Proponent and Opponents of Globalization

1294 Words6 Pages
Proponents and opponents of globalization Many negative and positive thoughts have been given to the process of globalization. The proponents of globalization rather see the benefits of globalization, while the opponents have based their opinions on the disadvantages of globalization. Proponents have a strong belief in free markets and limited governments intervention. According to Preble (2010), globalization has led to the creation of jobs, higher living standards and a higher variety of goods available to consumers. International trade is one of the driving forces behind globalization. Countries specialize in specific goods wherein it has a comparative advantage. This results in a higher efficiency and productivity and ultimately leading to an improvement of the living standards. As a consequence, export increases. Hereto, more jobs are created, a higher variety of goods are available and international competition has increased. This results in lower prices, keeping the inflation in check (Preble, 2010). Furthermore, Preble (2010) states that the increase of trade in goods and services, foreign direct investment and cross-border investment have been important for the success of globalization. Other important benefits, mentioned by the proponents of globalization, are the promotion of information exchange and high understanding of a variety of cultures. Globalization has led to a world where “democracy has triumph over autocracy” (BBC News, 2000, as stated in Preble, 2010, p. 334). 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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...ds & Gelleny, 2007). Moreover, the status of women is independent on policy adjustments in developing countries. Governments in developing countries should organize an economically and political stable environment, to be economically attractive (Maxfield, 1998 as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). Other critics state governments are forced to cut expenditures in education and social programs. This phenomenon especially affects women (Ayres and McCalla, 1997, as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). Since the public sector is one of the main employers of females, women are often the most disadvantaged by governmental efforts to cut expenditures in the public sector (Hemmati and Gardiner, 2004, as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). As a result, women will become unemployed and unable to expanded education among themselves or their children. (Richards & Gelleny, 2007)
Open Document