Nike, globalisation and Vietnam

Biffa Bacon

This is a chillingly account of the effects of globalisation on the living standards of the poor in Vietnam. Has anyone any ideas how we in the West can stop these abuses?

DadaKopf

Are you just trying to goad people into an argument or did you post this purely out of an overwhelming feeling of self-satisfied smugness that you found this article?

Firstly, The Spectator is a notoriously conservative, right-wing magazine so it's not surprising something like this gets churned out of its writers' liquid luncheons.

Secondly, this article does, indeed illustrate the enormous benefits of globalisation. It was the globalisation of the justice movement that made it increasingly difficult for companies like Nike and their patroned sweatshops to continue operating the way they did, and still do.

This article does nothing to extol the benefits of global free-market capitalism. It merely points out that Nike is doing something nice in Vietnam but selectively 'fails' to mention what made them change their minds in the first place. He admits that pure benifecience isn't the reason - no, he says it's because of the productivity that comes with magnanimity. This is true, but how degrading is it to reduce people to trained dolphins? Perhaps Nike did this because profits Westside were slipping and they felt they had to brighten their image?

The Corinthian

Another three years later, they could afford scooters, so they all take the scooters to work (and if you go there, beware; they haven’t really decided on which side of the road to drive).

Excellent :rolleyes:

shotamoose

Well, I'd have hoped that Nike's practices in Vietnam have improved from 1997 when one floor manager was sent to prison for forcing employees to run laps as punishments for not wearing regulation shoes. As Dadakopf pointed out, if Nike are paying decent wages under decent conditions its partly because of years of campaigning by pressure groups dragging Nike and others into the light of public opinion and partly because of strong government regulation: the Vietnam government has set a higher minimum wage for foreign companies investing in the country. This is another example of the kind of investment policy which multinational companies are trying to have outlawed at the World Trade Organisation, but if Nike are happy to go along with it that's fine.

Vietnam and China, by managing the introduction of capitalism, have for years been growing far faster than countries who have opened up too fast and too far - hardly an advertisement for unfettered global capitalism.

vorbis

dadakopf, you're missing the point. Nike do make more money by locating in third world countries. What this article points out is their workers in these countries are developing a better standard of life. It may sound grossly poor compared to us but its better than the 16 hour a day farming. I also don't think the article is overly biased. Its not ignoring the fact that the workers work long hours at repetitive jobs. Its merely showing that for some people thats far better than the alternatives.