade, and
increased domestic dependency should be investigated.
Just as David could not beat Goliath with pure strength, the developing world must
continue to innovate metaphorical slingshots that will allow it to compete with the subsidies,
infrastructure, functioning credit markets and strong histories of research of large, developed
nations (Wise 2008, 868). The creativity that played a crucial role in the growth of the American
cotton industry could bring David and Goliath to the same, even, level.

References
Johnson, Jennifer L. 2001. "What's globalization got to do with it? Political action and peasant
producers in Guerrero, Mexico." Canadian Journal of Latin America 26, no. 52: 0.
Keleman, A, J Hellin, and M R Bellon. 2009. "Maize diversity, rural development policy, and
farmers' practices: lessons from Chiapas, Mexico." The Geographical Journal 175, no.
1:52-70.
This article seeks to investigate the impacts of recent agricultural and rural development
policies on key social processes that determine maize diversity, focusing particularly on
La Frailesca (a commercial and semi-subsistence maize-growing region in southern
Mexico). Analysis is based on qualitative data collected via focus group discussions,
semi-structured interviews, and participant observation in four villages at intervals over
a 2-year period as well as semi-structures interviews with local and state policy makers.
The authors argue that market liberalization has resulted in diversified livelihood options
including temporary/permanent migration as well as narrowing agro-ecological
conditions, highlighting relevant information on post-NAFTA effects. A wealth of
valuable statistics are available in this source.
Keleman, Alder. 2010. "Institutional support and in situ conservation in Mexico: biases against
small-scale maize farmers in post-NAFTA agricultural policy." Agriculture and Human
Values 27:13-28.
Through a case study in Alamos, Sonora and literature review, Keleman, a graduate
from the Yale School Forestry & Environmental Studies, explores the changed
relationships between farmers and agricultural support institutions post-NAFTA.
Keleman argues that farmers options for accessing support that might help conserve
maize landraces in situ have been constrained in the post-NAFTA context. A lack of
research and technological assistance, and limited collective action represent significant
limitations to farmers options for accessing new techniques that might help maintain
maize diversity in the context of economic and environmental change.
King, Amanda. 2007. "Trade and Totomoxtle: Livelihood strategies in the Totonacan region of
Veracruz, Mexico." Agriculture and Human Values 24:29-40.
King, a graduate seeks to investigate the impact of NAFTA on Mexican maize and wheat
farmers through an analysis of broad impacts on the local agricultural economy and
more specific effects on the management and role of maize in the Zona Totonaca.
Through this case study, King argues that broad-scale economic changes and shifting

10

market incentives can have adverse but also unpredictable repercussions on local
livelihoods. King argues that the commercialization of maize husks is shown to be a
temporary solution for the relief of rural poverty and also important in conserving
reservoirs of genetic diversity.
Nadal, Alejandro. 2002. "Zea Mays: Effects of Trade Liberalization of Mexico's Corn Sector." In
Greening the Americas: NAFTA's Lessons for Hemispheric Trade. USA: The MIT Press,
143-162.
Njehu, Njoki Njoroge. 2005. Globalization: A Path to Global Understanding or Global
Plunder? In Critical Globalization Studies, edited by Richard P. Appelbaum and William
I. Robinson, (New York: Routeledge), 397-402
Norberg-Hodge, Helena, Todd Merrifield and Steven Gorelick. 2002. Bringing the Food
Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing
Co.
Perlman, Janice E. 2007. Globalization and the Urban Poor. Research Paper No. 2007/76.
United Nations University, UNU-WIDER.
Poff, Deborah C. 2010. Ethical Leadership and Global Citizenship: Considerations for a Just
and Sustainable Future. Journal of Business Ethics 93, Special Issue 1: 9-14.
Preibisch, Kerry L, Gladys Rivera Herrejon, and Steve L Wiggins. 2002. "Defending Food
Security in a Free-Market Economy: The Gendered Dimensions of Restructuring in
Rural Mexico." Human Organization 61, no. 1: 68-76.
In this article, its reputable authors seek to examine how major changes to Mexican
agricultural policy have been negotiated in Emilio Portes Gil (EPG) following
liberalization of the maize markets. EPG is an indigenous Mexican community of the
central highlands. On the bases of changes in the production of maize, Preibisch argues
that despite strong disincentive to corn production, farming households continued to
plant corn. Preibisch identifies the value of maize as food security for women, cultural
preference and increased value of maize within the local economy as reasons for this
trend.

11

Rivoli, Pietra. 2009. The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines
the Markets, Power and Politics of World Trade. Second Edition. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
"The Americas: Tariffs and tortillas; Mexico and NAFTA." 2008. The Economist, January 26,
2008.
Weisbrot, Mark, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen. 2003. The Scorecard on
Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress. Social Policy 33, 3:42.
Wise, Timothy A. 2011. "Mexico: The Cost of U.S. Dumping." NACLA Report on the Americas
44 :47-48.
The article explains the spike in imports following the formation of NAFTA and seeks to
determine the cost of U.S. dumping to Mexican producers through statistics. Wise, a
reputable researcher and Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global
Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, argues that Mexicos own
agricultural policies were a large part of the problem that resulted in massive Mexican
losses. Specifically, the unenforced tariff-quota and inefficient subsidies were fatal.
Wise, Timothy A. 2009. Promise or Pitfall? The Limited Gains From Agricultural Trade
Liberalization for Developing Countries. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36, 4 : 855-870

12