Globalization and localism

By Alex Singleton | 22 July 2005

As we move towards an ever more globalized world, some people have suggested that more and more government decision-making needs to taken at a higher level. Lots of Westminster decision-making should move to Brussels, Brussels decision-making should move to the United Nations. There is a belief that global government is necessary to empower individuals against global companies.

But does moving more and more power to global bodies really empower us as individuals? When we go into a shop and buy a computer, where is the decision-making taking place? The computer may be made in China, but the decision whether to buy it is made by the individual on a local level. Most of us appreciate the power to make a decision individually on whether to have a laptop or desktop computer.

The fact is that moving power away from people is not a great way of empowering individuals. When buying a computer, would we be more empowered if the decision was made at Westminster or Brussels or the UN? Of course not.

If you want empowerment in the political process in a globalized world, the worst thing to do is move power away from ordinary people. Yet in Britain through the last century, that is exactly what has been happening. As Edward Davey MP writes in The Orange Book:

During the twentieth century, Britain become one of the most centralised democracies in the world, as both socialist thinkers and conservative forces saw central state power as the best way to impose their order. On the left, the Fabians in particular saw national government as the only way to promote equality and redistribution, with the state grappling with the capitalist forces they imposed. On the right, central power was seen as necessary to tame nationally organised labour and other opponents such as 'loony left' councils that challenged national public spending controls

But, of course, Wesminster hasn't really been very good at delivering. As Davey writes:

Freedom to experiment has proved to be one of the greatest attributes of free-market societies. Yet Britain's centralised state is not well designed to mirror the private sector's ability to innovate. From monolithic structures in the NHS to national pay-setting across the public sector, the Whitehall model looks increasingly inflexible and unable to embrace difference.