This book has two objectives.

The first is to present salient aspects of globalization in a way that is accessible to readers who are not necessarily familiar with this subject.Our second objective is to provide a general view of globalization by presenting eight specific casesour stories of globalization. Macroquantitative analyses have often been attacked for their inability to analyze the social, historical, cultural, and geographical particularities of globalization, and for their tendency to dissolve heterogeneous experiences and conditions into far-reaching generalizations. Simultaneously, microanalyses have been criticized for generalizing specific cases to other settings and to society as a whole. In effect, the most common objection to qualitative microanalyses has been to their assumed limited capacity to extrapolate general tendencies from circumscribed observations.While the limits of these macro- and microstudies are well known and have been addressed through a wealth of epistemological arguments, alternative approaches have infrequently been sought.We have focused on the agriculture and food sector, arguably one of the most globalized sectors in contemporary society. vii-viii First, agrifood is one of the most globalized sectors in the contemporary economy.the prod and consumption of agrifood products are a truly global affair.1

Finally, the study of the agrifood sector is particularly interesting because, although it is one of the most *Fatima sectors of the economy, its 'local" importance is considered paramount for the well-being of communities in North America and other parts of the world. Arguably, the Local-global link is much more visible in agrifood than in a number of other socioeconomic sectors. 2

From an economic and social point of view, a first step to lie taken in the study of globalization is the identification of salient actors involved in the process and the sociohistorical contexts within which they operate. For this book, we selected three key protagonists of globalization: transnational corporations (rna). groups who resist them, and the state, which constitutes the primary mechanism through which the relationship between MN and their opponents unfolds. The state is typically seen in terms of its relation-

ship with corporations and those who resist them, but also in terms of the emergence of new transnational forms of the state and alternative entities that have been taking over some of the historical roles of the state (i.e., nongovernmental organizations, or mos). We maintain that globalization is both a political projecta more or less orchestrated design to enhance the free mobility of capital worldwideand a historical phenomenon characterized by the implementation of this political project and the resistance that it engenders. We further define globalization as the complex process of the transnaticinalixation of social relations centered around the establishment of conditions that favor, and are characterized by, the growth of rncs, fresmarket-miented policies that promote their growth, and the multifaceted resistance that the expansion of rots generates.2

Our approach further identifies the origins of globalization in the crisis of Fordism, the socioeconomic form of capitalism that emerged in the early twentieth century and reached its peak in the first two decades after World War H. Fordismlike globalizationdoes not refer simply to a system of organization of production. Following Gramsci's classical definition, we maintain that Fordism refers to a highly rationalized form of capitalism char-

acterized by mass production, mass consumption, and vertical integration,

but also to a new culture and, equally important, new political arrange-

ments.4

interventionist state successfully sustained steady growth, balancing mass production and mass consumption, while private companies generated very high levels of productivity by refining widely instituted Taylarist strategies. Managers substantially enhanced their technical control by further centralizing and rationalising the labor process. While this strategy sharpened the distinction between production workers and managerial, professional, and technical employees, the labor force was pacified by steadily increasing wages, job security, opportunity for advancement, and expanding welfare (Harvey 1989; Lipiet. 1992). This Fordist capitalism combined highly rationalized, centralized, and vertically integrated firms with nationwide unions and a substantially expanded state; it had highly specialized and mechanized production, bureaucratized firms, extensive planning, and top-to-bottom bureaucratic control. ...the high fordist state employed advanced keynesian policies of much r9oader fiscal controls, socioeconomic plans regul;ation, and health, education, and welfare.5

Fordism 60larin sonuna kadar doruk noktasini yasadi, snr new social moedments rise etmesiyle fordist staility ozuldu, rise of the third world, eco downturns, increasing cost of the welfare system, increasing competitiveness international markets 6 The new conditions that have emerged from the crisis of fordism have been grouped under the concept of globalization. The globalization of economy and society entailed a number of strategies to revive capital accumula-

tion. McMichael (2002) refers to this process as the "globalization project." From a socioeconomic view point, globalization's most decisive aspect has

been increased"flexibility" on a global scalemobile capital, free to colonize and commodity practically every sphere, has shattered relatively fixed social and temporal-spatial boundaries and has decentralized production. Production is to a much greater extentbut not exclusivelydecomposed into subunits and sultpre elution processes, carried out by globally dispersed horns with highly divergent forms of labor, managerial, and financial organizations that may even follow traditional and local business practices and customs. More important, global companies are able to select strategies that fit their interests with an unprecedentedalthough not totalfreedom. This freedom is the primary result of the implementation of free market policies,

reduced forms of regulation, favorable economic incentives, and an overall cultural climate that welcomes xorporate moility and autonomy.7

These structural changes were justified by the adoption of neoliberalism as the guiding political ideology of globalization, Introduced as the necessary antidote to the agonizing Keynesianism and its ideological justification for state intervention in the economic and the social spheres, neoliberalism

stressed the inevitable nature of deregulation and marketiaation of social

relations and the overwhelming positive effects that they generate for all components of society., While the virtue of the "free" functioning of the market had been proposed in the past, neoliberal theorists argued that new technological developments (Le., computers and the Internet) and global political conditions (the end of the cold war) had created a situation in which past obstacles to the realization of "true free market and society" were eliminated and no serious alternatives to neoliberalism and corporate capitalism could he imagined (Friedman 2000; Fultnyama 1992; Smith 2007).8

