Die Kontrolle nicht-beherrschter Räume: Widersprüche neoliberaler Globalisierung und die Rolle der Entwicklungspolitik

Abstract

Abstract

The Control of Non-Dominated Spaces: Contradictions of Neoliberal Globalization and the Role of Development Politics. Globalization implies the increasing transnational interconnectivity of individuals, civil society groups and firms, as well as government and intergovernmental representatives. This has led to the growing density of transnational social relations and to changes of spatial, temporal and cognitive relations. In this emerging global society, security, in all its dimensions, depends on collective rules and their implementation. There is, however, neither an overarching authority nor a system of cooperating isomorphic democratic regimes. Due to uneven and non-simultaneous development in different parts of the world, political regimes differ considerably concerning their adherence to global norms and in their degree of domination over their territories. Neoliberal globalization has increased social, economic and political exclusion. Growing material inequality has not only favoured an expansion of the informal sector, but also an increase in transnational criminal activities (e.g. the drug trade and smuggling goods, weapons and human beings) and the transnational organization of violent groups. Since the late 1990s it has been recognized in the field of development cooperation that „security“ cannot be reached through a combination of trade-led economic growth policies and the repression of illegal activities; rather, it depends on supporting social inclusion through poverty-reducing policies of empowerment. The dimensions of social security and „security“ through the use of force are seen as complimentary by many state actors in this field, but criticized by civil society organizations. This article concludes by pointing out that the goal of establishing a global order to strengthen the physical as well as the social security of humans has to be distinguished from imperialist interventions. It argues that violent interventions in other societies are bound to fail because they intervene into societal conflicts which are based on historical and cultural preconditions which cannot be easily linked to Western-based concepts and because they are still often linked to the geopolitical interests of the interveners.