'Despite the views of many optimists, there are clearly losers as well as winners from the process of globalization.'
The statement at the head of the page assumes that Globalization
creates both winners and losers. This is a view shared by many, but
not all, theorists and commentators. There are many trends of thought
regarding exactly who the winners and losers may be as well as what
may be considered a prize or a punishment (e.g. some may sight the
availability of McDonalds fast food throughout France an enrichment
and some may see it as an unwelcome and unsavoury invasion.)
Comparison between these opinions paints an interesting picture of
what Globalization is, what certain parties want it to be seen as and
what kind of world it could create. Anthony Giddens says
"Globalization, some argue, creates a world of winners and losers, a
few on the fast track to prosperity, the majority condemned to a life
of misery and despair." This is a view shared by many theorists,
however positive Globalists (perhaps naively) claim Globalization will
lead to winnings for all and extreme pessimists exist who see
'Globalization' as the path to mass ruin and exploitation and as a
vague buzzword umbrella from under which Governments may defend unjast
or unpopular policies.
The other query I would raise when initially evaluating the statement
is what exactly we mean by a 'process of Globalization' and does it
mean the same thing to different people? The statement assumes there I
a defined and universally accepted reading of the term and yet there
are many differing views as to what 'Globalization' entails.
'Globalization' is a process said to a...
... middle of paper ...
...e less developed world while maintaining the flow of their own
countries goods across the world. Economically these parties are
winners, however with less work being fielded towards the more
expensive workforce of their own countries these Government's and
companies could be accused of shooting themselves in the foot as the
economy of their own countries will suffer due to more unemployment.
Workers in less developed countries could be seen as winning as,
although mainly gutter-level, sweat shop jobs, the new employment
opportunities offered by Western companies are still 'better than
nothing' in the long run however, the long hours in terrible
conditions plays havoc on the workers health and keeps them in a
position of poor pay with no time to look for another job and no
opportunities outside of the sweat shops.
“Globalization contributes to sustainable prosperity for all people”. This quote contains mostly truth but there are also many arguments towards how globalization really does contribute to sustainable prosperity for people all around the world. This can be supported by three main points. How the rise of Japan’s economy effected the lives of millions of people. How shipwrecking effects the lives of both the ship companies and the workers in Bangladesh, and how economic growth contributes to the sustainable prosperity of the population in a specific nation. Sustainable prosperity can be defined differently from different individuals because of people’s personal opinions and their perspective is also effected by the people who influence their lives the most, but the main definition of prosperity is to have good fortune, or growth in an economic way. Globalization creates a gateway for sustainable prosperity to all people and gives people all around the world the opportunity to gain prosperity.
Overall, many people believe that economic globalization does a great job of enhancing our economy and our quality of life. Source: This is an excerpt from the book “Transnational Corporations: Knitting the World Together”. This book was published in 2004 and the author is Keith Suter, a futurist. He believes that transnational corporations are now the main global economic force as they erode the national market. He deems that due to transnational companies, the world is now involved in one global market.
Criteria: What acts have actually been made to respond to the legacies of historical globalization? How have these effects been made in trying to respond to historical globalization? What has changed since then? What has not changed?
These results change or modify political organizations to be suitable for the needs of global capital. Regions and nations are encouraged to import and export of goods from other parts of the world rather than supplying or manufacturing them in their own homeland. Thus, seeking expensive manufactured supplies or goods from third world countries to import them to the first world corporation’s injunction with the free trade zones of globalization (Ravelli and Webber, 2015). These negotiations raises new organizations, for example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) to aid and supervise both countries to for a legalized trade. However, Neoliberalism amplifies the negative aspects of globalization’s effect on the economy. For example, deregulation, decrease of government benefits, and tax modifications (Bunjun, 2014). Nevertheless, relating these negative aspects to the documentary Made in L.A. (Carracedo, 2007) which is the main issue of increased risk of employment for both the first world and third world countries. In regards to, a switch from full time stable and secure jobs to part time unstable and insecure jobs. This reduces career growth for many employees, which they recognize, and thus switch jobs – where as they may not fit as well (Bunjun, 2014). As a result, globalization causes market inefficiency via labor market segregation and exploitation, unemployment and underemployment, unequal access to employment (Bunjun,
The essay, “The Noble Feat of Nike” by Johan Norberg basically talks about the effects of Nike going into third world countries, particularly Vietnam. Norberg explains how Nike’s factory gains from being in its desired location, Vietnam. Vietnam being a communist country comes to Nike’s advantage, because if they were located elsewhere they would have to pay workers higher wages and use more of their machines. Workers in these countries are provided with an air conditioned building with regular wages, free meal plans, free medical service, and training/education to operate the machinery within the factory. The workers find all of this beneficial and in their own favor because of the fact their earning double to five times the amount in wages than if they were working outdoors on a farm. This great deal, blinds them to notice the meaning behind the company’s location in Vietnam. The Nike factory was rather clever in making their location in that specific area to gain benefits for Western owners. The catch Nike gains from is simple. The owners pay factory workers only a small monthly sum from what they make selling the shoes to customers. Globalists state that the company doesn’t pull this fast one on the Western population because of our advancements compared to the Eastern countries. Western people would protest and strike to demand better wages for their work, but the people in Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with the injustice in order to support their families and educate their children.