Globalization is not a globalized system; it is a system of global mobility and global actions that operates in reaction to conditions that manifest themselves in local and regional enclaves. More specifically, globalization is a project to revive capital accumulation and thereby counter many of the successes of democratic social movements that Limited the ability of corporations to maintain profitable business operations. 9

Because many of the traditional forms and actors through which resistance was carried out during the Fordist era have been weakened, however, its most salient form has been grassroots-based resistance that emerged "from below." The creation of the "anbiglabalization" movement, with its multicultural and multifaceted membership and its network-based, flexible organization, symbolizes this type of resistance. The case studies presented in the following pages illustrate some instances'of this type of resistance and highlight the different ways in which they originated. 9

Our choice stresses different readings of the three major actors explored in the hook: transnational corporations, groups that resist them, and the statu. We organize the literature on globalization into three groups: (a) authors who are skepticaL about the analytical importance of the concept of globalization and prefer to see it as a continuation of long-established trends (grand duree); (b) those vvho see iNcs as the actors with the most power in terms of either shaping the behavior of other social actors or opening opportunities of development and prosperity for a significant segment of the world (corporate domination); and (c) those who see globalization as a problematic and contradictory phenomenon (contradictory dimension of globalization), 18

Grand Duree The yrdnd duree camp consists of authors who make one or more of the following arguments about globalization: (I) globalization has existed for centuries; (2) it hds not transformed the fundamental functioning cif capital-ism; and (3) it remains centered on the power of the nationstate. For authors who write within this paradigm, globalization affected only the "form," rather than the "substance," through whicli society is reproduced. For instance. Christopher ChaseDunn (1998) illustrates the basic assumptions of the grand duree thesis through his apptication of the world-system perspective to the study of globalization. 18

Leslie Sklair:Employing a class analysis, Leslie Sklair (2001) defines globalization as a process orchestrated and controlled by the transnational capitalist class, or To-. White resistance exists and is in fact fostered by the expansion of globMization, the Tcc is in firm control of today's society and economy.. Robinson proposes a very similar thesis of globalization tied to the emergence of the TCC. For Robinson, however, the TLC. should itictudt only those who own the means of production and should exclude professional and middle-class groups (2004, 35). The TCC, he maintains, is a capitalist group that controls transnational capital. Apart from this difference, the argument developed by Robinson in a number of works published in recent years (see for example 2001 and 199 ) remains remarkably similar to that of klair. Like Skla-ir, Robinson writes from a Marxian point of view. However, the emergence of a transnational capitalist class is also stressed by non-Marxian theorists. A relevant example is the work of David Becker and Richard Sklar and their associates on the theory of "postimperialism" (see Becker and Sklar 1999; Becker 1999; Sklar 1999 and 1976; Myers 1999). Becker and Sklar define the current gtol:Pat system as postirriperialist to indicate the creation of a transnational system that transcends the division of the world into nations. Accordingly, the idea that one or few nations can dominate other nations (imperialism) is obsolete. This postimperialrist world is 29 Change

The major changes from previous pha.ses of capitalism are the emergence of the TCC and TNCS. The TCC is divided :1-Lto four groups: executives of nics (the corporate group); globalizing bureaucrats and politicians (the state group); globalizing professionals the technical group); and merchants and the media the consumerism group),' The nes four groups cooperate together to advance the globalization project and to clarinet the primary crises of the era: class polarization and the ecological crisis. In order to operate successWily in any given territory.. iv executives require the support of members of the other three groups. AccordingEy, politicians, bureaucrats, and professionals are called into action to justify procorporate policies to their national constituencies. This is often carried out by stressing Lite benefits that corporate investment would generate for the nation. This is a deceptive posture, however, as Tric.s are not linked, nor do they offer allegiance, to any particular nalion-state. In effect, Sidair contends, to further their global profitability, TNCS seek partners from an array of national enclaves and build their global networks through the recruitment c..)f politicians, hureducriats, and professionals front dive se national backgrounds. This apparent inclusiveness allows TNCS to broaden their scope of action and gain suppnrt for their actions. The result is that the current form of capitalism is global It is global also because current arrangements cannot be defined in terms of a nzitionat economyan economy sewing an exc1usive1y sovereign national market nor can they be defined in terms of an international economy, om in which pure national economies trafk among themselves. Current conditions are based on social relations that transcend nationa' and the international hountiarie , a global economy exists, however., it does not operate

unitoTmly around the work', as different counties and regions experience different outcomes of the growt.h of TNCS and the Tf:c. Causes For Sklair, the growth of the global capitalist system is the outcome of the crisis of capital accumulation of the 1970s. Reagan's and Thatcher's neoliberal policies of the 1980s represented the proposition of a multifaceted (economic, ideoh,gical, and political) global project aimed at restarting capital accumulation., while responding to cha lien es coming from, and the power of, subordinate groups, particularly labor., This neoliberal proposition repre-

