How Globalization Has Broken the Chain of Responsibility
I&#x27;m nowhere near Gladstone, but I have a lot of exposure to the planning &amp; approval process for Australian mines.<p>Firstly, it is unlikely that the mine manger has less power in the modern era than they did in the days of old. Mine managers wield enormous power under law and in practice.<p>Secondly, the real issue here is likely that nobody cares about small limestone mines, but the economies of scale in Gladstone are such that the mines are projects of importance at the State and global level. Local groups with real power (enough influence to get council moving) can still sway mine operations quite convincingly, larger mining companies have had some experiences with fighting real local opposition and it is not a profitable exercise. But the flip side of that, once a mine operation gets large enough it can no longer please everyone, and when the State &amp; local governments support your operation, the people who are not pleased feel very powerless. Nobody likes that situation, but there isn&#x27;t a straightforward resolution.<p>The idea that globalisation is responsible is a bit tenuous. Make the case that councils are blinded by greed, that is an easy one. I will politically remind the reader that the State government, who takes the cut, is also the same group who needs more money to fund schools &amp; hospitals. <i>EDIT</i> And mining corporations usually spend lavishly on local projects to suppress organised opposition on council.<p>tl;dr; I have observed the process and don&#x27;t believe that globalisation has broken the chain. Local government still has sufficient power to yea, nay or influence operations. State governments have absolute power to yea, nay and influence operations. They are responsible, not some shady globalist in Shenzhen, America or Japan.