Liberation theologians believe that we are experiencing a globalization of poverty. It should come as no surprise that Liberation Theology has its roots in Latin America where, in certain countries, 10% of the richest have 84 times more resources than 10% of the poorest. (Lampe) In the Latin American country of Brazil, 2.8% of the population owns 57% of the country side. As if this isn’t bad enough, about 62% of this land is unused. (Robinson) It should also come as no surprise then that the World Bank has characterized Latin America as the region with the greatest social and economic injustices.
Liberation theologians attribute this process of the rich getting richer as the poor gets poorer to the expansion of neo-liberalism. Neo-liberal policy consists of free market, privatized productive activity and services, as well as social policies being subjugated to macroeconomic success. (Lampe) In the wake of Globalization, capital is no longer being invested in the productive process but rather it is being wasted in the financing of the speculative process. Also, machine power trumps human labor leaving many jobs overrun by these machines. As a result of these damaging effects of globalization, many people have been left without jobs. In responding to this economic system, Liberation theologians believe that “An economic project that does not respond to the basic needs of humanity on local, national and global level is not a reasonable option” (Lampe).
Liberation theologians believe that the present civilization of wealth is based on private accumulation of wealth by private individuals and firms. This accumulation of wealth is powered by the economic system that is brought upon by globalization. Large companies enter foreign lands taking what they want and then eventually leave the country in worse shape than it was in prior to their entrance. Liberation theologians “recognize that this historical process has brought beneficial technical progress, but argue that these benefits have not been put at the disposal of society as a whole, and that they have been achieved at the cost of massive human and environmental destruction” (Rowland 220). Therefore, Liberation theologians believe that this system of capitalism that is spreading throughout the globe must be replaced by a new civilization of poverty.
This civilization of poverty is justified by the notion that “Jesus insisted that wealth must be replaced by poverty in order to enter the Kingdom” (Rowland 220). Liberation theologians, being opposed to the current economic system’s damaging effects on the poor, base this civilization on an ethical foundation that is aimed at bringing the poor out of poverty. Instead of “economic materialism”, Liberation theologians support a model of “humanist materialism”. This ethical foundation stresses the importance of the universal satisfaction of the basic needs of ordinary people and growing solidarity between them. They hold that “The civilization of poverty is thus counterposed against the civilization of wealth not as a form of ‘universal pauperization’, but rather as a manifestation of the gospel tradition” (Rowland 221). In this model, as long as the basic needs of nutrition, health, education, housing and employment are satisfied for the poor, “humanity is free to become what it wants to be – so long as what it desires does not become a new mechanism of domination” (Rowland 221).
The Liberation Theologians are also stressing the importance of awareness in this community. In order for situations to improve across the globe, people first be made aware of what these problems are. Once people are conscious of the types of exploitation and abuse that is going on, they can be called to action. In the civilization of poverty mentioned above, people will be made aware of the damaging effects of corporate imperialism and the “civilization of wealth”. As Joerg Rieger states, “One of the primary challenges for the theologies of liberation at the turn of the century is to continue to develop better understandings of common structures of oppression” (Rieger 140).
Of course, the views of Liberation Theology are far different, if not completely opposite, from the views of neoliberalism. When it comes to globalization, the neoliberals believe that the key to helping the poor and fixing other social problems is the expansion of the economy. Many authors that we have read in this course pose this view and are able to explain their rendition of it thoroughly. One such expert is a leading economist by the name of Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs brings the strengths of the “new world economy” to the table as he emphasizes the value of increased global trade.
Jeffrey Sachs states “The most notable features of the new world economy are the increasing links between the high-and low-income countries” (Reader 217). However, this does not exactly answer what that relationship will be like. Sachs understands that there are many different possibilities for what it may be and he explains some of what his view on this is. He begins by explaining that the fastest growing developing countries throughout recent history have been those countries that support new export growth and are especially able to succeed in export of manufactured goods. He stresses that those countries that are adamant about protecting their economies from imports have been less likely to experience rapid growth. Sachs also mentions that “As globalization has taken off in the past two decades, many forms of international capital flows have risen dramatically” (Reader 222). All types of countries, both developed and developing, have been active in opening their markets to foreign participation. This trade in financial assets can be beneficial to countries in the same ways that trade in goods can be. Despite all of Sachs’ views on the “new world economy”, he is also critical of who is really at the advantage.