sented a new .-legemonic strategy aimed at establishing the domination of

characterized by transnational class formation based on the tendency of dominant social classes in different countries to coalesce, that is, to combine with one another in pursuit of their common interest? (1999, 3). While the emergence of a transnational working class is embryonic and facilitated by the crisis of existing labor organizations (see Myers 1999), the emerging transnational bourgeoisie is much more unified and purposeful than any other class. Sharply departing from Sklar's and Robinson's argument about the negative socioeconomic effects of the TCC, Becker and Sklar maintain that its development promotes more, rather than less,. equitable development among countries because it moderates the global distribution of wealth., For a similar view about globalization's reduction of economic inequality wotldwid.f2. see rizebaugh and Goesling (2004). the Tcc. The new global. system was based on the spatial and technical dispersal of the production process in a variety of discrete phases. This mobility of capital allowed TNCS to avoid production dependence on one particutar factory and/or workforce and therefore to control resistance honk below. Sklair notes that TN& actions have been "too powerful for the local. organiza.tion of tabor" (2001, 2138). Because of TN& mobility, the threat of lost jobs allowed corporations to enhance control over the labor force. Workers were required to work harder and longer.. and received less pay, in order to meet international. competition, This "rare to the bottom" turned out to be one of the most powerful strategies at the disposal. of TNCS. This system has been supported by the ideology of consumerism, an ideoLogy of domination that equates "quality of Life" and "social peace" with the "ability to consume: and defines our existence in terms of what we possess. The effort to expand the ideo1ogy of consumerism involved the development of inclusionary and good citizenship claims. Sklair maintains that the idea that globalization and localization are mutually exclusive is groundless. mcs are not necessarily interested in destroying the local. They cite interetecl in making profits. Accordingly, the local is used to enhance sales and promote products that, either directly or indirectly, refer to andler find in the local a profitable market. TNCS often "localize" their operations to take on the semblance of lucat operations. In essence, it is more advantageous for TNCS to include than to exclude various locales and local groups in the project of mass consumption. Transnational Corporation. TNCS are the. dominant actors in the global capitalist systerri. The gtobal scope of TNCS rests on three basic conditions. First, it is extremely difficult to clearly link ownership of a TNC tO a specific nation-state. White it is possible to identify the national origins of rnanagment in one corporationfor instance, only a fevy-:By_ and Toyota executives are foreigners ownership remains linked to stockholdelL ii.vho operate in stock markets guided by the priority of making profits. Profit making does not recognize national bound-

aries. Second, the fact that a company is identified with a nation does not prevent it from gtobalizing its operations, nor does it change its relationship with any local context within which the company operates. As Robert Reich (1991) has written, Sklair stresses that, "as far as American prosperity is concerned, Toyota plants in the USA were more American than Gm plants in Japan" (Sklair ?OW., 142). Third, the connection between TN& actions and national interests is often expressed as the globalization project advances within national territories_ It is possible., therefore, clearly to distinguish TNCS from multi national coiporations, Multinational corporations are companies that have strong national attachments and whose international subsidiaries are branches of the national corporation* iNcs are corpoTations that globalize their operations through denationalization. They have no specific attachment to their nations of origin and their global units are not extensions of the home base. Iii effect, the distinction between home-based and foreign operations be blurred to the point that is it virtually impossible to distinguish between the two, Sklair contends that as long as the world is made up of nation-states, corporations cannot operate without considering those states. There is thus no such thing as a completely stateless (purely global) corporation. The overwhelming majority of the top corporations in the world want to globalize their operations. Siclair maintains that we should tan< about globatizing, rather than global, corporations; TNCS are globalizing corporations. Because claims of social irresponsibility on the part of 7NCS can threaten their market share of consumption,. 7NCS must promote an image that shows social responsibilitythat is, good citizenship. Siclair maintains that r!..412spursue a four-component strategy of global_ citizenship: 0) corporate gayernaRCQ: (TNC2; inli.St tic, responsible for Ole vird.1-beirty of theft iniployees); (2) community development (rNics must be responsible for the well being of the communitie.s associated with corporate operations): (3) health anti safety (they must address health and safety issues for consumers and employees: and (4) environmental concerns (the. y 3rust maintain an environmentally responsible posture). The T CC thus actively promotes an ideology of sustainble development that reconciles TNCS profit-making interests with social, economic, and envirortmental. responsibility. According to this ideology, sound environmental practices and corporate interests are viewed as reconcilable. In addition, the environmental crisis is seen as a set of discrete crises that can be addressed ndividziaHy.. The ides that contemporary society faces a singular environmental crisis is rejected altogether. Environmental groups interested in this vision are supported by corporate actions and become part of the sustainable development hegernonic bloc. Because corporate poticies have increasingly been recognized as more sensitive to the environment than they used

