(Submitted to The 38th St. Gallen Symposium)
Haha~~~since I find nothing about "Globalization Tax" in google, I might be the first persone to bring forwards the concept of "Globlazation Tax" in the world, though it might be of trivial or even no value…
—-One possible solution to preserve local value
People approach their needs with globalization in pursuit of happiness, which revolutionizes human’s life and to some extent satiates some people’s needs and get them happy. The bad thing is that, if only to meet their Maslow’s hierarchized five needs and get happy, people don’t even have to take those who have nothing to do with their needs in concern and get self-actualization, which is the ultimate one of the five needs and primarily depends on how to define it personally. Taking advantage of that, globalization is threatening and ruining vulnerable local values.
In the process of globalization, the more advantages the corporations or countries enjoy in international trades or projects, the more probability that they are probably exploiting their vulnerable partners’ human or natural resources and causing globalization’s negative effects, and therefore the more responsibility they are supposed to take to preserve vulnerable local values. Based on that fact and taking corporations as well as countries’ individual cases into consideration, this essay proposes a plan about “Globalization Tax” and its enforcement. Hopefully it will guide people’s globalization activities, preserve local values and ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are widely, sufficiently, and sustainably shared.
Globalization: an attempt to approach human’s happiness
Globalization is an age-old drive as natural as breathing. It is the basic motivations that propelled humans to connect with others — the urge to profit by trading, the drive to spread religious belief, the desire to exploit new lands and the ambition to dominate others by armed might — all had been assembled by 6000 B.C.E. to start the process we now call globalization . Like gravity, globalization has come to be seen in recent years as an unstoppable force of nature. If the world is flat, capital, goods and services can go wherever they want. 
Like it or not, globalization has been sweeping almost every corner of this earth, putting Starbucks in Forbidden city of Beijing, assembling Boeing aircrafts with worldwide produced parts, distributing west Asia’s petroleum among world’s vehicles and exploding information googled all over the world. Even in developing countries, an ordinary white collar could wait for his girlfriend at McDonald’s, wearing Lee jeans and tan Reebok boots, smoking State Express 555 brand cigarettes and calling his girlfriend with a Siemens mobile phone. While waiting, he could even get wireless Internet access with an IBM computer loaded with Microsoft software and say hello on the Facebook to his friends on the other side of the earth.
Though endowed with unalienable rights to pursue happiness, people are not necessarily happy. They pursue it. In pursuit of happiness, people try to meet their needs physically and psychologically. Based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs , people are driven to meet five motivational needs arranged by ascending order of importance: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. Globalization lowers the international barriers to economics, technology, culture and politics, makes numerous people’s dreams come true, meets their needs and gets them happy.
The bad thing is that, if only to meet their needs and get happy, people don’t even have to take those who have nothing to do with their needs in concern and get self-actualization, which is the ultimate one of the five needs and primarily depends on how to define it personally. So possibly and actually, some powers are satiating their needs via globalization, while overlooking vulnerable local values of great interests to their neighbors and descendants.
Vulnerable local values: globalization’s bill payers
On one hand, globalization maintains or enhances the dominant local values of the powers’ interests, while on the other hand disregarding or even jeopardizing vulnerable local values, which seem to have no choice but ultimately pay the prosperity bills for dominant local values.
Globalization encourages reduction of trade barriers，which aggravates the exploitation of child labor, fosters a race to the bottom in environmental standards, tears women in third-world nations away from their families, homogenizes disparate indigenous cultures and strips the gears of democracy in favor of rapacious multinational corporations.
In poorer countries, traditional industries with products of lower added value have been overwhelmed by efficient multinational giants. Multinational corporations, mainly from rich countries, exercise privileges that human citizens cannot: moving freely across borders, extracting desired natural resources, and utilizing a diversity of human resources. They are able to move on after doing permanent damage to the natural capital and biodiversity of a nation, in a manner impossible even for that nation’s citizens .
