Introduction

Is there a connection between extremism and the introduction or spread of markets? Has the spread of markets around the world – what is often referred to as “globalization”– fostered or retarded extremism?

One way to begin making the connection is via the concept of “transparency.” The fall in the costs of acquiring and transmitting information and of transacting across borders generally is often said to require a global world order in which countries specialize according to comparative advantage and the international division of labor is as complete as possible. In order to facilitate this outcome, economic relations should become as transparent as possible, because greater transparency implies lower transactions costs. A larger global division of labor means an expansion of world trade, and greater transparency facilitates this expansion. Democracy, too, thrives on transparency, and dictatorship on obfuscation. Consequently, on this point of view, it is obvious that the new global world order must be governed by the most transparent systems possible, both to promote democracy and economic efficiency.

To some extent, transparency and globalization go together in that both are the result of the information revolution. Of course, transparency is not exactly the same thing as globalization. Indeed, sometimes people associated with the antiglobalization movement have been demanding “greater transparency” from organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).