The Whole Concept of Globalization - Case Study Example

How useful is the term globalization for describing the world today? Introduction Globalization is typically defined as global development in every aspect of economic, social, cultural, political, technological and ecological domains. This development is facilitated by the growing connectivity and communication using technology, interdependency in trade and integration among developing and developed countries (Sobrino, 2001). This development was aimed to bridge the economic and social gaps between the developing and developed countries by encouraging trade and investments between countries and opening opportunities for underdeveloped countries. It was intended to improve the standard of living for everyone irrespective of which country an individual belonged to (Georgios et al., 2004, p. 253-71). Today globalization hasn’t really benefited the world the way it was thought it would. Disparities have heightened and it is not having an overall improving effect. In addition to that, globalization has brought with it several unexpected repercussions globally which are now becoming difficult to handle. The word globalization doesn’t truly describe the world today. The whole concept of globalization and its intended effects seem like an illusion in today’s world (Georgios et al., 2004, p. 253-71). As a general term, globalization means lifting trade barriers, better communication, increased development, diminishing differences in social classes, better living standards, equal resource allocation, better natural environment, better prospects for the underdeveloped and developing countries therefore uplifting the world as a whole (Brooks, 2001). However, globalization has resulted in heightened differences in economies instead of diminishing them. The upper class has become more affluent with most opportunities posed to them while the lower classes find themselves unemployed and redundant. Countries with skilled labor and resources compete away the underdeveloped countries leaving them no opportunities of growth. Removing trade barriers has benefited only the developed countries and not the developing ones and thus the economic differences have increased (Sobrino, 2001). Cultural differences have become more prominent, technological advancements have made the unskilled useless, unequal distribution of resources have increased differences between social classes and the environment has degenerated (Breslin, 2005, p. 735). Globalization brought with it human migration, global trade, integration of financial markets, capital movement and tremendous technological development (DiNardo, 2002, p. 741). Life expectancy has increased, feminism has advanced especially in developing countries, and the global literacy rate has increased from 52% to 81% during 1950-1999 (Bailey, 2005). These were intended to help spread equality and general uplift in the standard of living from every aspect. Whether this has been achieved or not is questionable. Body By the word globalization we understand that the world is becoming united. But the truth is that mankind has never been as divided as they are today. Even though the world has become closer as a trade platform with wider chances of profit-making and with the labor force available across borders, there is not a greater harmony of humanity. Globalization has caused the creation of a new underclass everywhere even in the developed countries (Palley, 2006). This class has emerged as the opportunities posed by globalization are taken by only those countries and people who have the best resources and skills for them. The rest become redundant and unfit for employment and thus have a lower living standard than before. The opportunities their country gave them are now taken up by foreigners who are much more resourceful and skilled (Bailey, 2005). Even though we use the word globalization, there is a lot of disparity especially for the poor thus the use of the term is not justified. Globalization from the economic perspective refers to a natural process of human innovation and technological advancement. For this to be fully utilized, all restrictions to trade have to be lifted to enable uninterrupted flow of trade and finance across the world (Breslin, 2005, p. 737). This free trade opened foreign markets to competition and export of goods globally. China, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc positively developed with such steps. Development opportunities are for countries and people with skills and resources which means that those who were already rich became richer. At the same time, the poor became even poorer as the very few opportunities that they had were also taken away from them (Robert, p.55). Carvel (2004) proves with statistics that a larger portion of the world population remains poor where 3 billion survive on less than two dollars a day, 1.3 billion are not provided with clean water, 3 billion have zero sanitation accessibility and 2 billion have no electricity. For every dollar borrowed, the developing world has to spend 13 dollars to repay its debt. 75% of the world population is in the third world though they use only 20% of edibles of the world and their contribution to world trade is only 7%. Globalization has had very little effect on the poor classes and has not been able to lower global poverty. According to Brooks (2001), the