*{Ten myths about globalization [http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2000/mcormick_speech.asp; note : accédé à partir de http://www.iccwbo.org/home/news_archives/2000/wrong_enemy.asp]
By Richard D. McCormick, Vice President, International Chamber of Commerce Chairman, U.S. Council for International Business 

(From a speech delivered to the annual meeting of the Denver World Trade Center, Denver, Colorado, USA, Sept. 28, 2000)}

In the protestors' view, "globalization" is a form of cannibalism, out to destroy workers' rights, peoples' rights, smaller companies, entire cultures, and the planet itself.

And I'm afraid their demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, Prague and Sydney have left a bad taste in the public's mouth for what is actually an amazing, exciting, peaceful revolution. It's a revolution that is:
raising standards of living throughout the world; bridging age-old gaps between religions and cultures, without weakening them; and, in my view, is the force "most likely to succeed" in building world peace. 

In fact, I think if you could take these activists aside for an hour and tell them the facts about globalization, you could turn around most of them. But I suppose they would rather have their 15 minutes of fame than an hour of education. So you and I, and others at the forefront of this peaceful revolution, must counter the ridiculous myths that are being circulated about globalization.

Globalization is not a dirty word.

I'm going to list what I think are the "top 10 myths about globalization," and what I wish the public knew about them.

Myth #1: Globalization is some kind of "conspiracy" by big companies against smaller countries. It's true, of course, that some companies are bigger, by financial measures, than some countries. That's a testimony to the market-based economy that more and more countries are choosing to adopt. 

But no company or group of companies is calling the shots. 

Consumers are calling the shots, by voting with their money for the products and services they want and need. Those products are made more affordable as factories rise and tariffs fall, all around the globe.

Countries still make the rules. But more and more of them are choosing to make rules that favor trade, because of the good it does.

Companies, on the other hand, just make what they're allowed and encouraged to make.

Myth #2: Globalization is concentrating market power in the hands of a few large corporations. Every day, it seems, we read of new, global mega-mergers, and hear how those mergers are putting a few big companies in control of our markets - and lives.

But in the most recent issue of Harvard Business Review, two professors report on their detailed study of mergers and concentration. They knew the conventional wisdom, even among executives, that "to survive in a global marketplace big companies have to merge with other big companies".

But here's what the professors' data-crunching revealed: "The oil industry is actually far less concentrated today than it was 50 years ago," with more than 20 equal-sized competitors in the field today.

"Analysis of *{…}industries such as zinc, bauxite and copper also reveals decreased global concentration since World War II". 

GM, Ford and Toyota control less of the world's car market today than GM alone controlled in 1950. "From 1988 to 1998, the top five high-tech companies' shares of worldwide sales in *{…}computer hardware, computer software and long-distance telephony *{…}actually declined by almost 30 percent." 

The professors conclude that global mega-mergers seldom produce the "advantages" that executives expect from them - or the evil concentration and cultural "homogenization" that critics fear. Globalization puts market power in the hands of people.  How many of you are exporting, today? And how many of you are among the world's biggest businesses? I would get the same ratio of hands in virtually any city in the world. 

Myth #3: Globalization's 'evil tool' is information technology. Globalization increasingly means the free flow of goods, services, capital, knowledge - and ideas - around the world. Information technology is what makes it work for people. It wasn't tanks that broke down the Berlin Wall. It was ideas *{…}shared by phone calls and faxes and TV.

When US WEST introduced cellular phone service in Hungary, I saw an 80-year-old man cry as he reached the head of the line. He said: "I've waited all my life for this, and I was so afraid I'd die before I got the chance to call my daughter from my own telephone."

In my travels around the world, I've seen people yearning for connections to far-away family members *{…}to the school down the road *{…}the hospital in the next village *{…}the potential employer nearby. 

Not once have I seen anyone in a developing country place his or her first telephone call to Wal-Mart, for a piece of American pop culture!

And if information technology is so evil, I have to ask: In those full-page, "doomsday" ads in the New York Times, decrying the evils of technology, why are the last three things in the ads always a phone number, an Internet locator and an e-mail address?

Their message seems to be: "In your hands, information technology is evil. In mine, it's good."

And I'll digress a moment, here, from "information technology" to "bio-technology": When careful scientific research leads to better ways for people to feed themselves, we need to measure our fear of "Frankenstein" against the specter of starvation.

I think you can blend science and agriculture, and I think we need to do all we can so starving people can feed themselves.

