Page 84 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

70 Politics in a Small World

economy in Europe, North America, and East Asia is actually falling,
leading to greater impoverishment for people elsewhere (Amir, 2007 ).
It is in this neo - imperialist context that global governance enhances
the autonomy of over - developed states at the expense of that of post -
colonial states.
The most important factor in this respect is the “ Washington
Consensus, ” shaped by the US Treasury, the World Bank, and the IMF,
that dominated global governance until the late 1990s. It involved neo -
liberal commitment to the creation and extension of markets, and to
decreases in tax and public spending. The “ Washington Consensus ” has

been modified somewhat in recent years, following the global fi nancial
crisis of the 1990s, and talk in the IMF and World Bank is now of “ good
governance ” rather than “ free markets. ” What is sometimes called the
“ post - Washington Consensus, ” though there is some doubt about how
wide this consensus might be, is, however, close to its predecessor in the
restrictions it imposes on state autonomy: by creating conditions for

financial investment to be easily transferred across borders, and making
it necessary for states to take measures (discouraging trade unionism,
creating tax incentives and infrastructure for multinationals) to encourage
business that may go against citizens ’ best short - or long - term interests.
International economic policy is the framework within which states must
set their own national economic policies, regardless of whether most
people within that state agree with it (Fine, Lapavitsas, and Pincus, 2001 ;
Tonkiss, 2005 : 66 – 70).
Where economic policy is negotiated in conditions of gross inequality
in global governance, it is unsurprising that the results impact on the
autonomy of states in radically different ways. First, the leaders of over -
developed economies do not subject themselves to the rules of market
liberalization they attempt to impose on others. Most remarked on recently
are the subsidies North American and European states give to agriculture
in their territories, and the way in which they then dump agricultural
surpluses in developing countries. Both these practices work to prevent
the development of local agricultural markets and global competition.
This is especially problematic in areas where monoculture was established
for imperial trade. Second, the effects of free markets, where they exist,
are different for different economies. Developing economies may need
a level of protectionism and support from state subsidies similar to
that enjoyed by “ infant industries ” in the West which were often them-
selves developed through imperial exploitation and the closing down of
production in the colonies (the British closing down the cotton industry
in India to develop it in Lancashire is the classic example). Third, a large