Journal of Business Economics

, Volume 84, Issue 9, pp 1211–1235 | Cite as

Globalization, greed, and exploitation. How to break the baleful path?

Original Paper

Abstract

During the last decades, a globalized and free market economy has become the worldwide accepted paradigm for organizing economic affairs. Indeed many positive effects of globalization have materialized and improved the wellbeing of humans, particularly in the poorer parts of the world. However, there is a dark side to globalization—negative external effects, e.g. the exploitation and destruction of natural resources—that is causing growing discontent (e.g. Stiglitz, Globalization and its discontents. Penguin, London, 2002). Different initiatives have been taken in order to deal with the deficits of globalization but have not yet resulted in a resounding success. This paper deals with the downsides of globalization and is not telling a “success story”. For this reason, it is a scholarly article and an essay at the same time, dealing with its subject sometimes from a personal point of view. After presenting some examples for negative side effects of our current economic system, it is argued that capitalism is not only promoting growth through innovation, but that it follows a path of greed and exploitation. Building on path dependence theory, self-reinforcing mechanisms are identified that lead into a lock-in of the current path and make it hard to alter its course. Against this background, three suggestions to tackle the deficits of globalization are presented and critically discussed—the Principles for Responsible Education (PRME), the attempt to restrict globalization (e.g. Steingart), and the implementation of a global governance system (e.g. Homann). Finally, a careful conclusion is drawn: A sequenced approach of education, sanction, and institution building might be the best solution to fasten up the slow moving process of fixing the shortcomings of globalization. It has to be clearly understood that this is not a contribution aimed against globalization and global competition. However, the issues raised in this article urgently need to be addressed. It logically follows that further research is needed in time.

Keywords

Globalization Education Institutions 

JEL Classification

F60 

References

  1. Alchian A (1950) Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. J Polit Econ 58:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99:116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur WB (1994) Increasing returns and path dependency in the economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker G (1957) The economics of discrimination. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckman CM, Burton MD (2008) Founding the future: path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organ Sci 19:3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogan CE, English MJ (1994) Benchmarking for best practices. Winning through innovative adaptation. Mc Graw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Boxwell RJ (1994) Benchmarking for competitive advantage. Mc Graw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Britannica (2014) Essay, encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/192869/essay. Accessed 10th June 2014
  9. Coleman JS (1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. Am J Sociol 91(1986):1309–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David PA (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75:332–337Google Scholar
  11. Denzau AT, North DC (1994) Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47(1994):3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haase, M., Roedenbeck, M., Söllner, A. (2009), A sketch of a mechanism-based explanation of cognitive path processes, lock-in of individual mental models and institutional rigidity, in: Scherer, A.G., Kaufmann, I.M., Patzer, M. (Ed.), Methoden in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Wiesbaden 2009, 21-46Google Scholar
  13. Hiß S (2009a) Corporate social responsibility—innovation Oder tradition? Zum Wandel der gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung von Unternehmen in Deutschland. Zfwu 10(3):287–303Google Scholar
  14. Hiß S (2009) From implicit to explicit corporate social responsibility: institutional change as a fight for myths. Bus Ethics Q 19/3:433–451Google Scholar
  15. Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/MassGoogle Scholar
  16. Homann K (1991) Der Sinn der Unternehmensethik in der Marktwirtschaft. In: Corsten u.a. H (ed) Die soziale dimension der Unternehmung, Berlin, pp 97–118Google Scholar
  17. Homann K (1994) Marktwirtschaft und Unternehmensethik. In: Forum für Philosophie Bad Homburg (Hrsg.), Markt und Moral—Die Diskussion um die Unternehmensethik, Bern u.a., pp 109–130Google Scholar
  18. Homann K (2006) Competition and morality, discussion paper no. 2006-4, edited by Wittenberg-Center for Global Ethics, Zentrum für Globale Ethik e.VGoogle Scholar
  19. Homann K (2007) Globalization from a business ethics point of view. In: Homann, K, Kowlowski P, Luetge C (eds) Globalisation and business ethics, Aldershot, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  20. Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1):46. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/
  21. Kinderman D (2011) ‘Free us up so we can be responsible!’ The co-evolution of corporate social responsibility and neo-liberalism in the UK, 1977–2010. Socio Econ Rev 2011:1–29Google Scholar
  22. Krugman PR (1979) Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. J Int Econ 9(4):469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulik CT, Bainbridge HTJ, Cregan C (2008) Known by the company we keep: stigma-by-association effects in the workplace. Acad Manag Rev 33:216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leibenstein H (1950) Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. Q J Econ 64:183–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mirkovic S (2013) Corporate legitimacy in a postnational constellation. Sitting on the fence between private authority and legitimacy crisis. PhD Thesis, Europa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder)Google Scholar
  27. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. North DC (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Pies I, Hielscher S, Beckmann M (2009) Moral commitments and the societal role of business: an ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Bus Ethics Q 19(3):S375–S401Google Scholar
  30. Rappaport A (1986) Creating shareholder value: the new standard for business performance. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Reagan R (1981) Inaugural address. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=43130. Accessed 20 January 1981
  32. Ricardo D (1817) Principles of political economy and taxation. J.M. Dent & Sons, London/New York, p 1911Google Scholar
  33. Richter R (2011) German “Ordnungstheorie”. In: Annual conference from the Perspective of the New Institutional Economics, ISNIE, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Shleifer A (2004) Does competition destroy ethical behavior? Am Econ Rev 94(2):414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63(2):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SmithA (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Strahan and Cadell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Spiegel-online (2009) Schmutziges Mafia-Geschäft. 120 Behälter Atommüll im Mittelmeer versenkt. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/schmutziges-mafia-geschaeft-120-behaelter-atommuell-im-mittelmeer-versenkt-a-648978.html. Accessed 1 May 2014
  38. Steingart G (2008) War for wealth: the truth about globalization and why the flat world is broken. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Stigler GJ (1987) Competition. In: Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P (eds) The New Palgrave: a dictionary of economics. The New Palgrave dictionary of economics online, Palgrave Macmillan, 27 November 2012, doi:10.1057/9780230226203.2244
  40. Stiglitz J (2002) Globalization and its discontents. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Suchanek A, Waldkirch R (2002) The task of business ethics. Katholische Universität Eichstätt, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät Ingolstadt, IngolstadtGoogle Scholar
  42. Sydow J, Schreyögg G, Koch J (2009) Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Acad Manag Rev 34(4):689–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vogel D (2005) The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. World Bank (2012) Turn down the heat. Why a 4 °C warmer world must be avoided. In: A report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Internationales ManagementEuropa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder)Frankfurt (Oder)Germany

Personalised recommendations