The Prospective Advantages of Neoliberal Globalization - Statistics Project Example

Introduction From the beginning of 1980s, the world has seen the materialization, consolidation and dispersion of a fresh economic concept, which highlights strict macroeconomic constancy, “deregulation of domestic product and factor markets” (Ferguson, 2006, p. 22), privatization and a decreased function of the country within the financial system. Throughout the previous decade, this policy concept has broadened its reach by stressing policies - for instance, the elimination of obstructions to global trade, opening up to foreign direct investments as well as liberalization of interim portfolio flows - which assisted in speeding up the pace of the neoliberal globalization of the world financial system. Neoliberal Globalization and Poverty The statistics released by the World Bank’s Development Research Group prove that 22 percent of the developing world’s inhabitants lived on 1.25 USD or less per day during the year 2008, down from 43 percent during the year 1990 and 52 percent during the year 1981. The force of global policy behind the economic globalization is “neoliberal in nature” (Cote et al, 2007, p. 92). Being enormously lucrative to companies and the influentials, neoliberal polices are publicized by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization. Neoliberalism supports the free-market as the most resourceful process of international resource distribution. Thus, it supports comprehensive, corporate trade as well as the privatization of resources. Lately, there has been a lot of global focus on neoliberalism. The supporters of this policy claim that it boosts competition, gives key prospects for export and expansion to developing nations, supports the convergence of the living standards of underprivileged nation with those of highly developed nations and decreases the poverty universally. They as well declare that the within-country distributive effect of these policies is impartial, that the continuing earnings allocation is generally constant and that there is no apparent association between inequality and development. “Enormous bounds have taken place as the flow of large quantities of trade, investment, people, and technologies across borders, has expanded from a trickle to a flood” (Went, 2000, p. 292). These procedures are raising international prosperity as well as global collaboration, ultimately leading to a better correspondence and convergence within the performance of national financial systems across the world. As it has become obvious during the previous three decades, contribution and incorporation within the global financial system has been extremely advantageous for developing nations, together with India, China and the recently industrializing nations of East as well as Southeast Asia. Neoliberal viewpoints maintain that there is a direct as well as positive link between globalization and poverty; that is, globalization is decreasing the general amount of poor people and / or nations. Simultaneously, there is an increasing acknowledgment that globalization does not develop consistently, regardless of its largely positive effects for global progress. In accordance with this perception, those nations, which quickly incorporate into the global financial system develop more rapidly and can reduce poverty (Lo, 2011, p. 112). For instance, outward-focused or export-reliant economic policies changed East Asia into a few of the world’s most active as well as more affluent financial systems during the last couple of years. On the contrary, where nations followed inward-focused economic policies, for instance, import replacement industrialization, their financial systems became stagnated or declined, as proved by Latin America and Africa during the 1970s and the 1980s. Overall, the process of neoliberal globalization, as financial incorporation and inter-reliance, can decrease and resolve the issues of poverty, within and among countries. By the support of free trade that maintains premium development, neoliberal globalization as well holds the guarantee of better standard of living for everyone around the globe. In this sense, financial prospects within the third world would be improved by the removal of trade obstructions, which, as a result, greatly reduces poverty. These constraints on economic liberty are maintained by rich- and poor-nation governments in a similar way. Besides free trade, technology, as the main driver of neoliberal globalization, can be considered as necessary in potentially reducing and eliminating poverty, if appropriately as well as successfully disseminated and implemented. Therefore, the progress attained in “computing and telecommunications in the North” (Unay, 2007, p. 312) present huge prospects for enhancing standard of life within the third world. The implementation of neoliberal economic policies in addition to the proper technologies have previously brought significant advantages, rising the revenues of Western business and increasing the prolific employment as well as higher incomes for the world’s poor nations. The impact of such policies was intricate as well as diverse, relying on the original level of poverty and the level and sources of the poverty change. On very low levels poverty, economic performance is influenced harmfully, as need of sufficient incentive for variations in individual aptitude, attempt and human resources wears down work incentives and enhances “labour shirking” (Torres, 2008, p. 193). In the same way, when the difference between the affluent and the underprivileged grows considerably, the work incentives of the underprivileged decrease, as in the case of rural financial systems exemplified by increased land concentration. High levels of poverty can as well produce individual uncertainty in addition to political insecurity. The previous studies on the similar subject offer proof of a powerful link between poverty and joblessness on the one hand and the crime rate on the other. Communal apprehensions, as a result, wear away the safety of property rights, increase the risk of stealing, push away local as well as foreign investment, and raise the cost of business protection and agreement enforcement. Recurrent increases in discrimination, a slowdown within development and a