Myth #4: Globalization is 'companies without rules'. If our Seattle critics would calm down and listen, they might realize that businesses are asking for rules: Rules and agreements among the governments and alliances of the world, enabling businesses to meet peoples' needs for goods and services while accommodating the needs for privacy, property rights, environmental protection, fair workplaces and safe investments. 

In some cases, businesses have done a better job of policing themselves, because they know they must meet the public's needs or face unworkable rules laid down by others. 

The bottom line is that businesses want rules that make it possible to serve people, not impossible. 

The alternative is what the protestors claim to fear: anarchy, and the rule of the jungle. 

Myth #5: Globalization takes away jobs. I still haven't heard "that giant 'sucking' sound" that Ross Perot predicted when the U.S. ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

But if I did hear it, I could tell you how to stop it. For developed countries like the United States, continuing to raise peoples' standard of living means we're going to have to keep raising their job skills: teaching more of them to use computers, and their heads, than doing more labor-intensive work. 

Some of that labor-intensive work is gravitating to the developing world - and that's great. It's building their economies, and the demand for our goods and services. 

It's only a very small percentage of developed-world jobs that compete with developing-world jobs. 

But I agree that where jobs are displaced by expanding trade, there should be some kind of "safety net" to help temporarily-displaced workers improve their skills and get new jobs. 

Myth #6: Globalization undermines cultural diversity. My answer to that is: Get on the Internet and type "blankets" or "jewelry" or "sculpture" or "food". You'll discover, as thousands of "bootstrap" businesses and crafts-people around the world have: Globalization expands diversity. 

It gives geographically-isolated crafts-people a worldwide market for their goods and services. It does the same for dances, and dramas. Religions. Political philosophies. And shared interests, as well. 

Yes, it filled our living rooms with Asian-made stereos and TVs. But most of us still play American music and programs.

Yes, globalization brought McDonald's to Hong Kong. But the menu, there, has had to take on a decidedly Asian flavor, as well as giving Asians a new choice.

We get new choices, too. And, most of the time, we like them.

There is no "average" consumer, today. There are thousands of "niche" markets, all flourishing because of their worldwide scale.

So, no! Diversity is not endangered by globalization - it's enriched. 

Myth #7: Globalization lowers labor standards, turning developing nations' workers into 'slaves'. Actually, globalization is raising labor standards. 

A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that foreign corporations pay more than the average wage in every country in which they operate. In Turkey, for example, foreign companies pay 24 percent more than the national average. 

The study also found that the so-called "race to the bottom" does not exist. Companies are not shifting production to countries with low wages, low labor standards and low environmental standards. They're migrating to countries where political freedom and the rule of law provide a stable place to do business. It's really more of a race to the top!

And most international corporations not only have their own standards on issues like child labor - they also require their suppliers to do so, as well. 

The evidence is: Foreign corporations pay more and offer better conditions than local firms. In other words, globalization raises labor standards. 

And if there's an exception to that, we have an International Labor Organization to deal with it.

Myth #8: Globalization is destroying the environment. The ICC is about to release a report that makes an interesting point: "It is the countries which have embraced and promoted globalization - the industrialized democracies - that have done the most to protect the environment."

Granted, some of that has been "complying with government regulation". Granted, there are those who think we should do more. But the point is: It is under democracy that environmental protection has flourished - either because companies made the enlightened choice to protect their resources and communities, or because groups with stricter goals have, through a democratic government, put rules in place. 

Protecting the environment is a global matter that needs to be addressed at the global level - and has been, through several international summits. More are scheduled. Meanwhile, what we accomplish globally is the sum of what we accomplish locally. And it's the industrialized democracies that are accomplishing the most. 

That ICC report notes that "Poland's most difficult - and costly - task in joining the European Union will be to adopt and implement EU standards of environmental protection."

I'm all for preserving precious places. But as Edward M. Graham says his new book, "Fighting the Wrong Enemy - Antiglobal Activists and Multinational Enterprises":
" *{…}a worldwide return to simple, organic, rural lifestyles is no answer at all. Three-quarters of China's population already has this lifestyle *{…}and most of them are desperate to escape."

The answer is raising incomes and living standards, which brings a social commitment to clean air, clean water, and the other amenities that are both advanced and environmentally friendly.

Myth #9: Globalization means multinational corporations will flourish at the expense of smaller companies and consumers. How many "multinationals" do you think there are? Five? Fifty? A hundred and fifty? The ICC staff tells me there are 60,000. Quite a few of those are from developing countries. 

