Uneven Geographic Development and Globalization - Essay Example

? Uneven Geographic Development and Globalisation The world has gone through phenomenal changes since the end of the colonial era, where the future of many geographical places were previously under the direct manipulation of others to the current period of neoliberal globalisation in which a distinct geographical place is responsible for its own well-being. The result of this world order has been persistent geographical inequalities in terms of income and livelihood chances that those occupying a particular region have in relation to others. These inequalities can be blamed on the fact that there are many among the world’s population who are unable to enter the networks of power and privilege necessary for them to rip from the prospects made possible by processes of globalisation. As a result of the geographical inequalities manifested in different places of the world, it can be argued that contrary to the popular belief that the globalisation is bridging the economic, social and cultural gap between different regions, it is actually increasing the social, cultural and economic inequality; hence, uneven geographic development. The term globalisation can be traced back to the late 1980s when globalisation became fashionable idea that described contexts related to historical processes where world economic and societal integration was taking place rapidly commonly referred to as structural globalisation in addition to contexts related to policies underlying the historical processes which represents ideological globalisation (Kacowicz 2013). This social and economic integration has had different repercussions for different world’s geographical regions and countries at least in its initial stages. Due to globalisation in the current situation, the increased competition among countries has affected more negatively the Northern countries especially the US compared to the effect it has had on some of the Southern countries. The reason for this imbalance can be argued in terms of exchanges in trade where during the 1970s many developing countries benefited from the higher prices for natural resources like oil in addition to the plentiful supply of credit and investments at highly favourable conditions due to the increased competition among Northern countries (Arrighi 2002). In order to effectively explore the different views on how globalisation impacted on geographic development, it is necessary that different perspectives on globalisation can be identified. Superficially, globalisation can be considered as the deepening, expanding and accelerating international interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, which covers such diverse contexts as cultural to the criminal and from the financial to the spiritual undertakings (Saxena 2010). A computer programmer located in India is in a position to offer services to an employer in Europe or USA in real time. In addition to the fact that farming of poppies in Burma can have a connection with drug abuse in Berlin is a good enough example of how globalisation links one geographical location to another in a different continent. However, away from the broad perception of the continued escalation of global interconnectedness there is considerable divergent view as to how globalisation is best conceptualized, how its causal dynamics works, and how its structural impact should be characterized. Therefore, due to issues raised by the question of what globalisation represents, three broad schools of thought have developed each having a different perspective of globalisation but all endeavour to comprehend and elucidate this phenomenon. Firstly, there are those who see globalisation as representing a new epoch where people from different geographical regions are progressively being subjected to the controls of the global market. Secondly, there are those who conceptualize globalisation as a myth, which obscure the truth about international economy, which is in reality segmented into geographical blocs characterized by a powerful national government. The third group represent those who perceive globalisation as being historically unique in a way that states and societies worldwide are going through a process of deep change as they attempt to adjust to an increasingly interconnected world (Mott 2004). Taking the views represented by those who conceive an international economy as being segmented into distinct geographical blocks, there is an increased tendency in contemporary world trade where economic activities among nations is undergoing regionalization. Effectively, three major financial and trading blocs can be identified that includes Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North America (McGrew and Held 2000). The development of these trading blocs when contrasted with the classical Gold Standard era indicates that the global economy has continued to be less integrated over the years. Additionally, those who oppose the notion that globalisation has contributed to international economic integration argue that globalisation and regionalization are contradictory phenomena that can never occur at once. Therefore, international economy continued to become significantly less global (Ritzer and Atalay 2010). Even as globalisation has resulted in the breakdown of some barrier to trade in the international economy, uneven geographic development can be attributed to the fact that states have continued to exhibit a powerful role due to their growing centrality in the regulation and in the active promotion of international economic activities (Kim 2000). Governments in this case are the key players in international trade and therefore globalisation are not the passive victims of internationalization, but its primary designer. Indeed, internationalization can be considered because of the multilateral economic order catalysed by the United States after the Second World War thus laying the groundwork for the liberalization of national economies. Whatever the implication of the internationalization of global trade, it has not been followed by the eradication of the North-South