national income per head, which best reflects the living standards, increased 19 times in the advanced countries. The less developed countries witnessed just a 5.4 times increase. This is no sign of equality instead this only heightens the differences in the living standards and thus the poor become even more poor. Hence the concept of globalization and a positive global effect for the whole world is questionable. Removing the trade barriers was an integral part of globalization with the intention that it would enable more development. However, the industrialized nations are using “globalization” as a façade to guard their own economies from competition by foreign countries while the developing countries are required to keep these trade barriers open (Bailey, 2005). According to Palley (2006), previously before the globalization revolution, the US took lots of measures to protect its developing and infant industries and discouraged imports so that their own industries could develop. Now that they are developed, there is free trade and financial liberalization whereby the developed countries can set up production facilities in foreign lands which is usually developing countries where the labor is cheaper than in their native land. With this, only the developed country reaps more benefit in the long run and the developing countries do not have much of a chance to let their own industries grow. Thus there is no true development for the developing countries which was aimed with globalization (Sobrino, 2001). Hence saying that globalization is happening in the whole world doesn’t stand true. With globalization, the free markets were believed to allocate resources in an efficient manner. However, statistics show that 40% of the Earth’s wealth is possessed by the richest 1% of the world. Also, 10% of the world population possesses 85% of the world’s assets (Palley, 2006). This imbalanced distribution of wealth occurs not only between the rich and the poor countries but also between classes of the same country. In a report by Autor (2005), it was estimated that 60% of the income that was earned in the US was earned by the top two earning groups. This means that only 40% of the income is produced by the major portion of the working class. UK has a similar scenario where 10% of the most affluent possess 50% of the nation’s wealth. Thus globalization which was intended to distribute resources in the best possible way was not able to achieve this. According to Breslin (2005), globalization refers to interdependence and interaction of people globally. For this to happen there has to be homogeneity in culture, production, trade and way of living. People have to break cultural and religious boundaries and this means that with trade and traveling becoming easier people have better access to other countries. Such a scenario is breaking cultural bounds and a new sub culture of living is evolving with globalization and the traditional cultures are dying especially for the working class. This has given rise to traditionalists to stand up for their cultures giving rise to religious and cultural clashes. Globalization was intended to bring people closer and establish a platform of interaction devoid of cultural and religious differences. The world of globalized economies and cultures is giving rise to clashes in civilizations. Thus when we say that the world is globalized it is not befitting (Breslin, 2005, p. 736). Technology has played a vital role in globalization. The internet, mobile phones etc. have made communication easier and hence facilitated globalization. Technological development has helped in making sophisticated machines which has enhanced business manifold. However, such technological advancements require skilled labor, information and knowledge(Palley, 2006).This means that the gap between the skilled and the unskilled, the privileged and the underprivileged will only widen creating an imbalance between the classes as the unskilled may not have access and resources to acquire the required training needed for such technological advancements. They may thus find themselves unemployed and redundant. Thus when we say globalization enhances development and creates opportunities, we cannot refer to the whole world like we mistakenly do (DiNardo, 2002, p. 733-43). Globalization depends upon free trade which in turn is dependent upon policies including trade policies, foreign policies, internal policies etc. and therefore politics develops and strengthens with globalization. However, with this, trade and therefore progress is also depending upon politics and political figures who may use this power unethically to their advantage (World Bank, 2007). A country powerful in global trade can influence other countries by maneuvering them and these countries may lie at the mercy of these super powers who gain superiority because of their political strength. Thus globalization heightens political inequalities and enables one country to be more powerful than the other (World Bank, 2007). To avoid such political power, independent global bodies like the IMF and the World Bank were formed. However, even these bodies have blundered. Argentina faced a severe economic crisis in 2001 when IMF induced budget restrictions on the country. According to Wade (2005, p. 291-297), this weakened the government’s ability to maintain the country’s infrastructure in critical areas