“Local Economies Should Be Protected from

Globalization”

Helena Norberg-Hodge on her article of “The Case for Localization”, published in Spring

2002 issue of Earth Island Journal, expounds on the fact that the localization and nationalization

of economies are essential in order to withstand the economical troubles and ecological

degradation that globalization beget. The goal of this critique is to emphasize on the main ideas

provided by the author and evaluate whether they are adequate enough to conclude that local

economies should be protected from globalization or not.

Before evaluating the main argument, it would be useful to give a brief summary of the

article. Helena Norberg-Hodge, director of International Society of Ecology and Culture, in the

article focuses on the harmful aspect of globalization. Thus she suggests that, a “U-turn: away

from globalization and toward the strengthening of local and national economies” policy is

crucial for strengthening of the national economy and reducing pollution.

Author in the first paragraph emphasizes on localization, which is about a process for

adapting a product or service for a specific location. N. Hodge takes her argument further in

suggesting that localization does not mean the elimination of trade, but rather would lead to

reduction of waste caused by long-distance trade and transport. To start with, author makes a

sweeping generalisation when she uses the term of localisation. It’s essential to point out how

does she refer to the term? What are the main components and determinants of localization? The

lack of in depth information about terminology used in the article makes the authors argument

less effective. Nevertheless, in order to be able to evaluate this argument, it’s essential to define

the term of “Localization?” Localization, as the opposite of globalization, can be defined as

“limitation of any social, economical, technological, ecological, military, cultural and political

developments that foster the expansion of interests and practices beyond established

boundaries”1. Author by suggesting localization seems reluctant to take into consideration the

great gap that could be created by this process. First of all, preventing the exchange of norms

and practices outside those specific boundaries, especially in economical and technological field

would certainly lead to unbalanced development and unequal distribution of wealth, which in the

long run will make a ground for a great economical deprivation. Moreover, reductions in

technological innovations will definitely lead to increase in the need for transportation that will

enhance the environmental pollution rather than reduce it. Last but not the least; author’s

argument suffers from serious shortcomings with regard to lack of official statistics and

empirical data that proves her statement. Therefore, I strongly believe that author’s argument

could have been regarded as convincing if she had clearly explained the key terms and stated the

official statistical data that confirm her statement.

Author further expounds on the fact that localization shall take place parallel in both the

North (economically developed) and South (poor) regions. Her argument rests on the premise

that while globalization increases the gap between rich and poor, localization will reduce it.

However, Johan Norberg, in his article of “Protecting local economies from globalization is

harmful” claims that, protect local economies are harmful to both poor and rich nations. “Tariffs

and other policies that block the import of food and products from developing nations into

Europe and the United states, deprive people in poor countries of billion of dollars in yearly

export income”2 In addition to this, international organizations such as “EU’s Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) is designed to protect European farmers from competitors in the

developing world and elsewhere”. This is a not policy pursued solely by CAP, but most

developed countries have similar systems. So, in this case author’s claim of “localization needs

to happen simultaneously in both the North and South” becomes meaningless. Moreover, from

1
John Baylis and Steve Smith, “Globalization and Global politics”, 27
2
Johan Norberg, “Wee Need Sincere Free Trade”, p 175-176
her argument it can be concluded that author is seemingly unaware of the significance of

availability of opportunities in that regions. In other words, do these two varied nations have the

same opportunities and facilities to pursue localization policy? The answer to this inquiry would

probably be not. Therefore, it can be concluded that the consequence of localisation in north and

south region will not be the same also. To be more precise, author in the argument fails to

consider the clear difference between the two lands and its consequences, which makes her

argument less efficient.

To sum up ideas illustrated above, author effectively states the problems associated with

globalisation and presents the several factors that can prevent them. However, the arguments

could have been more convincing if she had illustrated more examples and cases based on

statistical and scientific facts. The lack of in depth analysis of arguments and data’s based on

reliable sources makes the article less persuasive and not useful. I suggest that author shall

emphasize more on other and valid reasons to convince the reader that globalisation is actually

harmful and there is an urgent need to protect national and local economies from its bad

consequences.

Work Cited:

1. John Baylis and Steve Smith, “Globalization of World Politics”, New York: Oxford

University Press, 2005

2. Johan Norberg, “Wee Need Sincere Free Trade”, The National Post, Can West

Interactive, Inc and Can West publishing, September 10, 2003.

3. Helena Norberg-Hodge, “The Case for Localization”, Earth Island Journal, vol 17,

Spring 2002, p.47