What we're seeing is, as global companies move into local markets, local companies move into global markets. Even the venerable Tetley Tea Company in the United Kingdom is now owned by a conglomerate from India.

Globalization and freer trade make market access easier for everyone - especially small businesses, which are quick to adopt new technologies. 

The big winners, of course, are consumers.

As companies - big and small - compete, consumers get more choices and better prices.

Price increases for global products - like cars, computers and stereos - are smaller than those for local products and services, like haircuts and houses. 

In the OECD countries, between 1980 and 1995, consumer prices increased overall by 175 percent. But prices for internationally-traded goods - the "world trade" stuff - rose by only 40 percent. 

I don't know about you, but I think I'd like to see a little more "globalization" at the check-out counter.

Myth #10: Globalization widens the gap between rich and poor. In the 1950s, the people of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea lived in typical developing-country poverty. But as other developing nations closed their doors to global markets, these four took the opposite approach. Today, and I'm quoting from a magazine called "The World and I": 
" *{…}by deregulating their domestic economies and opening up to global markets, (these) Four Tigers *{…}have achieved standards of living equivalent to that of industrialized nations *{…}with per-capita incomes in Hong Kong and Singapore rivaling those of the wealthiest Western nations."

Thanks largely to globalization, the United Nations Human Development Index, which measures education, income and life expectancy around the world, shows steady improvement. 

Even so, the gap between rich and poor is increasing. Between countries. And within countries. This is an issue we must all be concerned about. But the cause is not globalization. 

The causes include population growth *{…}AIDS *{…}undeveloped social institutions *{…}and governments that try to shut out the outside world. 

So globalization is not one of the problems, but one of the solutions. 

In a thought-provoking, post-Seattle essay in the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman observed that while some of globalization's critics are saying "slow down the world so I can get off,' many developing countries are saying "slow down the world so we can get on."

So it's unfortunate that globalization has become a bad word just because a handful of protestors defined it as "an unfriendly corporate takeover *{…}of the world".

A better definition of globalization, according to economist David Henderson of the Melbourne Business School, is - and I'm paraphrasing from "The World and I":
1. more and more businesses thinking beyond domestic markets;
2. abundant, cheap, international communication - led by the Internet;
3. nations' economies superceding their politics, as in the European Union;
4. a growing tendency to see issues - and solutions - as bigger than countries; and
5. the growth of international standards and rules.

Globalization grew out of the collapse of global communism - with all of its economic controls, and out of developing countries' discovery that shunning foreign investment amounted to economic suicide.

Globalization is most visible, of course, in the opening of markets - the freer flow of goods, services, capital and knowledge, making the world's economy more efficient and producing hundreds of millions of jobs - ultimately helping every country that embraces it. 

Globalization can be good for companies, but also for countries. And, most important: for people. That's not just my view. Listen to the president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, during the recent summit of world leaders at the United Nations. Mr. Obasanjo told an interviewer from The New York Times:
"The wishes of the developing world are simple. We are all living in the same house, whether you are developed or not developed. What we are saying is that some of you in this house are living in super-luxurious rooms. Others are living in something not better than an unkempt kitchen where pipes are leaking and there is no toilet. We are saying: 'Look, in the   interest of all of us, let those who are living in the super-luxurious rooms pay a bit of attention to those who are living where the pipes are leaking, or we'll all be badly affected.' That's the message."

I have not spoken with Mr. Obasanjo, although I hope to meet him in November when I'm in Nigeria. But I do not think he was saying "stop globalization". I think he was saying "share globalization".

"Stop the world so we can get on."

That is our task, in the International Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business. That is your task, in the Denver World Trade Center. 

We need to bring the benefits of modern civilization, through trade, to all the peoples of the world. And so, I am - unashamedly - a "globalist". 

I have observed that, when I sit down at board meetings of the International Chamber of Commerce, I do not see my associates wearing their "Lebanon" and "United States" and "India" hats. I do not see "Christian" and "Buddhist" and "Jewish" and "Muslim" and "Hindu" hats. 

I see people, whose hopes and dreams for their grandchildren are the same as mine; people who see globalization not as "the enemy," but as the best hope, yet of bringing us together for the good of all. 

*{Mr. McCormick is the retired chairman and CEO of U S WEST Inc., now Qwest. He is slated to become president of the ICC on Jan. 1.}