Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Education And Debate

Globalisation is good for your health, mostly

BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7311.504 (Published 01 September 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:504

Rapid Response:

Why i am angry

Dear Sir,

When Feachem sites the many economic and social advantages of
globalisation (1st September) he misses the point completely. Few would
argue that economic development is not beneficial to the poor living in
the third world. Most of us are not angry about globalisation per se. We
are angry because despite the worlds massive technological advances and
our ease of access to the poorest people in the world, we are using
globalisation to make profits from the disadvantaged, not to help them.

Globalisation is an inevitable product of development and has the
potential to produce great benefits for the third world. Surely the
system that enabled people to walk on the moon must be able to work
wonders for those who have become our neighbours in the global village.
Sorting out universal water supplies can’t be so difficult when we can
send e-mails from a laptop in the desert? However, instead of using
globalisation for the benefit of those who are struggling, the
multinational companies have used it to make greater profits for their
companies (and for us, the shareholders). Following the industrial
revolution it took 100 years to produce any kind of dignity for factory
workers in the UK. But having achieved that, what happens? The companies
turn their attention to those places where there is less regulation and
where profits can be obtained unhindered by the need for compassion for
the workforce. The result is the sweatshops of the Far East.

But who is responsible? Those who work in the sweat shops are
compelled to by the lack of any alternative and the managers want to keep
their jobs. Those who run these companies must keep their shareholders
happy, as must the fund managers who control the flow of investment. And
the shopper innocently looking for a Christmas bargain in a clean,
brightly lit store can hardly be held responsible.

So to whom can we turn to protest? We turn to those with real power
– the leaders of the most powerful countries in the world. They have the
only real power to start regulating the system. And the truth is that
direct action has had far more effect than would any letter writing
campaign. Would there have been an article in the BMJ if it were not for
the Genoa protests?

Economic progress is good for your health. Globalisation too should
be good for your health, but whilst it is being led by powerful,
unregulated institutions for whom profit comes before compassion, it will
come about only as a by-product, if at all. Multinationals must take the
responsibilities that come with their arrival into the third world. And
the leaders of the most powerful nations should use the opportunities that
globalisation has provided to ensure that our poorer neighbours in the
global village achieve at least basic healthcare and living standards.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Weeks

Competing interests: No competing interests

14 September 2001
Andrew Weeks
Lecturer in Obstetrics
Makerere University