What’s worse, with incomparable superiority in technology, capital, management and world position, multinational corporations and rich countries can always be at advantage in setting industrial standards and making rules in international trades. It’s a Matthew Effect . Rich countries get richer, while poor countries get poorer. Without effective countermeasures, this situation will not get changed until poor countries exhaust their resources and their local values become valueless.
Although globalization encourages greater international cultural exchange, vulnerable local cultures are still fading away. Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g. through the export of Hollywood movies) expose people to more unexperienced cultures. However, dominant cultures enjoy the privilege supplanting the vulnerable local culture, causing reduction in culture diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. 
Take language as an example. Due to peerless status in scientific publication and international affairs, English is becoming the world’s common language; in response to soaring number of business opportunities involving China, a boosting number of people are learning Chinese, while some linguists argue that at least 3,000 of the world’s 6,000-7,000 languages are liable to be lost before the year 2100 .
Unquestionably, every culture integrates human civilization and contributes to stability and prosperity of human society, there are definitely no superiority or inferiority of cultures. If no salvation about vulnerable local cultures happened, the world would lose its diversity and become a stinking backwater, which is dammed to dry up.
Though globalization about politics is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization , the regulators are always those several superpowers in the world, not only because of their permanent or temporary seats in UN Security Council, but also due to their advantages in economy, technology and military.
Superpowers can war against Iraq, even without the permission of UN Security Council; superpowers could default the UN membership dues and refuse to sign on Kyoto Protocol; superpowers can impose sanction against Iran and N. Korea on the pretence of nuclear nonproliferation, while making nuclear cooperation deal with India despite that country’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty . In all likelihood, people from vulnerable countries have enough of superpowers’ hegemonism.
Understandably, though every sovereign state commits taking their own responsibility in international affairs, their ultimate objective always lies in maximizing their own advantages. This fact restrains global politics, based on negotiation, compromise and engagement, from appreciating, maintaining and developing the whole human civilization, let alone vulnerable local values.
Environments & Ecology
Accelerated by globalization, human development depletes the earth’s resources and contaminates the environment. Due to the lowered trade barriers, dominant corporations build their factories in developing countries where they can pollute and exhaust natural resources freely. Besides that, climate change, ozone depletion, over-fishing of the ocean and other environmental problems, are jeopardizing human’s future and local values.
Accompanied with soared energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission, global warming is threatening human’s prosperity and even survival. The global average air temperature near the Earth’s surface rose for 0.74 ± 0.18 °C during the 100 year period ending in 2005. What’s worse, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C during the 21st century , which probably will catastrophically result in ecologic disasters.
Practically, for most of earth citizens environments are public resources, shared with world neighbors or descendants. As mentioned above, in order to meet Maslow’s hierarchized five needs and approach their happiness, people do not have to concern about environment problems too much. In addition, people do not only share environmental problems, they also share the returns of their endeavors retrieving or even protecting environments. Therefore theoretically, it is hard for people to voluntarily conserve environments at any cost of their life, not even to say those superpowers. Predictably, without proper mechanism integrating efforts and urging environmental problem solving, the world will not merely be on fire, local values either.
Globalization tax: one possible solution to preserve vulnerable local value
Just as market needs government’s regulation, though globalization also serve as a solution for people‘s happiness, it takes advantage of human’s instincts about needs eroding vulnerable local values, and calls for effective control and coordination as solutions. Fortunately, the world is not a zero-sum struggle, but rather is a positive-sum opportunity , making it possible to preserve and even enhance local value sustainably.
In the process of globalization, the more advantages the corporations or countries enjoy in international trades or projects, the more probability that they are probably exploiting their vulnerable partners’ human or natural resources and causing globalization’s negative effects, and therefore the more responsibility they are supposed to take to preserve vulnerable local values. Based on that fact and taking corporations or countries’ individual cases into consideration, I propose a “Globalization Tax” plan, trying to address the issues caused by globalization and preserve vulnerable local values
Definition: “Globalization Tax” is levied on the profit of corporations or the revenue of countries engaged in international trades and businesses by UN or a newly founded worldwide organization. The tax rate depends on the degree of the corporations or countries’ globalization, proportion of their profit (or revenue) in their whole profit (or revenue) and properties of the international trade and business (Those indexes could be measured by audit firms or such non-profit research organizations as Think Tank ). The revenue from the raised tax is wholly employed to solve the problems caused by globalization and preserve vulnerable local values.
