Anti-Globalisation Arguments Seriously Undervalue Benefits of Globalisation - Coursework Example

Anti-Globalisation Arguments Seriously Undervalue benefits of Globalisation Introduction Most people view globalisation as Westernisation, a substantial agreement between both proponents and opponents. A study by Bigman (2007 p. 5) shows that the people who are optimistic on globalisation feel that it is a marvelous contribution from the western civilisation. In the European history, renaissance came first followed by Enlightenment, then the Industrial Revolution. These changes contributed to a massive increase in the people’s living standards achievements from the West that would later spread throughout the world. Most historian scholars feel upset because some people argue that this great global benefaction is a curse. In addition, these anti-globalisation activists tend to undervalue and criticise it. Analysis A study by Lloyd (2001 p. 16) shows that the anti-globalisation crusaders argue that Western dominance is a continuation of Imperialism led by the greedy and grabby Western countries. These opponents of globalisation argue that the West and Europeans have established trade rules that do not have the poor people’s interests at heart. However, the question remains whether globalisation is a western curse as most of the Asian champions, glorifiers of Confucian ethics, and Islamic fundamentalists’ definitions. Some of the drivers of globalisation include migration, trade, travel, cultural influences, and science and technology (Zolo 2007 p. 49). The interrelations caused by these drivers have been very influential in different countries although not necessarily in the form of western influence. Study shows that the active influencers may locate far from the west. A good example is the global reach of mathematics, science, and technology around 1000 A.D a dissemination from the opposite direction in relation to current global observations. During that time, high technology included paper, press printing, suspension bridges made with iron, gunpowder, and crossbow. It also included the magnetic compass, the wheelbarrow, the kite, and rotary fan. These unknown practices happened extensively only in China although later through globalisation they spread to other European areas. The decimal system originated from India an Eastern influence that played a big role in influencing Western mathematics. The Arab mathematicians adapted the system immediately from the Indians in the second and sixth centuries, and later spread to Europe by the end of the tenth century, and this influenced the scientific revolution that transformed Europe. This study shows that the agents of globalisation may not necessarily be from Europe, or the West meaning it does not necessarily link to Westernisation. If Europe had resisted mathematics, it would have been a poorer country in terms of in technology. As a result, ignoring globalisation would be a daft decision considering its global benefits. Rejecting it in science and technology due to its Western influence and Imperialism would mean overlooking the different global contributions from other countries. Resisting the analysis of globalisation as an occurrence of typical Western origin is being suspicious of pro-western prejudice and anti-western expression in many contemporary writings. The Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrialisation revolutions from Europe later occurred in America despite these developments revolving from other parts of the world. Global civilisation is not a compilation of dissimilar local cultures, but rather a world heritage. Many modern mathematicians do not realise how much they celebrate the Arab mathematician Khwarizmi when using the algorithm to resolve their computer problems. Al-Khwarizmi manipulated the European revolution meaning the West should not take extensive praise recognition for globalisation achievements. In addition, the publishing of the world’s first book, an amazing global event was a Chinese achievement. The colonial and postcolonial era may contribute to the misdiagnosis of globalisation due to parochial tendencies of objectivities in science and technology. This approach is counterproductive in relation to historical global interactions that may annoy the non-westerners. Barrett (2001 p. 25) gives a good example as the resistance in India to use the Western concepts of mathematics in science. Macaulay is one of the Westernisers who saw no value in Indian traditions arguing that the Indian advocates could not deny that one shelf of European books was worth more than the completely native literature from Arab and India. The native education advocates resisted the dichotomy (Spoor 2004 p. 20), and both parties agreed on their contrasting civilizations. India considered the use of Sine concept in European mathematics as a western import. It is serious and expensive for any person to see globalisation as a mere western imperialism of both beliefs and ideas. The same would have been during the previous millennium if Europe resisted the Eastern influence. However, in the case of the distribution of economic growth and losses concerning globalisation, different questions may arise. Considering it is a tremendously significant issue. Dreher et al. (2008 p. 68) argue that it plays a vital role in global prosperity. A few centuries ago, the globe suffered from severe poverty with very rare affluence. Modern technology and broad economic connections have helped in overcoming that poverty. In order to understand the positive effects of globalisation, it is important to understand the revolutions in America, Europe, Japan, and other developed countries. However, it is hard to ignore the fact that some poor countries do not equally enjoy the fruits of modern expertise. In addition, not all countries enjoy the advantages of International trades and exchange, and both social and economic virtues of an open civilization. Instead, the most important concern is making helpful use of the economic and technological benefits that raises concerns to the underdog (Wells 1996 p. 58). As a result, I would raise the anti-globalisation question “Are the poor getting poorer?” The main challenge in relation to this question is the inequality