to her Sklair concludes that the corporate hegemonic project of sustainable deve[opment is successful in contemporary gtobal capi:atism, Outlook KCS and the T CC have created a hegernonic bloc that allows them to dominate social and economic relations in the global capitalist system, but certain sod al groups and movements resist this llegentonic Mot: by denouncing and attacking corporate practices. The process of resistance has a twofold set. at implications. First, it forces TNCS, nation-states, and othei institutions and organizations that support the Ti ; to modify their actions to meet the requests of anticorporate groups. 'The resistance of opposition groups has led iNcs to Lake some steps toward democratic governance and practices. Second, anticorporate resistance denounce5 the limits of the globalization project and its nega4,:ive soda', consequences. Each corporate action, Sklair maintai T1S, can potentially trigger opposition and the public denunciation of ta.bor exploitation, human rights violations, and envitonmental. degiadation. The future of social relations under globalization will be determined by the outcome of the struggle between the .11:c and opposition group s and movements. 29-33 For Sassen (1995, 1998, 200), globalization features the denationalization of socioeconomic processes, which generates a crisis of national sovereignty. Denationalization refers to the "offshoring" of economic activities engineered to enhance corporate platit and promoted as a toot to revitalize national economies. The crisis of sovereignty refers to the growing inability of the riatioit-sLaie to control socioeconomic processes that now unfold largely out5ide its regulatory umbre[14. The contradictory dimension of this situation rests on the fact that the nation-staters pursuit of econc-mic well-being is canied out through processes of deregulation and liberalization that Limit the nation's sovereignty, A in the case of other aspects of globalization, this process does not take place in the same way in- every sector or in developed and developing regions, Globalization is not a homogenous pi.ocess. Change In developed countries economic globalization signified the transfer of pro-

duction and service facilities across national borders. This process makes it difficult for nation states to collect taxes and enforce regulations, SinuAtaneously, however, the sites of corporate headquarters remain concentrated

in developed countries Accaidingly,

1.vhile production is decentralized, con-

trol_ stays in selected geographicaL areas. The result is that the potential_ for democTatic decentralization of economic activities is denied for a situation in vellich highl. integrated corporate structures concentrate profit appropriation. In developing cour.trie denationalization consists primarily in the creation of trade and export manufacturing zones designed to attract global investments. iarcs locate facilities without being !subjected to local taxes and regulations. in this case there is a de facto abaten-.ent cif the jurisdiction of the nation-state, -v.,thich tIanstats into a denationalization of the area. While the circulation of commodities and the globiil spread tif r3Ioduction processes pxulifelate, attempts to control the circulation of labor Sasser con-

trasts the globalization of production and financial. capital with the nationalization of politicsthe lifting of border commits for capital and goods and the tightening of restrictions on the MObility of tabor. Nation-states reassert their claims over the control cif national torritories. The global search for more profitable investments worldwide has created disinvestment in middleclass jobs. This situation promotes the search for profitable short-term opportunities rather than tong-term socioeconomic development, which diminishes the financial capacity of nation-states to maintain entitlements at their Fordist levels, Finally, the giubalization of the economy and society has eroded Wetfate state entitlements and citizen access to publicly funded economic and social support.

Causes

Must of the teatures associated with globalization are the outcome of corporate actions. TNCS responded to established forms of social and economic gayernance characterized by social spending and regulation deemed too high to guarantee acceptabi.e profit Levels. 'MB thus moved p:oductiori offshore and concentrated finance and znanagerlat control in selected regions of the advanced world. But globalization, in Sassen's view, cannot be. attributed simply to Tlicsi tendency to transnationallize productiom it is the outcome of broader forces in a complex aryl evolving situation. In particular, alient ion should be paid to the fact that nationstates themselves have been promoters of processes that "opened" local economies and societies.' More spicificaRy, deregulation of economic and social po(icies has limited the effectiveness of stateengineered forms of control. Deregulation has generated the proliferation of global financial markets, which has greatly diminished the ribility of nation-states to control the economy, For instance, the emergence of foreign exchange and bond markets has reduced the capacity it central banks to regulate nations' interest rates, which are now affected more by market fkuctuations than by the decisions of central bank.s.

Transnationof Corporations These corporations have decentralized production by dispersing pmduction units worldwide to take advantage of favorable conditions of pm:ILK:IA(1H. This geographical dispersal of factories is paralleled by the concentration of corporate operations. In effect, Tiqcs' dispersal of productive operations requires a s rstern. of coordination and control. that is achieved largely through pioces.3es of concentration of central fu.nctIonsi.e,, planning, financial, rnanageriaL, legal, and accounting functions necessary for the operation of firms. These functions have been concentrated in developing countries. MS' push to glabalize their operations has been a strategic move to increase profits by using advantageous conditions and factors of production and avoid stringent national and/or local regulations. While TNCS have been suc-

cessful in reducing the powers of nation-states and their ability to regulate, they still need systems of coordination and .regulationfal example, they still need the guarantee of propertyrights and contracts that allow commod-

