Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

World business leaders gathered for the annual 2007 meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Since the meeting ended in late January, tons of news-articles, editorials, and blogs have been dedicated to it. They represent largest possible spectrum of world public opinion. To repeat them will be both unnecessary and annoying. Official information about the forum, its history, philosophy, and meetings, including the latest, is readily available; it can be easily accessed through its web site. Comments from people taking part in one or another activity are also willingly shared through hundreds of media. Read all of them will make readers believe that these observers are actually reporting on very different events. Without claiming any special skills of going secretly behind closed doors, we nevertheless will try to interpret different messages coming from this forum, because, let's make such an assumption, these different statements in nature represent different interests in a world that is still far from ideological and political uniformity.

Among tens of issues from the WEF, what does interest us here is the mood for further global economic and capital liberalization, what's conveniently called 'globalization'. The term itself is in fact a bit old, from 1950s at least, but since late 1970s, and especially after the end of the Cold War, it has a special significance. It doesn't just mean some economic interdependence as in its original meaning; what it means is the ability of rich capitalist countries to export and re-export without annoying regulations and other obstacles capitals around the world. The reason why these countries need this 'globalization' is actually very simple. On the one hand, there are extra capitals available for investment. On the other hand, the demand for investments in the rich countries isn't growing as fast as the capitals. In a perfectly balanced economy this will lead to lower capital returns. To eliminate this problem, rich countries need to export part of their capitals. In doing so they resolve one more problem. They create new external markets for modern goods and services.

Looking from this perspective, it looks like all rich countries should have similar if not identical views on world economic issues. It's however far from that. 'Globalization' gives comparative advantage to some rich countries at the expense of others. At the end, not everybody is benefiting in the same degree. Those with stronger multinational companies are more interested in exporting capitals. Political reasons and special interest groups' interests are also playing a role in different governmental strategies. Exporting capitals may strengthen economically some archrivals. Creating additional market supply in foreign countries may hurt domestic producers. That's why it's so important to know what's the real mood beyond the usual pro-market rhetoric that we expect from forums like WEF.

So, beyond this pro-market rhetoric, it seems the capital and trade liberalization doesn't show much progress globally, and as far as Davos can be taken as representative for heavyweight economic players' attitudes, this rather depressing mood for 'globalization' will affect any short-term analysis. Two problems seem arising from this forum as far as trade and capital liberalization is concerned. The first is the lack of global leadership. Both the United States and the European Union look for regional alternatives for finding temporary solutions for their economic problems. Nobody seems ready to assume a global leadership, which, of course would imply readiness to offer first some sacrifices in the name of common good. Second, closely related to the previous, it seems that rich countries slide to old stereotypes looking at world trade as zero-sum game. It isn't that absolute gains for one are absolute losses for another country, but that even relative gains for someone that aren't matched by similar gains by others are unacceptable. I'll be more than happy if incoming events refute my thesis, but if the general mood in Davos can be taken as a good indicator, then economic and capital 'globalization' is entering difficult times. Not because it has suddenly found strong enemies, but because politicians that are supposed to lead it are abandoning the ship in the middle of the sea.