like health, education and security. The IMF forced reforms on the country that required it to change its economy and concentrate on its exports so that Argentina could pay for the IMF loans. Thus by complying with this, the country could not keep up with its infrastructural needs. China is seen as a country with a very strong emerging economy with a powerful hold on global economic and political environment. However, a closer look at China reveals that its internal growing politics will not be able to sustain its economic dynamism (Breslin, 2005, p. 737). Thus globalization has brought down lots of economies creating imbalances with policies that have not been favorable to some countries thereby being unjust to them and nurturing inequality which was never a part of the true globalization that was initially intended for the world (Robert, p. 56-70). Environmental calamities The natural environment today has faced several problems because of globalization. Forests are diminishing, seas and sea life are being polluted, the air is polluted, extinction of some animals has occured, drinking water is polluted and global warming is taking place (Carvel, 2004). All of these are a direct result of globalization. Globalization had promised a better living and a better environment but all globalization has given to the environment are serious concerns which are next to impossible to amend. Thus we cannot say that the world has globalized as the word denotes the environment becoming better which is obviously not visible around us (Breslin, 2005, p. 735). Conclusion With globalization we see economic, social, and political benefit but it is only for a few regions of the world and not all. Where we see some countries develop, we also see the underdeveloped countries suffer from inequalities and disparities as opportunities of growth for them narrow down as the global competition becomes stiffer due to easier communication and lifting of trade barriers. The world is becoming fragmented into regions of high and low development and this difference is getting more prominent (Autor, 2006).Political powers are being abused and the underdeveloped countries are being oppressed. As the literacy rate is increasing, unemployment is also increasing, decreasing the living standards. The rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The technological advancements are further deepening the wealth gap. There are cultural differences which are creating global cultural and religious issues. Resources are not being allocated equally. Thus there is no equal development, differences in the developing and developed countries are increasing and there is survival for only the fittest in the long run due to the competitive global environment in the world of interdependence and interconnectivity (Georgios et al., 2004, p. 253-71). There is uneven development and firms and nations are competing with each other for survival. These characteristics certainly do not describe the notions we have about the word “globalization” or the world as a global village. Thus today’s world cannot be described as truly globalized and one can foresee globalization as a failing phenomenon. Thesis Statement The word Globalization cannot be used for the world today. Global disparities between the rich and the poor are increasing, unequal distribution of resources, increased unemployment, political misuse and lower standards of living for most indicate that globalization may not be sustainable and may collapse in the future. References Autor D, Katz L, Kearney M. (January 2006). The Polarization of the U.S. Labor Market. Harvard University and NBER. Retrieved September 14, 2007. Available: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/katz/papers/akk-polarization-nber-txt.pdf Bailey, R. (March 2005). The Poor may not be Getting Richer. Retrieved September 15, 2007. Available: http://reason.com/news/show/34961.html Breslin, S. (2005). Power and Production: Rethinking China’s Global Economic Role. Review of International Studies, 31, p. 735-37. Brooks, M. (October 2001). What is Globalization? Retrieved September 14, 2007. Available: http://www.marxist.com/what-is-globalisation151001.htm Carvel, J. (December 2004). Super-rich have doubled their money under labor. The Guardian. Retrieved September 13. 2007. Available: http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialexclusion/story/0,11499,1368919,00.html DiNardo, J. Card and David. (October 2002). Skill-Biased Technological Change and Rising Wage Inequality: Some Problems and Puzzles. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(4), pp. 733-43. Georgios, E. Chortareas and Theodore, P. (2004).Trade Flows: A Facet of Regionalism or Globalisation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(2), pp. 253-71. Palley, T. (2006). Can Globalization fail? Retrieved September 15, 2007. Available: Yale Global Online Robert, B. Oxnam eds., Dragon and Eagle: United States-China Relations: Past and Future, New York: Basic Books, pp. 54-70. Sobrino, J. Winfred, F. (May 2001).Globalization and its Victims. Retrieved September 12, 2007. Available: http://www.concilium.org/english/intro015.htm Wade, H. (2005).Globalization, Poverty, and Inequality, in John Ravenhill ed., Global Political Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291-316. World Bank, (2007) World Development Indicators 2007. Washington, p. 185. Read More