Sachs says “Modern theorizing still stresses, however, that the gains in growth might not in fact be shared by all” (Reader 220). Geography plays an important role in determining which countries are able to benefit from this increased international trade. If a country is landlocked or placed in an area that takes a long time to get to, the chances that countries will want to trade with that country will be lower. Similarly, countries in humid areas such as the tropics where disease and poor agricultural conditions exist will experience hardships when it comes to developing. Sachs also points out that trade between the rich countries and the poor countries is threatening to certain social groups. These threats come in the form of new political challenges that countries must face. Sachs emphasizes that much is left to be known about the positives and negatives of globalization when he says “despite the hard work of researchers, there is still no consensus on the effects of the globalized economy on income distribution within the advanced and emerging markets” (Reader 225).
Another of these neo-liberalists is Horst Kohler who is the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. Kohler, while remaining hopeful for the free markets ability to improve conditions around the globe, stresses the importance of what he calls “a better globalization”. Kohler says that although the global economy is doing good things for certain countries, “not all people are benefiting from globalization… nearly 1.2 billion people — one fifth of mankind — continue to live in absolute poverty, with incomes less than $1 a day” (Kohler 2). It is for this reason, among others, that he insists that the global market needs to have some controlling forces from outside of itself.
Kohler says that there must be some sort of “global domestic policy” where countries give more consideration to the consequences that their actions have on other countries. Surprisingly enough, this idea of awareness is similar to the idea of consciousness that the Liberation Theologians hold. If people become conscious of the problems that exist in the world, they will be more likely to help in the quest for change. Kohler mentions that countries must also be aware of their national self-responsibility. He proposes that countries should be aware of their own problems and attempt to fix them internally. An example of this could be the corruptive governments of Latin America. This contributes to problems of poverty within thee countries and therefore must be resolved. Kohler states “the market has doubtlessly proven itself as the best coordinating mechanism between free agents”, but there must be some form of international regulatory framework imposed. (Kohler 4) Examples of this would be the World Bank, the WTO, and the IMF. Kohler also says that more consideration must be given to the social dimension of globalization. Here Kohler is attempting to recognize the social problems that exist in other countries and the benefits that may arise from solving them. Kohler says “Without respecting human diversity globalization will not succeed” (Kohler 4). This is also something that Liberation Theologists would certainly have to agree with. People of different countries do not respond well to changes within their cultures. In attempting to globalize the world, countries do need to maintain their specific cultures and traditions because this “diversity of human experiences and cultures (is) part of the wealth of our planet” (Kohler 4). The final part of the better globalization that Kohler speaks about deals with a global ethic. Kohler stresses that this ethic must acknowledge that there are certain human rights but also that there are certain human duties. In order for people to survive in a globalized world, a global ethic where people have respect for others must be put into place. Kohler sums up his view by saying “globalization is neither good nor bad…It all depends on what we make of it” (Kohler 3).
Another economist who sees free trade as a positive idea but still remains critical is Dani Rodrik. Rodrik states that “The economic case for gains from trade-whether of the static kind, or the intertemporal kind- is so strong that we often take it for granted” (Rodrick 6). He argues that people don’t realize that in order for there to be gains from trade there must be a restructuring of national economies by the forces that lie in trade. He acknowledges that during the restructuring phase there exists both short-term and long-term changes that can be bad. He makes a unique and seemingly insensitive claim when he says “No pain, no gain!” (Rodrik 6). However, he is just attempting to describe what it is that he believes the reality of globalization. According to him, Globalization is responsible for positive things as well as negative things. Rodrik argues that Globalization has been responsible for bettering the lives of many people who would otherwise live in shambles. A surprising example that he draws on deals with the foreign owned companies that exist in developing countries. He says that, contrary to popular belief, these factories actually have far better working environments than the other job places that exist in developing countries. He points to a specific example saying “life is significantly better for the vast majority of the former peasants who now toil in Malaysian or Chinese factories” (Reader 237).