inequalities but, resulted into the pushing of third world countries into the periphery of the trade and investment flows as that of the rich Northern countries continues to strengthen (Herod 2009). Furthermore, the accepted notion about the existence of a new universal separation of labour that has surfaced in which deindustrialization in the North can be drawn to the process of worldwide corporations exporting job to the South has been dispelled by sceptics who view such multinationals as working for their parent states. Equally, sceptics endeavour to destroy the conception of global corporation asserting that foreign investment flows are highly concentrated between the advanced capitalist states. Consequently, for those who view international economy as being segmented into geographical blocs characterized by a powerful national governments dismiss the belief that globalisation is contributing to a major reformation of global economic relations by presenting their own notion that there exists a regional inequality and hierarchy in the world economy (Held 1999). Geographically uneven development became a major issue after the Second World War a period characterized by decolonization leading to national optimism among the former colonies. The new countries had a notion that by becoming independent from foreign interests and control, they would discharge indigenous energies, eradicate institutional barriers and therefore enter a period of dramatic change in economic tides. Due to this optimism, marching the development levels achieved by the North American and Western European countries appeared a real prospect for the newly independent countries. However, as the years went by up to the late 1960s and early 1970s, the optimism of early years began to fade (Cox 2008). Although there was a postcolonial interest towards development in addition to the formulation of ambitious development plans, the global development map appeared to create hurdles that prevented the actualization of such ambitions. However, exceptions to this change of fortunes existed especially in the Newly Industrializing Countries found in the Far East, which continued to draw economic attention over the years while countries in South and Central America, South and Southeast Asia in addition to those in Africa remained as they had always been. The analysis factors that had led to this trend followed where such issues as effects of dependency, the repatriation of profits from third world countries by Western corporations are some of the arguments that those countries that reported lower than expected growth attempted to examine (Cox 2008). Even as nations increasingly conducted self-evaluations to determine where they stood in the international engagements because of increased global interaction, there were efforts by scholars to come up with theories of unequal international exchange that would respond to the prevailing circumstances. There was need to have a deeper analysis of the process of geographical development in order to determine why some countries were developing faster than others were. Based on this conceptualization, the development of capitalism had its origins in trade expansion in addition to the formation of a division of labour on a worldwide scale. However, this development did not spread to all areas in equal proportions but has been a one sided affair. Some parts of the world have recorded higher levels of development; however, this has been to the detriment to other parts which, based on some accounts, have achieved a reverse outcome of underdevelopment or retrogression. The explanation for these differences is the process of surplus transfer in the direction of countries with positions in the division of labour characterised by more capital intensive and needed more skilled work force (Ruccio 2012). Given that surplus transfer tends to move towards developed more countries, such countries strive to maintain the status quo to such degree that even when many of the third world countries attempt to escaping this inferior role into more industrial one, developed countries utilize their superior political might to block it. To achieve this state of affairs, developed countries usually employ the assistance allies in developing countries who in most cases are the local capitalist class that have made profit due to their role as raw material producer. Weeks (2001) contribution is one that makes an inquest into the geography of uneven development, which complements the foregoing that was based on the surplus transfer in addition to highlighting its weaknesses. To better explore the geography of uneven development, a distinction between primary and secondary uneven development should be made. Primary uneven development divides countries based on the extent to which developed capitalist production relations and therefore a self-propagating accumulation process reign (Cox 2008). In effect, this is to differentiate between Western European and North American countries and most of African and Latin American countries based on their distinct class structures. To make a case example of the situation of African countries, it can be argued that their main challenge is a deficit in the capitalist development where the deficit is caused by way in which immediate producers continue to be confined in their ownership of the land (Ritzer and Atalay 2010). However, this does not mean that production in these areas is pre-capitalist or non-capitalist since commodities are produced and the peasant sells the surplus. Without being backed by a total development of the freedom of labour power, the enduring effect is to produce divergence in levels of development of the productive forces. While primary uneven development explores the developmental relationships between the third world countries and developed ones, Secondary uneven development is limited to the more advanced capitalist countries. Development in the advanced capitalist countries are characterised by dynamic expansion yet, there is still an existence of growth regions and lagging regions. In this case, uneven development is because of inconsistency in the implementation