5. This point has been stressed by a number of authors who have explored the globaliza.tion. of the economy and society. Employing the case of the North American garment industry, Gereffi and his associates (Gereffi, Spener, and Bair 2002) argue that the development of global production chains has been enhanced by the "opening" of the economies of less developed regions. In the case of the garment industry, the opening of the economies of Mexico and other Central American countries, and the concomitant alaandonrrEent of "Fordise economic measures, have facilitated the decentralization of production once carried out in the 1.1rLited States. The hypermobility of INC capital, therefore, is not simply the outcome of corporate strategy but a much more complex proces-5 in which nation-states and their neoliberal principles play a significant role, ities and assets to be moved globally. These functions were once performed by the nation-state. Today there is a tendency to transfer these organizational functions to private transnational institutions and regimes that establish new forms of regulations heavily affected by liberalist ideology. Outlook Globalization dois not automatically mean that the natioli-state is withering away. Global phenomena do manifest themselves in national territory and are mediated by national institutions and cultures. Additionally, the destabilization of sovereignty through denationalization of territories does not signal an ovezall inability to control global processes. Sovereignty has been decentralized and partialLy redistributed to other entities. Some of these entities are trarisnaiunal political organizations such as the European Union, and sorne are international agreements and processes such as the international agreements on human rights. Others are networks of smaller geographical entities such as cities. Because flexible *bat flows must and do materialize at the local level, the centers where these materializations occur more frequently (i.e.., the global cities) represent important new components of the global system, Owing to the fact that both supranational organizations and networks are needed ior the continuous growth of capital_ accumulation, it is at these levels that new farms of resistance and democratization can be and ultimatety are developed. 47-50 The tuna-dolphin controversy covers a thirty-year struggle beLtween environ-

mental_ groups, transnationai. corporations (nics), tuna fishermen, and vaTious nation-states and_ supranational organizations to define the regulations of the eastern tropicLit Pacific (ET) tuna fishery, The focus of the controversy is the Marine Mammal Protection Act o! 1972 (MMPA). the "dolphin-safe' label on tuna calls is an outcome of this strugg[e and the first ecolabet for fisheries products. This chapter traces the history of the tunadolphin controversy arid the resulting debate over M.MPA to make three analytical points !egar ding globalization. The first is that globalization is characterized by the power aid growth of TNCS. The tuna-dolphin controversy demonstrates that tuna TNCS exeIcised considerable power in the industry and over the nation-state by taking advantage of the hypeimobility of capital and using global sourcing, Our point, however, is that despite the power of tuna 7Ncs, globalization is a contested process, as resistance to TNCS emerged from various segments of the state and. from social groups that operate from "betwvv.' in this case, different groups used their resources to advance competing definnions regarding the regulation of the ETP tuna-dolphin fishery. These struggles have been carried out within the nation-state, between nation-states, and increasingly under the purview of supranationat trade organizations. The second analytical point is that globalization limits the ability of the nation-state to carry out its historical_ rotes. More specifically, globalization hinders the ability of the nation-state to mediate among relevant social 57

The third point deals with the consequences of globalization. Globalization has serious implications for the welfare of workers and other subordinate groups. As the tuna industry restructured to avoid. the MMFA regulations, thousands of tuna fisherman and processing workers on the U.S. mainland, in Puerto Rico, and in Latin America lost their jobs. Additionally, t he early success of the environmental movement as a countervailing force to the tuna TN cs was compromised as the. environmentalist coalition split into "mainstream" and "grassroots.' segments, The mainntream groups aligned themselves With the tuna industry, while the grassroots groups remained committed to eliminating dolphin deaths associated with tuna fishing. 58

Through the previous two stories of globalization, we established that the dominant power of s ites is opposed by state action and weakened by internal contradictions. In this chapter we continue to probe the power of sacs under globalization by analyzing their ability to affect the functioning of the market. More specifically, we attempt to shed some light on the often mentioned ability of nose to organize global production in ways that affect the market and avoid the regulatory actions of nation-states. 107

Because of the emergence of rocs, the nation-state has been transformed into an instrument of transnational capital and is therefore unable to regulate capitalism (e.g., Akard 1992; Antonio and Bonanno 1996; Constance and Heffernan 1991; Ross and Teachte 1990; Sasser 1999; Yergin and Stanislaw 1998), As we have seen in the preceding chapters, this point is illustrated by these stories of globalization.109

In the 1990s ADM was one of the Leading food processors in the United States and the world (Sorkin 1997); it remains so today (non 2006). one is in the business of procuring. transporting, storing, processing, and selling agricul-

tural commodities and related products. Some of its major divisions are corn processing, bioproducts, oils, produce, and grains, while its products include vegetable and seed oils, hydroponically grown vegetables, Devoting agents, sweeteners. animal feed, amino acids. and several other commodities. ..ADM'S main competitors in the lysine business are the Japan-based rats Kyowa Hakko and Ajinomoto. Kyowa Hatch, and its U.S.-based subsidiary Piokyowa, were the first companies to make lysine using the fermentation process (Henkoff 1996). Kyowa Hakko is a major manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, liquor, food, and chemical products, and one of the largest makers of amino acids worldwide (Japan Economic Institute 1991). Ajinomoto is the leading supplies of technical assistance for using feed-grade amino acids. Ajinometo established its U.S. subsidiary, Heartland, in 1984 and opened its main lysine plant in Iowa in 1986 (Heartland 1998).110-111

