Anti-Globalisation Arguments - Literature review Example

Anti-Globalisation Arguments Seriously Undervalue benefits of Globalisation Introduction Globalisation is increasingly becoming a contentious topic with global protests focusing more on the basic assumptions of its effects (Gaunt 2002 p.6). The purpose of this paper is to broaden the boundaries of this debate considering that the anti-globalisation arguments seem to undervalue seriously the benefits of globalization. The research identifies the winners and losers of globilisation, and the empirical evidence of its impacts on its key areas including labour, equality, culture, government, and the environment. This literature indicates that while globalization is an uneven process with both positive and negative effects, the anti-globalisation seriously undervalue its benefits. The paper presents some of the arguments from various stakeholders in relation to this debate. Analysis Globalisation began in the 15th century through European monarchs’ funders seeking new trade routes. The imperial expansion through colonization saw its expansion for the purpose of trade. Later on, the surrogate colonial governments owning most of the companies privatized and the transoceanic and intercontinental railways enabled open markets. However, by the 1900, the world wars disrupted these global markets and the International Monetary funds came up to salvage the situation. In 1960, the word globalization came up (Waters 1995 p.6). World trade Organiszation (WTO) came up in 1995 to help in free, fair, and smooth flow of these trades. The anti-globalisation protests are familiar in the social and economic landscape, and chances are they will not end any time soon. Moreover, the contentious issue remains polarized with the enthusiastic free traders hanging on one end of the continuum, and the radical protestors hanging on the other end. The supporters of globalization view it as an opportunity of economic growth, while the proponents view it as a threat to the economy prosperity, sovereignty, and cultural integrity among others. The anti-globalisation supporters in the developed countries argue on potential job loss for employees, and the risk of contracting other industries. They worry that globalization may lead to political sovereignty, which consequently affects the control of their economies. The burgeoning review on globalisation involves fervent ideological arguments that lack empirical support. After all, some of the literature in these researches often contradicts the findings. . Due to globalization, world trade has tremendously gone up due to increased volumes facilitated by the shift to foreign direct investments and technology. In addition, the rapid improvements in telecommunications, technology, and international transportation modes enhance these global trades. According to Valadskakis (1998 p. 24), the internet facilitated the opening up of service markets that geographic locations hindered earlier. However, the main disagreements on this debate base on the definition of the term globalisation. A study by Champlin and Olson (1999 p.28) posits that this debate may not be resolved quickly because the debaters have different frames, and not because they lack the definitive econometric analysis. The argument is simply on the virtues of free-market and the demand and supply. An anti-globalist Reich (2000 p. 1) defines globalisation as a system that passed from insignificance to vanity without ever having an intervention period of rationality. According to Reichner and Boli (2000 p.1), this insignificance traces back to globalisation usage as an all-purpose catchphrase in scholarly and public debate using different connotations for both supporters and opposes of globalisation. Most definitions of globalisation focus across border trades, and Ohmae (1995 p. 12) defines globalisation as the absence of barriers and boundaries among different governments. On the other hand, IMF defines globalisation as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through the increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services and of international capital flows, and also through the more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology” (IMF, 1997: 45). However, these are narrow definitions conveying a sense of lack of boundaries and dynamic change according to the opponents of globalisation. Nevertheless, Brown (1992 p. 42) defines globalisation as the correlation between some overlying interests of business and society acknowledging the broader context of globalisation. As a result, globalisation is a process leading to greater economic interdependence networking. There is abundant, if sometimes conflicting, study on the financial and economic features of globalization; the broader influence of this occurrence, nevertheless, has established less attention by business scholars. The anti-globalists argue that there is more inequality across borders currently compared to the past. The gap in per capita 1870-2000 between the developed and the developing countries has increased five-fold (Temple 1999 p. 28). UNDP (1996 p.1) reported an increased gap between the rich and the poor with over 1.2 million people living below the $1 mark. While these findings may be true, it is important to analyse the average capital growth in these countries. Globalisation improved the developed countries that earlier practiced communism whereby the governments owned most of the businesses. In this system, some lazy people fed on other people’s sweat since the government provided for them. However, with capitalism brought about by globalisation, everyone realized they had to work hard for their money. This wake up call for majority of the people now fed and clothed themselves. Countries like Korea, Singapore, Puerto Rico, and Ireland are some of the countries that significantly reduced the gap between the rich and the poor through improved wages. Most of the East Asia economies saw trade liberalization in wage inequality and according to Lee (1996 p. 11), this approach enhanced a rapid economic growth. However, a smaller proportion like the Latin America saw an increased gap with liberalization causing wage inequality. Longworth (1999 p. 32) notes that United States has the highest inequality between the rich and the poor. However, considering the historic economic events, a person cannot ignore that globalisation saw people’s standards rise to middle class, and improved their living conditions. The Silicon Valley is a good example of a region that