How to raise “Globalization Tax”:
There are two possible ways to make “Globalization Tax” happen:
1. Levy “Globalization Tax” from Corporation
a. To make the first step, UN encourages those corporations who would like to do something for human’s society or simply want to gain good reputation to pay the “Globalization Tax”. In return, UN officially promulgates those corporations, taking advantage of its international influence to advertise them.
b. Hopefully, more and more corporations can join in and pay “Globalization Tax”, when the advertisements might not be as attractive as before. At that time, UN may cooperate with WTO, set up some trade barriers for those who do not pay “Globalization Tax” and force .them join in this plan.
c. In the end, hopefully all the corporations around the world pay their payable “Globalization Tax”.
2. Levy “Globalization Tax” from countries.
UN encourages countries to join “Globalization Tax” plan and raises tax from their governments, who might imperatively levy “Globalization tax” on the corporations that are doing international business on their territories. In return, those countries that join “Globalization Tax” plan enjoy the rights to apply for the funds to preserve their local value; those not will go under pressure coming from the whole world.
How to allocate the revenue from “Globalization Tax” to preserve local values:
1. Every Eligible country should submit proposal to UN about its local value status and their plan to preserve it. An committee organized by UN will make the decisions based numerous priorities and the amount of the revenue.
2. The projects in need of multination cooperation, can be proposed by UN or several involved countries jointly.
About “Globalization Tax” ratio
Suppose Adidas is involved with the “Globalization Tax” plan, which is mainly using developing countries’ low-paid human resources and selling their products with high added value all over the world. This will enhance its “Globalization Tax” ratio. Suppose GE’s profit comes mainly from international trade, theoretically it will enhance its “Globalization Tax” ratio; but if a majority of its international profit comes from medical instruments of great interest to human, its “Globalization Tax” could be lowered. (It is the same situation if “Globalization tax is levied on countries)
About allocation of the revenue from “Globalization Tax”
Suppose New Zealand involves with “Globalization Tax” plan and plans to protect Māori language, its government should submit a proposal to UN, with plans about how to survive this endangered language and the budgets. Coincidentally, China and Mongolia plan to harness dust storms in their territory cooperatively, and submit a proposal to UN. At the same time, UN might propose a project developing technology to reduce greenhouse gas emission. A committee might be set up to evaluate those proposals as well as others and decide how to allocate the revenue from “Globalization Tax”.
1. Evoke people, corporations and countries’ awareness about globalization’s side-effects as well as vulnerable local values and guide their globalization activities.
2. Raise funds for the projects solving globalization’s problems as well as preserving vulnerable local values.
3. Ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are widely, sufficiently, and sustainably shared
In summary, people approach their needs with globalization in pursuit of happiness, which revolutionizes human’s life and to some extent satiates some people’s desires. Taking advantage of human’s instincts about needs, globalization is threatening and ruining vulnerable local values. Based on that, this essay proposes a “Globalization Tax” plan, which hopefully will guide people about their globalization activities, raise funds and assemble efforts to solve problems caused by globalization, to preserve vulnerable local values as well as human civilization
 Nayan Cbanda, Bound Together 2007.
 DANIEL GROSS ” Globalization Offered Two Ways: à la Carte and Prix Fixe” New York Times: March 12, 2006
 A.H. Maslov, A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50 (1943):370-96
 “anti-globalization” Available [Online]: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalizat ion > Jan 28, 2008.
 “Matthew effect” Available [Online]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect > Jan 28, 2008.
 “globalization” Available [Online]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization > Jan 28, 2008.
 “Endangered language” Available [Online]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered _language> Jan 28, 2008.
 DAVID RIEFF ” Globalization 2.0” New York Times: March 26, 2006
 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
 Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty, 2005
 “Think tank” Available [Online]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Tank > Jan 28, 2008.