In the previous chapters we established that opposition to corporate actions can come from the state, Although they are often controlled by soot, various segments of the state have been able to contest corporate designs. Governments are not the only source of resistance to rues, however. In this and the following two chapters we investigate resistance "from below," that is, resistance generated by local social groups in response to the presence and consequences of corporate operations. ...The case of Sanderson Farms is a good example of the community resistance that can arise when the government lacks the capacity to mediate between contrasting interests.125

The state's assistance to Sanderson EL M S, its lack of support for the regulator of animal-feeding operaitons, and the inadequacy of its research into these and other issues reveal the limits of local state agencies in mediating conflicting demands. The opening of local communities to economic globalization has not been accompanied by institutions capable of buffering the unwanted consequences of the growth of capitalism and controlling its most powerful actors. This situaiton can engender fierce resistance to the corporate globalization project.144

This chapter documents an episode of local resistance to the hypermobility of capital and global sourcing. 141

Our choice of this case was motivated primarily by the fact that the timber industry has been one of the most difficult arenas for the development of an alliance between environmentalists and labor. This industry has historically been the target of strong environmental protests, to which timber companies have responded by threatening to fire workers who refused to oppose environmentalists' goals. A common result has been conflict between labor and environmentalists in the form of accusations, distrust, and often overt violence. 173

The vacuum created y this withdrawal of the state has been partially filled by non-governmental orgs. This chapter addresses the establishment of an NGO, the Marine Steward191 this chapter addresses the estalishment of an ngo, the marine stewardship Council (msc), that was created to certify that the commercial exploitation of marine fish stocks was ecologically sound. The non was the product of collaboration between an agnfood rat, Unilever, and one of the world's largest environmental organizations, the World Wildlife fund for Nature (wpm). Initiated by Unilever, the purpose of this collaboration was to create an international organization that, through a formal certification process, would guarantee that Unilever fish commodities, and fish products sold through other venues, were produced following sound environmental practices. Motivated by consumer concerns and the reward of reduced government oversight, Unilever proposed a certification model that would appease critics and satisfy consumers. White broad segments of the business community and environmental organizations praised the initiative, others protested the MSC. This resistance made Unilevets commitment to buy only Hsc-certiif ed products by 2C1.05. difficult to fulfill and stresses the contested nature of this initiative In 1997 the United Rations Food and Agricultural Organization (tits) reported that more than 70 percent of the world's commercially important marine ifsh stocks were overexploited, fully exploited, depleted, or recovering from overexploitation. 191-192

In February 1996 Unilever and the wee announced the creation of a joint

venture called the Marine Stewardship Council, designed to create a global system of sustainable fisheries. The msc would "provide powerful economic incentives for sustainable well-managed fishing" (wart 1996a, 1) and thereby "halt a catastrophic decline in the world's fish stocks by harnessing consumer power" (Llunggren 1996). The goat of the msc was to link market incentives to consumer preferences through a sustainable fisheries certification and ecolabeling program.193

The msc was formally established in london in february 1997 as an idependent, not for-profit, non-governmental body. 195

At the time of the initiative the Whir was the world's largest private, nonprofit conservation organization, with 4.7 million supporters and a global network of twenty-six national organizations, twenty-two grogram offices, Eve associates, and thirty-five hundred employees worldwide (wise 19976)... While the wive and Unilever may have had different motives, their shared objective was to ensure the long-term viability of global fish populations.194

Cue concern about the use had to do with questions of equity. According to one observer, the agreement between the "powerful one and the famous international environmental organization" seemed to have ignored the welfare of the fisherpeople, in that the expansion of the European market, with a bias in favor of industrial fisheries, has been the "major factor in the price slump which has affected the welfare of fishermen" (Samudra 1996e, 5).

198

Another concern was preserving the diversity of fishing traditions around the world; how would the coo accomplish this? Some critics thought that the introduction of new ecoconditions on markets would benefit only well-off consumers in Europe, Japan, and the United States. Consumers and 'arcs in those countries might be imposing their definition of a responsible fishery on developing countries. The promotion of ecofriendly fish imports to developed countries whose food requirements had already been met, and the simultaneous neglect of less developed countries' needs, hardly exemplified the principles of sustainable development, critics charged (Saundra 1995e).198-199

...the call for "codes of conduct" and sustainable fishing practices were but a "green mantle" adopted by those who were directly responsible for the fisheries crisis in the first place, a transparent attempt to "deflect public rage at what has already occurred, while serving to maintain the perpetrators in the future fishery."199

While in democratic institutions each person has one vote, this is not the case in market-dominated systems, especially in the Third World, where the history of extreme economic inequality had undermined "blind faith" in the "almighty market's ability to correct all economic and environmental ills" (Saundra 1946d, 13). Global southerners understood that depleted fish stocks were the result of First World industrial fishing techniques in Third World waters. Moreover, because Unilever, one of the world's largest fish buyers, would retain quasi-monopoly control over a large segment of the market,

many small-scale commercial ventures that did not fit into the hoc certification process would very possibly be left out of the value-added ecolabeling program. And since fish are an important export of many Third World counrties, their governments were unlikely to openly support the msc.199 , the msc had no clear plan for addressing social issues in develeoping countries and expressed the fear that the msc would develop its principles and policies in the north and then administer them in the south. 200 The contract with Unilever, a major international foods company, is another strong indication that it is a goad business strategy. We look forward to signing more contracts." Unilever chairman Antony Burgreans also applauded the certification of the hold fishery....New Zealand hold is the second fish with the tisc logo to be sold by Unilever. 204