raise in its unsteadiness proved to be harmful to poverty reduction during the 1980s and particularly during the 1990s (Tarw, 2006, p. 394). This is due to the fact that high discrimination as well as insecurity suppress development and since, for any known developmental rate of gross domestic product, poverty falls less quickly in case of an irregular allocation of earnings than within the case of an equitable one. In fact, improvement on the poverty front during the last few years has been a little below of what is initially expected. During 1990, the World Bank anticipated a drop in the amount of the underprivileged from 800 million to 550 million during 2000 and 2005. However, during 2006, the same organization calculated the number of the underprivileged during 2001 at around 890 million, which was more than the original actual target. In China, India and other East Asian nations, which pursued a strategy of neoliberal globalization, poverty dropped quickly during the 1990s because of the fast development of farming as well as labour concentrated exports and to the execution of rural improvement programs. If these “unorthodox liberalizers and asymmetric globalizers are excluded from the computation of poverty trends, the picture is one of stagnation. For instance, if China is excluded from the world total, poverty incidence drops only from 28 to 26 percent between 1987 and 1998, entailing an almost negligible rate of decline of 0.18 per cent a year over this period” (Kapoor, 2011, p. 292). The level of poverty reduction was noticeably control by the pragmatic alterations within income allocation. Poverty rates increased more rapidly in comparison with what was expected on the basis of productivity reduction within the majority of the earlier Soviet Union where discrimination rose sharply. Within Africa and Latin America, the share of the underprivileged stayed largely steady from 1987 till 1998, whereas the amount of the underprivileged increased by 70 million and 12 million respectively, regardless of a reasonable increase in output per capita. As a result, the link between neoliberal policy reform, development and poverty reduction stays mainly challenging within Africa, Latin America and the European economies going through the process of transition (Gunewardena, 2008, p. 322). Regardless of sustained development during the 1990s, the reduction in poverty within China, India and the Asian nations influenced by the economic crisis has nearly stop because of a surge in discrimination in these nations. Despite the fact that their domestic brand of neoliberal globalization proved good for poverty reduction during the 1980s, the policy alterations of the 1990s caused a restricted impact on poverty reduction. It is now obvious that the potential for neoliberal globalization to function as a way to reduce poverty relies on the point to which the financial and social impulses of globalization are conveyed to a nation. On the global trade side, the apparent proof now is that globalization has initiated the emergence of two clusters: (1) Those which have mainly gained from the growth of world trade and investment, including largely Western Europe, North America, Latin America and particular states in Africa, Asia and Middle East. Secondly, those which have either not gained or have actually lost out - the debarred or marginalized (Navarro, 2007, p. 212). Even for those countries nations, which have benefited, it does not essentially bring with it a development in conditions of trade or better prices for products. In fact the latest proof is that the global prices of the “poor man’s’ export crops” (Klak, 1997, p. 292) have dropped excessively in comparison with those of manufactured products. This seems to be factual with respect to the domestic and global conditions of trade. The major obstruction to the development in undeveloped countries’ conditions of trade take account of constraints on market penetration for rural products inflicted by the leading trading alliances together with the European Union with the value of subsidies prevailing over the entire value of Official Development Assistance to developing nations. It is obvious that for export related expansion - a basis of neoliberal globalization to function - the basic globalization model presently propagated by the World Trade Organization has to be altered drastically. In the same way, the unfulfilled guarantees with respect to opening up trade particularly for the least developed nations have to be checked again. The key areas that have been widely covered on neoliberal globalization and poverty reduction are centred on the economic aspect although the noneconomic as well as communal aspect is acknowledged as increasingly significant. The economic issues are mainly related to worldwide trade, foreign investment flows and technology for development, and latest control systems, which are tuned into the globalizing world (Kiely, 2005, p. 101). A number of these factors are now being developed within the perspective of incorporated poverty reduction policies. While there is a necessity to completely value the neoliberal globalization and build them into the PRSPs, poverty reduction discussion mainly overlook the vital issue of the human aspect and even the way international public commodities can be focussed towards alleviating poverty. While the PRSPs represent state driven and completely participatory standards and do in fact include the apprehensions of the underprivileged, they as well tend to overlook significant issues of trade links and global direct investment as important aspects of poverty reduction. As in the earlier period, a comparatively weak region is how the PRSPs can exploit the empowerment of the underprivileged as a functional tool to develop their condition. Another most promising impulse of neoliberal globalization is the prospective effect of technology for development on poverty reduction facilitating a nation to achieve complete phases in development quickly (Robinson, 2006, p. 212). Nonetheless, the majority of onlookers admit that this connection will only have real outcome when the amount of users or cyber-communities increase to become readily available for the underprivileged. Even then, this should be placed within its right framework since even the circulation of