'The question I want to discuss here is whether ‘communities’ can play a positive role in the context of globalization. There is a need to bridge gaps between people and societies around the world. As community members, we can all contribute. How?'
Thoughts from Hein Bogaard, development economist and member of the Junior Round Table

by Hein Bogaard—The Netherlands

In the Sixties, the baby boomers in Western Europe and North America sang about peace and togetherness and fought for the right to choose their lives. Once in their 40s and in powerful positions in politics and business, members of this generation used precisely the freedoms they had battled for to promote and live an unprecedented individualism. Consumerism was the buzzword of the Nineties, with regard to things to buy and in relation to society and its institutions.

Now, Western societies re-evaluate the value of personal identification in politics, the importance of belonging to communities and a religion and the need to know the origins of what we eat, drink and wear. Generation X, the ones who grew up in the age of individualism, play an important role in the return to communities.

In an era of globalization of the economy and politics, the quest for personal identification, the formation of communities, is not exclusively positive. Indeed, in some parts of Western Europe, isolationist trends emerge—in the debate about immigration, for example, or in ‘buy local’ campaigns.

The question I want to discuss here is whether ‘communities’ can play a positive role in the context of globalization. There is a need to bridge gaps between people and societies around the world. As community members, we can all contribute. How? It is scary but simple: just do it! This issue was the focus for a discussion of the Junior Round Table during the annual Caux Conference for Business and Industry on July 22 in Caux, Switzerland. The views expressed below are informed by that discussion—and I am grateful for having heard a range of views and experience—but they are mine.

The age of communities

The Eighties and Nineties were the age of economic liberalization, cutbacks in social security, transition in the former planned economies of Eastern Europe and economic liberalization. Even the successors of Thatcher and Reagan, including Blair, Clinton and social democrat governments in continental Europe, won elections with pledges to respect the market economy and limit the role of the state. They were the baby boom generation in power: during the Sixties, this generation preached Marx, community living and liberty and went to India; during the Nineties they took the liberty of seeking personal wealth, including in India, and they spread the word about more and bigger cars and the Dow Jones Index.

On a global scale, the frictions of the system revealed themselves in financial crises in Mexico, Asia, Russia and then back to the Americas in Brazil, Argentina and the US. But until recently, no one in the West ever felt the pain. The same applies to continuing poverty in Africa and India. Of course, the pain of 9/11, Enron and WorldCom is felt by Western citizens.

However, even before these events I observed a remarkable change with regard to the individualism of the Nineties. In my own neighbourhood, it is allowable and even normal to talk about religion and to go to church. People make a big thing of cooking for each other and are active in NGOs and local charities. These are personal observations, but in society at large one sees similar movements. In recent elections in The Netherlands a new populist party, named for its late leader Pim Fortuyn, emerged strongly. Appealing to resentment against multiculturalism and technocratic government, it took 23 of 150 seats in parliament. The Christian Democrats, traditionally promoting family values and civil society, almost doubled their share to 43 seats. Although opinions differ as to whether the (re-) emergence of either or both of these parties is a positive development, the election result reflects a search for community values and personal identification. The same is true of the rise of consumer associations taking on multinational companies, politicians like Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi and the growing role of local and international NGOs in development co-operation.

Communities and globalisation

The re-emergence of communities is also a response to the effects of globalization. People feel powerless if companies decide to outsource their work to India, if foreign meat is infected by BSE or foot and mouth, or if they cannot find out whether the T-shirt they buy is made by eight-year-olds. Similarly, states co-operate in the European Community, in the New Partnership for African Development or the North American Free Trade Association to strengthen their position. Companies merge, creating conglomerates to survive in the global economy.

In turn, communities have an impact on the process of globalization. As Noreena Hertz describes in her book The Silent Takeover, the emergence of multinational companies shifts the power from government ministers to CEOs. And consumer boycotts affect the behaviour of these multinationals. The clustering of countries in Mercosur (the trade pact between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), the North American Free Trade Association and the European Union impedes access of external products to their markets. Consumer action to abolish child labour may push children into even less desirable occupations, including prostitution. At the same time, co-operation among African governments makes them a credible partner for the powerful members of the Group of 8. Trade unions are more powerful when they unite across borders and a big company such as Shell is better able to stand up against government officials asking for bribes than a local oil producer.

Just as globalization ameliorates as well as threatens our way of living, communities can play positive and negative roles.

Living in the age of communities

We are all member of communities: official, such as the country we live in, the company we work for, or more informal such as the neighbourhood, religious groups, consumer organisations and our family. Between them, community members can exchange information, teach and learn, help each other with money and moral support. Because they share values or interests, community members identify with each other and feel mutual responsibility for their well-being. With respect to other communities, a community is more powerful than individual community members and can promote its values by giving examples. In addition, we can establish new communities. The emergence of a global movement against globalization is a living proof. All this applies to Western societies as well as countries in, for instance, Eastern Europe, where individualism is (still) the flavour of the day.

What can we do to utilise our community membership to the benefit of the globe and the people living on it? Within existing groups, we can help other members in need and try to convince the community as a whole to ‘do the right thing’. This may sound abstract, but in fact it is easy and we can begin small scale. On a very basic level it involves little more than giving a euro to a homeless person, or to tell your brother that he should not drop his chewing gum on the street. On a higher level, Proctor & Gamble and other companies develop community programs wherever they produce. And, for those of us living in rich countries, we can use our vote in support of parties favouring development assistance.

We can also build new communities in response to emerging problems or opportunities. Again, this is easy at the local level, where we could decide to buy only local products, because we know where they come from, who sells them, who made them, et cetera. However, in a globalizing world, that may be selfish, excluding the products from poorer countries made by poorer people who are in need of a market to sell. So we can choose to buy products that benefit producers in the developing countries.

The challenge of a globalized world is to build global communities and to recognise the interests of others locally. Fortunately, globalization provides us with the physical and virtual means to meet potential members of a global community. Ironically, the anti-globalization movement is one example of a successful attempt to create a global community. Consumer action against Shell in response to the Brent Spar case is another example. But in the end, even writing a letter to a friend on the other side of the world, to ask him about what you have read about his country in the paper, helps. Establishing and maintaining such a global community enables you to understand what is really going on. It puts you in a position to inform the debate on globalization in the other communities you participate in.

To utilise the adage of one of these other champions of globalization: Just do it!

Hein Bogaard is an economist working and living in The Hague, The Netherlands, and is a member of the Junior Round Table, a program of Initiatives of Change.

What do you think? Send your comments to Caux Initiatives for Business.