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Satiety reported that it was stunned that the wee had denied the appeal and upheld certification despite acknowledging that the fishery did not meet sustainability criteria. "The Hoki fishery is one of New Zealand's most destructive fisheries and it is impossible to see how it might he regarded as sustainable," said Barry Weeber. 206

While the roc started out by approving small, politically uncontroversial fisheries such as the Thames herring fishery and the western Australian rock lobster fishery, the certification of the New Zealand hold fishery proved to

he much more controversial (McCall 2003). In May 2001 the roc came under

increasing criticism from environmentalists for being a "cover for industrial fishing methods that kill seals and seabirds, damage the seabed, and empty

the seas of scarce fish stocks." 207

The hoki controversy and the news of the nascent certification of the Gulf of Alaska Pollack Fishery prompted environmentalists to question the independe3nce of the MSC and the sustainibility of the hoki fishery once again. they maintained that the recent campaign by unilever to get european consumers to replace cod with hoki was a cynical attempt toimprove unilever's profits...207-208 Later in 2004 the one faced increased criticism from several environmental groups for its certification of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pollock fisheries, which accounted for about a third of all seafood landings in the United States (Pemberton 2004). The groups argued that the certifying party had

ignored significant recent drops in Stellar sea lion populations and pollock populations, especially in the Gulf of Alaska.209

A study of the use certification of the South African Cape hake fishery sponsored by Trala (Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa) noted that Unilever pursued certification as a source of whitefish for "fish and chips" in response to the loss of confidence in the qualify of the product from the New Zealand hoki fishery. The report concluded that the case illutrated that 'ecolaeling not in the name of science and systemic management 209-210 Concluded that The case illustrated that ecolaeling is sought in the context of competitive pressures, pol economies, and specific interpretations, not simply on the basis of value-free science or systemic management alone.210

the msc is a prime example of what uttel calls a green ngo occupying the regulatory spaces vacated y failures ofn the nation-state system...The case of the use does in fact provide evidence that GICSin this case Unilevercan co-opt their detractors and persuade them to embrace their agenda and viStOT. Tees have shown that they can establish a Socially legitimate system of standards that enhances capital accumulation while at the same time giving the appearance of environmental sustainability and social responsibility. The procorporate component of the km is dear. It is funded by private foundations, staffed by previous members of the oven and Western governments, and supported by the World Rank, which considers it a model for other market transformation initiatives. In this view, the usr is an agent that rationalizes and restructures both developing and developed nations' economies by incorporating them into reo-dominated global investment and consumption circuits, while appeasing critics with an environmentally...214

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (rime) created the nor to provide a global system for regulating foreign direct investment and thereby supporting global capital accumulation. It was designed to enhance the freedom of movement of global capital and provide r "set of rights" for rocs in their dealings with host countries. Renato Ruggeri of the woo describes the MAI as an early attempt to write part of the "constitution for the single global economy." The ear

was quickly criticized as a "corporate bill of rights" and was challenged by a broad-based coalition made up of ears and developing countries. Developing countries saw the err as an attack on thou sovereignty, while 1140S maintained that the oar was an illegitimate attack on democracy and the sovereignty of nation-states that would result in a "race to the bottom" in environmental and labor protection. The combination of internal conflict among OECD countries and mounting challenges from outside NGOS and developing countries led to the abandonment of the omo-sponsorediniliative. The "corporate bill of rights" agenda resurfaced quickly, however, this time as the Multilateral Investment Agreement (tar) under the auspices of the WIO. 217

This case demonstrates that attempts at global governance of investment regulations in support of global capital accumulation created a legitimation crisis and gave rise to an organized antiglohalization movement. More specifically, it illustrates four points. First, the rear is a form of global governance advanced by supporters of the globalization project. Second, the oECeS attempt at global governance was resisted at a variety of levels and in a number of venues. Third, woos played a dominant role in representing the interests of subordinate groups in opposition to the globalization project. Finally, while the globalization of economy and society is proceeding, the shape and form of the process is contested terrain, and the outcome is still

uncertain. 218

In 1996 the mai began to aTTRACT more criticism. First, the French filmmakers demanded a cultural exemption to protect their industry from penetration y Hollywood. Then representatives of the developing world argued that their countries needed the ability to e selective and set conditions on FDI and the actions of TNCsin December Indonesia announced that it rejected the MAI, arguing that under the MAI it would be able to decide on the kinds of investment it wanted to pursue (Xinhua
News 1995). As more developing countries expressed their fear that the ear would undermine their sovereignty, calls to move the negotiations to the wee or MILS increased

. As more information about the

nut became available, criticism grew. Friends of the Earth (Fes) attacked the initiative, saying that the proponents of free trade and globalization had turned to foreign investment as their next target for liberalization and deregulation. They warned that the
MAI

would open up all sectors of countries'

economies to eel, deny nations the right to differentiate between local and foreign companies, ban performance requirements related to wages, environmental compliance, and hiring locally, and allow xacs to challenge countries' laws directly through its binding dispute-settlement process (Bleifuss 1997;
FOE

1997b).