of new technologies whose effects include increased productivity (Cox 2008). Based on this perspective, there are those who argue that especially economic globalisation is among the major contributors to the inequalities in the world. Those who hold this view anchor their argument on the capitalistic nature of globalisation and therefore, based on Marxist hypothesis it is full of the exploitation of the have not’s by the haves. This has resulted into the formulation of North-South divide with the North representing wealthy and powerful core countries while on the other hand, the South represents the exploited and impoverished peripheral countries found mostly in Africa and Latin America (Ruccio 2012). However, neoliberals admit that the world today is characterized by inequalities but are quick to assert that such inequalities are declining and will continue to do so due to the global free market that has resulted into free flow of goods and services, which is going to enrich everyone in the long-term (Ritzer 2010). Thomas Friedman (2005) best captures this through his hypothesis that globalisation has resulted in a flat world which is a scenario where there are no barriers to participation in the global economy. Friedman (2005), notes the ten forces that flattened the world based on Friedman’s analysis as being the fall of the open-sourcing, Berlin Wall, outsourcing, internet, insourcing, discovery of software that coordinates tasks, off-shoring, supply chaining, in-forming and the Steroids Globalisation and uneven geographic development can also be explored by shifting from international inequalities to a more micro level of rural-urban inequalities. An investigation of current world order reveals great inequalities in terms of economic development experienced in urban centres and cities compared to rural areas, which report low levels of economic development. Cities attract the best in terms of capital flow while the rural areas lag behind as most of its economically productive residents migrate to look for higher standards of living provided in the cities and urban places. The World Bank (2009) report notes three factors that play an essential role towards progress of developed countries namely cities, migration, and trade therefore making cities important pillar in the development of global economy. Given the high concentration of people in these cities, the occupants are able to share the indivisible facilities and therefore can afford services that would not be available to them in the rural areas. Duranton and Puga (2004) note that after the large fixed costs related a given facility has been undertaken, such a facility will continue offering important good and services to consumers at a stable marginal cost where the only hindrance is the distance between the consumer and the facility. From this exchange, it is evident that there must be trade-offs between the satisfaction of sharing the fixed cost of facility among multiple consumers and the cost incurred due to overcrowding around the facility. The tendency of cities to achieve higher levels of development led to the development of global city paradigm, which emerged due to the increased attention by researchers such as Friedman. The new interests on cities were generated by the need to explore the new geographical development of the world economy, which has been precipitated by globalisation processes. There are two essential functions of global cities one being that they act as points of connectivity for geographically spread production units and are consequently the foundation of the spatial organization and the determination of production and markets. Further, these cities act as bases where organizations set up their governance structure for their economic activities. Consequently, the cities are more developed that rural areas given that they are highly concentrated command points (Sassen 2001). While presenting his premise in ‘development of underdevelopment’, Andre Gunder Frank recommends a spatial model that explores the organization of uneven development. He presents the Latin American city acting as satellite post as a launching point for the interests of the leading centres of the world economy. Andre Gunder Frank asserts that these systems create a series of constellations of satellites that relates to the whole system from its metropolitan centre situated in Europe or the US to the furthest station in the Latin American countryside. Consequently, each of these satellite points operate as tools that absorbs capital or economic surplus out of its own system of satellites where a section of this surplus finds its way to the world metropolis of which all are satellites (Chew and Lauderdale 2010). The notion of global city paradigm developed by Andre Gunder Frank marches the later conceptualization by Immanuel Wallerstein who claims that the presence of a core in the world system can be attributed to the ability by a given place to attract multiple global commodity chains (Cook et al. 2004). Further, it is pointed that development of commodity chains does not happen a random geographical directions even as their origins have been multiple. To the contrary, the destinations of these commodity chains have always led to a congregation in a few areas where direction has always been movement from the periphery of the capitalist global economy towards their cores. Therefore, Frank and Wallerstein recommend that the transfer of resources from peripheries to the cores is structured along commodity chains (Derudder and Witlox 2010; Brown et al 2010). Lawson (2010) note spaces of agglomeration like cities and regions temporary and are prone to future reproduction or devaluation where they give way to other spatial arrangements that have potential to provide increased prospects for profitability. The creation of an uneven geographic development is therefore because of numerous connections existing between cities that have distinct functions in commodity chains. People with deferent roles in this chain carry out production in these places where there are those who are considered as rule-keepers while on the other hand some are