Following the Great Recession, the world has been facing complex global transformations. Dani Rodrik’s “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy” portrays the challenges of the implications that our current model of globalization relies upon. Rodrik’s work reveals both the implications and connections of the relationships between markets, the states, and globalization in the currently changing world. Throughout the book, Rodrik argues the validity of five key points: markets require regulatory institutions, such institutions take on a variety of forms, societies should orient their market-supporting institutions to their own unique needs, markets that are responsive to democracy can avoid institutional convergence, and a world that is responsive to democracy will not reach full globalization. This book has made me question the long term sustainability of the already evolving economic globalization process. Rodrik explains that the process of globalization must be managed so that the entire world can benefit.
...o we can achieve our dreams in life: “we are now living in a world where time and space don’t matter anymore” just like J.Mittleman said. Globalization as we just learned is relative, whether it’s an opportunity or an exploitation depends on where you sit and how you look at the world. Kent, J., Kinetz, E. & Whehrfritz, G. Newsweek. Bottom of the barrel. - The dark side of globalization (2008/March24). David, P. Falling of The Edge, Travels through the Dark Heart of Globalization..Nov 2008. (p62)
Globalization is an overwhelming trend. It is no doubt that there are many positives rise out of globalization, but equally some serious negatives brought from this trend, such as gradual disappearance of ethnic identity (Buckley, 1998). This essay is going to address some positive effects of globalization generally, and then it will focus on impacts of this trend on developing countries.
... policies. People will continue to suffer in silence because of the world’s greed. So, while we enjoy our cheaply made goods and over consume the planet into demise, we never know of choose not to know the pain that went into the productions of those goods. Globalization may be championed as a gateway to financial growth for all nations, but only certain nations benefit from it. Global trading and integration has a negative effect on undeveloped nations and developed nations in many ways including; political systems, sovereignty, economy, way of life and much more. Earlier in the essay I asked ‘do the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to globalization’ and from my research I don’t see any real benefit. I don’t believe we should eliminate global business, but better the already lacking regulations and probably increase the standard of living equally for the world.
A multitude of examples of the opportunities generated in connection with the process of globalisation can’t hide the negative effects inicated by its critics.
Globalization, love it or hate it, but you can’t escape it. Globalization may be regarded as beneficial from an economic and business point of view, but however cannot be perceived the ditto when examined from the social sciences and humanities side of it. Globalization can be argued as a tool for economic growth, advancement and prosperity through co-operation between the developed and developing countries. The pro-globalization critics argue that the benefits that globalization brings to developing nations surpasses or outcasts the negative impacts caused by globalization and may even go a step further to state that it is the only source of hope for developing nations to prosper and stand out. However, the real question to be asked is as to what extent are the positives argued upon without taking into account the negative aspects of globalization towards developing countries. Moreover, how many developing countries out of many are exactly benefiting or even prospering from globalization is another question to consider. Therefore, my paper will dispute that indeed growth and advancement provided by globalization to developing countries is beneficial in short-term, but in the long-run, it will only bring upon negative impacts and challenges due to the obstacles involved such as exploitation of labour and resources, higher increase in poverty, and effects of multi-national corporations on local businesses and the economy, and to an extent the effects on the developing country itself.
On the other side, many analysts and economists suggest that Globalization has proven to improve society’s overall wealth (Bryan & Farrell, 1996) and that it will continue to do so in the future. Others also affirm that Globalization will improve people’s well being, encourage cultural exchange and promote democratization (Wildavsky, 1995) (Friedman, 2000) (Byrnea & Gloverb, 2002).
Globalization is a term that is difficult to define, as it covers many broad topics in the global arena. However, it can typically be attributed to the advancement of economic, social, and cultural interactions among the companies, citizens, organizations, and governments of nations; globalization also focuses on the interactions and integration of countries (The Levin Institute 2012). Many in the Western world promote globalization as a positive concept that allows growth and participation in a global community. Conversely, the negative aspects rarely receive the same level of attention. Globalization appears to be advantageous for the privileged few, but the benefits are unevenly distributed. For example, the three richest people in the world possess assets that exceed the Gross National Product of all of the least developed countries and their 600 million citizens combined (Shawki and D’Amato 2000). Although globalization can provide positive results to some, it can also be a high price to pay for others. Furthermore, for all of those who profit or advance from the actions related to globalization, there are countless others who endure severe adverse effects.
On the other hand, opponents question if the benefits of globalization compensate the created downsides. In their opinion, globalization has manifested unemployment, poverty and marginalization. Additionally, it has been one of the key drivers ...
Larsson, Thomas. The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization. Cato Institute, 2001.