221-222

The mai did not include provisions allowing governments to sue corporations or to counter anticompetitive business practices such as price-fixing (Bleifuss 1997). Critics argued that the absence of these provisions would have a "chilling effect" on environmental, health, and labor legislation. 222-223

Fos also argued that the er, would pressure developing nations to agree to a regulated system of global trade in which they had no input (FOE 1997b). Such nations would be mole penetrable and could he held accountable for infractions of thhe mai rules... the mai guaranteed unrestricted capital mobility..223

Although the mu had been the center of attention for ant/globalization activists for seine time, the wro was beginning to attract increasing criticism, especially in the developing world. The me was created during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in January 1995 for the purpose of reducing barriers to trade worldwide (Madeley 1999). The wro, successor of the war, forms the "trade arm" of the triad of global economic institutionsthe other two are the World Bank and the piecreated at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, after World War II to regulate global socioeconomic development (Kraker and Dawkins 1999). Whereas the GATT was voluntary and contained no enforcement mechanisms, membership in the wee entails formal responsibilities to reduce trade barriers and a binding dispute-resolution mechanism, By 1999 the woo had 134 member countries, about one hundred of which felt into the category of "developing country' (European Report 1999e).232

233 mai 1994 te olmesine karsin eu spurred a new initiative to negotiate the agreement in the wto (GATT) ama india cua Pakistan Egypt Malaysia china gii ulekelr oppose etti 233 1999da seattle demonstration tens of thousands of antigloalization activiosts 234 Oxfam said that cancun failed ndue to the power and cohesion of developing countries 234

It can be argued that the osco-sponsored MAI was an attempt on the part

of the advanced countries and their neoliberal political regimes to formalize and firm up same of the key rules of the globalization project, advancing what au opponents called a "corporate bill of rights." ...The MAI story also demonstrates that as the globalization project proceeds, redefining the role nation-states perform in coordinating socioeconomic development, aura have emerged as powerful actors to fill some of the space vacated by nation-states. In this caseunlike the case of the Marine

Stewardship Council (Chapter 8)oars have supported the interests of sub-

ordinate groups and challenged the legitimacy of the globalization project. While environmental organizations like Friends of the Earth and populist organizations like the Council of Canadians were early critics of the MAI, the anti-mm coalition grew quickly to include hundreds of environmental, consumer, labor, religious, developing country, and indigenous people's organizations_ The anti-mki actions of these moos were coordinated through the Internet via the tent-see listserv. After the death of the MAI, the coalition turned its attention to other perceived threats, such as the praa and the The success of the sco-based antiglobalization movement in the nor case supports the view of those who see moos as providing valuable avenues for democratic action in the face of the declining power of nation-states. A point often made in this book is that the globalization project is met with ongoing resistance. 236-237

The effectiveness

the anti-nAr coalition notwithstanding, it is likely

that the deciding facto, in the demise of the mai was the inability of the dominant OECD members, the United States and European Union, to agree on the KAI parameters.....While the ear case does support the "corporate domination" thesis, it provides stronger evidence in support of the "contradictory dimension of globalization" thesis. 238

The cases discussed in this book provide abundant evidence of the power that TIM enjoy under globalization. In the stories of Fervors, ADM, Mazxam, and other companies, we saw that incs exercise a great deal of control over nation-states and those who resist them.Contrary to some of the most radical interpretations of the tower of TNCs, their power is restricted y social moements. 241

The stories summarized in this volume also suggest that nos maintain a contradictory relationship with nation-states, Although they attempt to bypass governmental laws and regulations and pressure governments to back corporate agendas, race also need government assistance, both in the business of making money and in attempting to justify their profit margins to various segments of society. In essence, rocs ability to circumvent state laws works only partially in their favor. ...The loss of state power is part of a broader crisis of the nation-state, the most relevant aspect of which is its reduced ability to legitimize globalized social relations. The nation-state, in other words, is required to justify phe-

nomena that are increasingly outside its sphere of control. 242

The self-contradictory position of the nation-state is magnified by the fact that it is fragmented: subordinate groups control some of its parts. Be cause of this fragmentation, the class nature of the nation-state does not automatically translate into its total subordination to the interests of dominant groups. Indeed, this situation makes the nation-state the site of resistance to dominant groups' designs, as the opposition of subordinate groups complicates the state's legitimizing role. It is important to stress that this situation does not translate automatically into an overt crisis of legitimation. The economic expansion of the last decade, IN& success in co-opting opposition, and the failure of alternative projects like socialism have greatly contributed to the legitimation of the status quo. 260-261

The crisis of the nation-state and the covert nature of the operations of transnational odies like the WTO and iMF clash with the concept and practice of democratic popular particip[ation in pulic life.265