highly benefitted from globalisation until the recent financial meltdown. Engardio et al. (2003 p. 51) argue that unlike the earlier days when people feared losing the blue collar jobs, the current generations fears to lose the white collar jobs. This conclusion means that the globalised generation is not only skilled, but also highly trained. They are afraid of losing their jobs to expatriates, and as a result, they have to improve their knowledge. The anti globalists worry about the dynamics caused when companies in developed countries with high wages begin outsourcing their production to low cost regions like East Asia and Africa. This approach may have advantage to the Local companies and the job seekers, but according to the anti-globalists, they degrade labour conditions. According to Klein (2000p. 42), U.S Labour Department exempted EPZ from national labour laws in the country, and this causes frequent hiring and firing of employees in these firms. This may seen as exploitation, but it is clear that these companies provide jobs for the low-income earners who have struggled looking for jobs. As a result, the companies offer employment, which is one of the determining factors of any country’s economy. Globalisation is a wake-up call for people to work more intelligently and effectively mainly due to competition. The internet provides vital information on companies’ performances and as a result, a failing company remains economically challenged in the global market. Consequently, the companies have to ensure that the employees hold high intelligence and works effectively towards reaching the organisation’s objectives. A study by Koblin (2001 p.44) posits that the anti-globalisation proponents may feel that the internet boycotts may have a negative effect on a company’s economic objectives. However, the same internet exposes the new products and technologies applied by other performing organizations. It gives the insights of companies’ operations and success stories, which other employers may apply in their organizations. The employees can equally use the internet to gather vital information in relation to their products (Brown et al. 1998 p. 26). In addition, the consumers can access vital information on the companies and their products and with good marketing plan, accompany may win the consumers. The anti-globalisation supporters fear that governments lack sovereignty through globalisation. While this is true, there is an advantage of privatilising companies especially because of production. Private companies tend to perform better because most times there is no government interference. The government owned firms suffer from political instability, whereby the government interference affects the production. However, globalisation has helped in infrastructure, poverty eradication, healthcare programs, social security systems, and unemployment, which have ripple effects on any country’s economy. Conclusion The anti-globalisation proponents have reasons to argue, but they should realize that globalisation is a double-edged sword. This contentious debate may not end soon and hence the need to weigh on the positives and the negatives. Study shows that globalisation has more positive effects than the negative because of the many developments related to it. Many government sectors including the healthcare and the national Security have enhanced through globalisation especially in the developing countries. In addition, employment, a vital tool for economic growth has tremendously gone up with globalisation. Although sovereignty remains a fear for these opponents of globilisation, it is clear, that privatilisation of company’s has more advantages. As a result, the proponents of anti-globalisation should reconsider their facts, and weigh between the positive and negative effects of globalisation. References BROWN, C.R., RENNER, M., AND FLAVIN, C. (1998). Vital Signs New York: W. W. Norton. CHAMPLIN, D. AND OLSON, P. (1999). The impact of globalization on U.S. labor markets: redefining the debate. Journal of Economic Issues 33 (2), 443-451. CHARNOVITZ, S. (1992). Environmental and labour standards in trade. The World Economy, Vol. 15 (8), May, 343. COX, R. W.(1996). A perspective on globalization.. In Globalization: Critical Reflections. James H. Mittelman (Ed.). Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers, 21-30. ENGARDIO, P., BERNSTEIN, A. & KRIPALANI, M. (2003).. Is Your Job Next? BusinessWeek, February 3, 50-60. GAUNT, J. (2002). Globalization has helped the poor, study says. Reuters, July 7. GIDDENS, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge. GUILLÉN, M.F. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of six key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology., 27: 235-260. HOLMES, S. & OSTROVSKY, S. (2003). The new cold war at Boeing. BusinessWeek, February 3, 58-59. IMF. (1999). World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. May, Washington, D.C.: IMF. . Joint Venture’s 2003 Index of Silicon Valley.(2003). San Jose, CA: Joint Venture. KOBRIN, S. J. (2001). Our resistance is as global as your oppression: Multinational corporations, the protest movement and the future of global governance. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Studies Association, February, Chicago. KLEIN, N. (2000). No Logo New York: Picador. LECHNER, F. J. & BOLI, J. (2000). (eds.). The Globalization Reader, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. LEE, E. (1996). Globalization and employment: Is anxiety justified?” International Labour Review 135 (5), 486-497. LONGWORTH, R. C. (1999). The Global Squeeze. Chicago: Contemporary Books. OECD. (1997). Trade, earnings and employment: Assessing the impact of trade with emerging economies on OECD labour markets.” OECD Employment Outlook, 93-128. OHMAE, K. (1995). The end of the nation state. New York: Free Press. Temple, J. (1999). The new growth evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 37:112-156 UNDP, (2001). Human Development Report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press. Valaskakis, K. (1998). The challenge of strategic governance: Can globalization be managed?” Optimum 28, no. 2, Summer, 26-40. Waters, M. (1995). Globalization, New York: Routledge. WOOD, A. (1997). Openness and wage inequality in developing countries: The Latin American challenge to East Asian Ccnventional wisdom. World Bank Economic Review, 11(1), 33- 57. ZHAO, L. (1998). The impact of foreign direct investment on wages and employment. Oxford Economic Papers 50(2), April, 284-302. Read More