seen as rule-makers who are mostly the professionals of the finance industries. This distinction is a major characteristic in the global city paradigm which contradicts suggestions that economic processes affect all cities in an evenly fashion (Robinson 2006). Currently, many former spaces of economic agglomeration and high capital accrual were later devalued due to economic restructuring many of which that are now spaces characterized by poverty and social isolation. Lawson (2010) gives examples of devalued regions such as those previously rich in minerals such as tin and silver in Latin America and agricultural produces like rubber plantations of central Africa. Moreover, past industrial regions of the US that covers areas such as the north-eastern manufacturing strip in Michigan, Detroit, Indiana, Gary, and Ohio in addition to past mining and textile spaces of the United Kingdom. In each of these regions, restructuring left behind devalued industries, unemployed work force and poorly funded local governments. In contrast, other places like Chicago, London and New York have endured succeeding periods of devaluation. These spaces that have been able to survive devaluation have a heightened ability to manage their resources and terms of trade, steer political discussion on development in addition to their capacity to reinvent themselves in the face of challenging times compared to places that have less power to control their destiny in this global political economy (Cai 2012). From the foregoing, globalisation has led to a new age that is characterized by improved interaction among people of different nations, regions and contents due to the availability of communication channels. These improved levels of interaction has increased trade among people of deferent geographical places therefore resulting in an effective and efficient flow of capital and surplus from nations, states and contents. The improved mobility of capital and the accrued surplus has led to the view that the world has become flat which stands for the perception that globalisation has resulted in the breakdown of barriers that initially made such interactions impossible. Because of this breakdown of trade barriers, many conceptualize globalisation as leading to the deepening, expanding and acceleration of international interconnectedness in all the undertakings of human beings. This group of people will argue that the global system is moving towards a uniform economy where disparities in economies of countries will continue to decrease and dimes in the longterm resulting to an even development. However, this line of thought is challenged by those who see globalisation being an off-shoot of capitalism and therefore benefits the rich to the detriment of the poor thus contributing to the increased the difference in economic development of places and therefore resulting in the uneven geographic development. This group assert that globalisation is contributing to the increase economic difference between the northern and southern countries and between cities or urban centres and rural areas. Derivatively, globalisation has many benefits sees it brings the world together through interconnectedness, which increases interdependence and the need to cooperate. However, the current system of global development favours the rich countries and regions given that they are the ones driving globalisation due to their superior technologies. References Arrighi, G. 2002. The African Crisis: World Systemic and Regional Aspects. New Left Review Vol. 15: 5-36. Brown, E. et al. 2010. World City Networks and Global Commodity Chains: towards a world-systems' integration, In: Global Networks Vol.10 (1) 12-34. Cai, T. (Ed.) 2012. Chinese Perspectives on Globalisation and Autonomy (Vol. 3). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Chew, S. and Lauderdale, P. (Eds.) 2010. Theory and Methodology of World Development: The Writings of Andre Gunder Frank, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cook I, et al. 2004. Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode Vol. 36: 642–664. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. 2004. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies, Handbook of regional and urban economics, Vol.4, 2063-2117. Derudder, B. and F. Witlox (eds.) 2010. Commodity chains and world cities, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Friedman, L. 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, New York: Straus and Giroux Held, D. (Ed.) 1999. Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture, California: Stanford University Press. Herod, A. 2009. Geographies of globalisation: a critical introduction, New Jersey: Wiley Kacowicz, A. M. 2013.Globalisation and the Distribution of Wealth: The Latin American Experience, 1982-2008, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, S. S. (Ed.) 2000. East Asia and globalisation, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Lawson, V. 2010. Reshaping economic geography? Producing spaces of inclusive development, Economic Geography, Vol. 86(4), 351-360. McGrew, A. G., & Held, D. (Eds.) 2000.The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalisation Debate, Cambridge: Polity Press. Ritzer, G. 2010. Globalisation, A basic text, New Jersey: Wiley. Ritzer, G., & Atalay, Z. (Eds.) 2010.Readings in globalisation: Key concepts and major debates, New Jersey: Wiley. Robinson, J. 2006. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development, London: Routledge. Sassen, S. 2001. The Global City, New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ruccio, D. F. (2012) Development and Globalisation: A Marxian Class Analysis, London: Routledge. Saxena, M. (Ed.) 2010. Contending with globalisation in world Englishes, Multilingual Matters. Mott, W. H. 2004. Globalisation: people, perspectives, and progress, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Weeks, J. 2001. The expansion of capital and uneven development on a world scale, Capital and Class, Vol. 74: 9–30. World Bank 2009. World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography. [Online] Available from http://econ.worldbank.org. Read More