Although Rodrik makes his positive claims about globalization, going off of his “No pain, no gain” remark, Rodrik also acknowledges that there are bad side effects to as well. He makes a powerful statement when he says “globalization does exert downward pressure on the wages of under skilled workers in industrialized countries, exacerbate economic insecurity, call into question accepted social arrangements, and weaken social safety nets” (Reader 238). Rodrik sees the existence of these side effects, as well as others, leading to the existence of a new set of class divisions. These divisions consist of different classes of people that either do or do not benefit from globalization, those who want globalization and those who do not, and those who can diversify away its risks and those who cannot. This is what Rodrik meant when he made his remark concerning taking the good with the bad. He sees globalization, especially the economic aspects of it, as being a long process that has its upsets along the way.
Both the Liberation Theologians and the neoliberals bring up some good points in defending their views on globalization. Even though the neoliberals stress the benefits of the free market, they also acknowledge that there are problems in the world that globalization may be causing. This is important that the neoliberals are able to recognize these problems and hopefully work towards, what Kohler would call, a better globalization. The neoliberals believe that although things may not look so great right now, eventually the market will pick up and help to close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, the Liberation Theologians do not seem to share this same trait of being able to look at the negative aspects of their views.
For me, it seems that the Liberation Theologians are taking an idealistic approach to dealing with issues of poverty. The concept of the “civilization of poverty” doesn’t seem to be a rational plan that could prove to be successful. It is a daunting task to get people to change their entire lifestyles and it is even harder to get them to change it for the benefit of others. Although I do find this aspect of the view of Liberation Theology to be irrational, I find the aspect of consciousness to be plausible. It would be of great worth to be able to get both those who are enduring oppression and those who are unconsciously acting as the oppressors to become aware of what is going on. Once people begin to become conscious of these things, then they are free to decide what they want to have happen. If people do not realize that there is a better way for them to be treated and that they have other alternatives they will never be able to rise above the evils of oppression. This is why this aspect of conscious awareness is a useful one that is found in the view of Liberation Theology.
In my own view, I believe that in order for globalization to benefit the most people, it must adopt characteristics that are a combination of both of these camps. I do believe that the economy is a good way to bring people out of poverty. However, I think that in order for this to work, people must first acknowledge the many problems of poverty across the globe. People must become aware of these problems and then take strides to accommodate them. The free market is a good way of tackling these problems, but certain adjustments must first be made. The developing countries must be considered in this process. Fair play is an important rule that should be taken note of as we consider our relationships with the developing world. I think that Kohler got this right when he said “the world cannot survive without a global ethic” (Kohler 4). Liberation theology is able to provide the basic framework for this global ethic and the neoliberals are best suited to enact it. But, until we are all able to set aside our differences and consciously deal with our problems together, the world will continue to endure social problems such as inequality and poverty.
Bibliography
Pattison, Steven. Pastoral Care and Liberation Theology. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Andelson, Robert V. From Wasteland to Promised Land. Great Britain: Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) and Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1992.
Rowland, Christopher. The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Lampe, Armando “The Globalization of Poverty” Exchange Vol. 28, Issue 4, p. 332, 1999.
Robinson, Linda “Latin Robin Hood” US News and World Report Vol. 122, Issue 24, p30, 1997.
Reuther, Rosemary “Global Capitalism a New Challenge to Theologians” National Catholic Reporter Vol. 39, Issue 14, p16, 2003.
Rieger, Joerg. Liberating the Future: God, Mammon and Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Köhler, Horst “Toward a Better Globalization” Inaugural Lecture on the Occasion of the Honorary Professorship Award at the Eberhard Karls University in Tübingen , October 16, 2003.
Rodrik, Dani “Symposium on Globalization in Perspective: An Introduction” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 12, Number 4, p3-8, 1998.
O’Meara, Patrick, Howard D. Mehlinger, and Matthew Krain. Globalization and the Challenges of a New Century: A Reader. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2000.