amongst the international and the intra-national including disparities in wealth, and uncivilized asymmetries in economic, social, and political chances and supremacy. Another question involves the sharing of possible gains amongst the rich and the poor, and while it is important to understand that the poor equally require globalisation, it is more important to ensure they get their requirements. This approach is only possible through institutional reforms. People argue that the rich get richer while the poor poorer however this is not necessarily so. However, Harrisson (2007 p. 42) argues that this depends on the area and the economic prosperity indicators used in the research. On the other hand, the proponents of globalisation argue that many poor people involved in international trade get rich. Consequently, the argument shows that the poor equally benefits from the same. These contradicting statements bring up the question of which statement bears more weight (Collier and Dollar 2002 p. 35). However, it is clear that the poor people do not get an equal share of benefits from international economic relations. There is no need to argue on whether international marginalization gap seems to be getting wider or smaller since this remains a different issue altogether. Possible arrangements can work where there are benefits from collaboration. Nash, a mathematician, and a game theorist argued once that it was not about whether a specific planning for all than no cooperation would be. A person cannot refute the disapproval that a distributional planning is unjust because all parties are better off in absence of cooperation. A good example is in a family arrangement by which a person cannot argue that women would be better in the absence of families (Held and Mcgrew 2007 p. 23). Instead, they should argue that their sharing of benefits is unequal in this family arrangement. The same cannot be argued that people should not refute that globalisation is unfair because poor people gain something. In addition, they should not ask the question of the margin of these people’s gains. They should not equally ask whether the poor would be better if they stayed away from it. That is why anti-globalisation argues on its benefits fighting for the altering of the globalisation arrangements. The question is whether these poor people can get an improved arrangement from both social relationships and global economies exclusive of dispensing with the market economy itself. According to Kinley (2009 p. 52), the poor people can certainly do this because the use of the market financial system remains consistent despite different proprietorship patterns. In addition, it is consistent despite different social opportunities, availabilities, and operation regulations. Further modifications may further arise through social security arrangements and other civic modifications that affect market outcomes. Together, they can all affect different levels of disparity and poverty. However, it is hard to achieve economic prosperity without utilising the opportunities provided by the markets (Mullard & Cole 2007 p. 37). Global capitalism seems more concerned with expanding market relations than establishing democracy. In addition, it is clear that multinational organization in the developing countries influence priorities in public expenditure by securing managerial positions. They do not give preference to medical deprivation, illiteracy, or other adversities related to the poor. However, these practices do not impose a barrier to development. Conclusion Confusing globalisation with Westernisation is a lack of a historical perspective that may distract attention to potential benefits of global amalgamation. Study shows that the globalisation process offers abundance of rewards and opportunities since historic days to date. However, the question of the fairness in distribution of these benefits remains among many anti-globalisation movements. As a result, the issue on the overall balance of these arrangements and the inequity affects the sharing of these benefits. It is not about the poor gaining something from globalisation, but it is whether they get a fair share of opportunity. As a result, there is a dire need for change in the institutional arrangement in order to overcome the errors limiting the poor across the globe. Consequently, while there is a need to protect globalization and its reform. References BARRETT-LENNARD, B. (2001). Anti-globalisation. Mornington, Vic, Beach Box Books. BIGMAN, D. (2007). Globalization and the least developed countries: potentials and pitfalls. Wallingford, UK, CABI. COLLIER, P., & DOLLAR, D. (2002). Globalization, growth, and poverty building an inclusive world economy. Washington, DC, World Bank. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A N=70038. DREHER, A., GASTON, N., & MARTENS, P. (2008). Measuring globalization: understanding its causes and consequences. New York, NY, Springer New York. HARRISON, A. E. (2007). Globalization and poverty. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A N=212641 HELD, D., & MCGREW, A. G. (2007). Globalization/anti-globalization: beyond the great divide. Cambridge, Polity. KINLEY, D. (2009). Civilising globalisation: human rights and the global economy. Cambridge [etc.], Cambridge University Press. LLOYD, J. (2001). The protest ethic: how the anti-globalisation movement challenges social democracy. London, Demos. MICHIE, J. (2011). The handbook of globalisation. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Pub. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=685074. MULLARD, M., & COLE, B. (2007). Globalisation, citizenship and the war on terror. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A N=209982. SPOOR, M. (2004). Globalisation, poverty and conflict a critical "development" reader. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=231319. VICKERS, A., & WELLS, A. (2001). Explaining the anti-globalisation movement. Wollongong, Univ. of Wollongong [u.a.]. WELLS, G. J., SHUEY, R., & KIELY, R. (2001). Globalization. Huntington, N.Y., Novinka Books. WES, M. (1996). Globalisation: winners and losers. London, Commission on Public Policy & British Business. ZOLO, D. (2007). Globalisation: an overview. Colchester, UK, ECPR Press. Read More