newspapers and other media is extremely inadequate in most underdeveloped nations. Therefore, the main point in this region is complete physical access to technology together with the cost of access. The way to endorse internet services where there is no electrical energy and where information on local concerns is not accessible is challenging and needs some comprehensive approach including improved and more appropriate content, enhanced access, understanding, and follow-up earlier than the prospective of the internet and technology can efficiently deal with reducing poverty in least developed nations. The broadly diverging causes of neoliberal globalization on a “continental” (Young, 2009, p. 132) level shows the variety as well as stability, which consecutively can be grouped into outlines or problems of either insertion or omission effects. Within Africa, the globalization-poverty decline analysis focuses on the necessity to deal with the issues of rising marginalization and the way African financial systems can declare a better share of international trade as well as foreign investment. The latest agreement for Africa in the shape of the “African Millennium Plan” (Young, 2009, p. 133) is the result of this approach and links neoliberal globalization and poverty reduction to the accomplishment of a new set of modifications. Within Asia the major concern is with the way to reduce the threat of increased economic as well as trade susceptibility in any decline within the global economy. As a result, the globalization-poverty decline link would be focused largely on this risk aversion concept. In the transition, economies of Eastern Europe the relation between neoliberal globalization and poverty reduction would be largely claimed with respect to the requirement to compensate the underprivileged for their inconsistent share of the overheads of transition. In addition, it will also consider to compensate the increase in obvious variation and informal financial structures (mostly linked with neoliberal globalization forces), which categorize against the underprivileged (Ventura, 2012, p. 83). As a result, the globalization- poverty reduction form would be more concerned with the reorganization of the advantages of globalization. For Latin America - debt as well as financial insecurity and the relation to globalization and are prevailing themes, which will effect on the way globalization poverty reduction form is proposed. Conclusion The last 20 years of the neoliberal globalisation have witnessed the major drop in human poverty yet. Additional individuals have moved from the poverty that was “man’s long lasting lot to a better life of three squares a day and a roof over their heads than in any other time period in the species’ history” (Hackworth, 2006, p. 99). This is simply an amazing improvement. Even though the huge efforts have not been made, but the target has already been met mainly through the very neoliberal globalisation. Developing nations have been provided with the key task to harness the prospective advantages of neoliberal globalization for the underprivileged and to offset possible harmful effects. They are advised to implement proper structural as well as social methods that support macro-economic constancy necessary for financial development and poverty reduction. Countries with higher level of income are advised to support these plans by better assistance, debt release, experience trades on policymaking and high-quality control, and relaxed market access for vital commodities to low-income nations. Nonetheless, several low-income nations already face enormous and usually opposing challenges in acquiring poverty reduction objectives, such as “implementation of education for all programmes with lesser government spending, or guaranteeing adequate income-creation and employment potential for the underprivileged without interference in the investment distribution policies” (D’Costa, 2012, p. 111). Developing nations are in need of solid guiding principle on the suitable social, market and political mechanisms and delivery methods that can link the micro world of the underprivileged and the macro world of national financial systems and on proper sequencing of mechanism to guarantee quick and best possible advantages for the underprivileged. References Cote, M. Day, R. J. F., and Peuter, G. 2007. Utopian Pedagogy: Radical Experiments against Neoliberal Globalization. University of Toronto Press. D’Costa, A. 2012. Globalization and Economic Nationalism in Asia. OUP. Ferguson, J. 2006. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Duke University Press Books. Gunewardena, N. Schuller, M. and Waal, A. 2008. Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal Strategies in Disaster Reconstruction. AltaMira Press. Hackworth, J. 2006. The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Cornell University Press. Kapoor, D. 2011. Critical Perspectives on Neoliberal Globalization, Development and Education in Africa and Asia. Sense Publishers. Kiely, R. 2005. Empire in the Age of Globalisation: U.S. Hegemony and Neo-Liberal Disorder. Pluto Press. Klak, T. Conway, D. and Gayle, D. J. 1997. Globalization and Neoliberalism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kose, A. H. Senses, F. and Yeldan, E. 2008. Neoliberal Globalization as New Imperialism: Case Studies on Reconstruction of the Periphery. Nova Science Pub Inc. Lo, Dic. 2011. Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization: Studies in the Political Economy of Institutions and Late Development. Palgrave Macmillan. Navarro, V. 2007. Neoliberalism, Globalization, and Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Robinson, R. 2006. The Neoliberal Revolution: Forging the Market State. Palgrave Macmillan. Tarq, H. 2006. Challenging Late Capitalism, Neoliberal Globalization, & Militarism. Lulu.com. Torres, C. A. 2008. Education and Neoliberal Globalization. Routledge Unay, S. 2007. Neoliberal Globalization and Institutional Reform: The Political Economy of Development and Planning in Turkey. Nova Science Pub Inc. Ventura, P. 2012. Neoliberal Culture: Living With American Neoliberalism. Ashgate Pub Co. Went, R. 2000. Globalization: Neoliberal Challenge, Radical Responses. Pluto Press. Young, N. 2009. Neoliberal globalization and democracy. Pluto. Read More