Social, Economic, And Political Changes Caused By Globalization - Essay Example

Social, Economic, And Political Changes Caused By Globalization Introduction According to Reich (1998, p.5) globalization is a process through which the activities done in one part of the world affects people on other parts of the world. Since the introduction of globalization, many social, economic and political changes have taken place at different parts of the world. International business or cross cultural business has been increased a lot in recent past because of globalization. Outsourcing and offshoring of business, workforce exchange, and diversity at workplaces are other important contributions of globalization. Robinson (2003, p.12) has pointed out that globalization helps the world to develop transnational capital. It is often said that global wealth is currently shifting from less heavily populated American and European regions to the more heavily populated Asian region because of globalization. According to Lieber and Weisberg (2002, p.274), globalization helps people all over the world in the creation of a stronger and stable world. Supporters of globalization believe that globalization benefits the world through the promotion of such ideals as human rights, democracy, and freedom and that it enhances the success of the world through free trade, free investment and better technology. According to Dharam Ghai (2003) free market and private enterprise are extremely important in determining the success of globalization. Cross-cultural businesses have been increased a lot as a result of globalization. Imports and exports between different countries were also increased because of the liberalized rules affected in many countries as part of globalization. Despite of all these arguments in favor of globalization, some people believe that globalization is nothing but imperialism. It should be noted that imperialism is the process of taking over of a weaker nation by a stronger nation (What is imperialism, n.d.). Critics of globalization believe that capitalist countries like America and UK are trying to loot the wealth of developing and underdeveloped countries in the name of globalization. Globalization is labeled as Americanization by the opponents. They pointed out that instead of globalization, glocalization is necessary for a country to progress properly. It should be noted that glocalization is the process of integrating of local markets into world capitalism. It refers to a concept in which individual, group, organization, product or service upholds the local standards even while operating internationally. Critics do believe that America and its allies are trying to destroy local parameters and cultivate American parameters across the world. In other words, they do believe that globalization is nothing but imperialism in another form. From the above discussions, it is clear that there are many arguments in favor and against globalization. This paper critically analyses these arguments with the help of three prominent international relations theories such as liberalism, realism and the neo-neo debate. Liberalism and globalization Even though the core principle of liberalism is one and the same, plenty of different thoughts are there. Based on the nature of these thoughts, liberalism can be classified as classical liberalism, progressive liberalism and liberal democrats. Classical liberalism and globalization Classical Liberals promote self-interests, association and incentives. They do believe in individual freedom and their activities are highly motivated by freedom and liberties. They give importance to the rights and freedom of others and respect the activities done by others (Dolhenty, 2003). Individual freedom and liberties are stressed by classical liberalism. It advocates private property. It believes that owing private property is an individual right as far as the means used to earn the property is right and legal. Individuality and freedom were the most important essentialities for human life as per classical liberals. Free trade is considered as the brain child of classical liberalism. Classical liberals such as Adam Smith and john Locke believe that the free exchange of goods across countries could bring global peace (Dolhenty, 2003). According to Nobel Prize winner and renowned American economist Paul Krugman, free trade developed as a result of globalization has brought many opportunities to this world. In his opinion, free trade works on the principle that markets are efficient enough to accommodate any changes in the market mechanisms(Krugman, 1987, p.134). It should be noted that major countries or superpowers were adamant in safeguarding their interests in the past. They were keen in utilizing international conflicts as a measure to safeguard their interests. However, they realized that instead of conflict, cooperation is necessary for a country to develop properly. Even communist China has realized this principle. Earlier, China was reluctant in implementing globalization principles. They argued that Americanization and imperialism are taking place in the name of globalization. However, they realized their mistakes later and quickly implemented many economic reforms to open the widely for foreign direct investments and to boost free trade between China and other countries. At present, China is the number one exploiter of globalization. Under such circumstances, it would be illogical to label globalization as imperialism. It should be noted that recession has caused huge problems in American and European countries whereas in Asian countries, it caused little impacts. China and India are the most rapidly emerging economies in the world at present. Equal wealth distribution is the major principle behind free trade of modern era. American and European wealth are currently flowing to India and China like countries. Current market is extremely efficient and heavily competitive than the market in the past. Theory of comparative advantage was promoted by free trade of globalization era. This theory believes that natural goods and the capabilities of a country should be exported for the benefit of a country. It believes that free market mechanisms help to is maintain the economic and political status quo (Gonzalez, 2006, p.65). Free trade helped countries to sell their products in global markets where the demand and prices are higher. For example, China is a country which is famous for bulk production. It would be impossible for China to sell out all the products in the domestic market alone. At present, America is the number one market for Chinese products. Free trade agreements helped China to sell its products freely in America now even though serious political differences still exist in between these two countries. Trade barriers such as tariffs and other import export taxes were reduced or eliminated by the agreements reached by different countries for enhancing free trade between them. At the same time, the ideals of free trade are not free from criticisms. Critics of the free trade believe that free trade would be effective only under ideal market conditions (Skarstein, 2007, p.347). In other words, an ideal world defined by free trade is almost impossible to create. It should be noted that different countries may have different social, political, cultural and economic spectra and it is difficult to cater the needs of such diverse community with the help of free trade concepts put forward by globalization. For example, India’s southernmost state Kerala is blessed with coconut trees and therefore coconut oil is one of the major revenue sources for Keralites. However, Indian government is currently trying to import palm oil from Malaysia as part of the free trade agreements between Malaysia and India. Even though, other Indian states blessed by this import, Kerala suffered a lot because of the destruction of coconut oil price in domestic market. In other words, free trade agreements may bring blessings at one part and curses in other parts of the same country. From the above discussion, it is evident that globalization and free trade agreements are affecting a country in different ways. There are many positive and negatives associated with free trade agreements and globalization. However, it would be illogical to label globalization as another form of imperialism under classical liberalism. Progressive liberalism and globalization Progressive liberals believe in party politics. They argue that the social and political life needs to be organized in such way to promote party politics (Marshal, n. d, p.261). America and China are two different countries in terms of politics and social life. Even though these two countries have good economic relationships, they have a weaker political relationship. America believes that China’s communist party is disrespecting the people’s will. In America’s opinions, Chinese communist party is ruling with iron fist and the people in China are not getting any freedom and liberties in their political and social lives. China on the other hand believes that America is trying to stop China from acquiring the superpower spot. It should be noted that America is the sole superpower in the world at present after the collapse of former Soviet Union. China is believed to be the next superpower who can challenge America in global political and economic circles. China’s economic progress is huge while that of America suffered major setbacks in recent times. According to McEachern (2009, p.275), United States has $ 246 trillion trade deficit with China at present. From the late 1990s until 2005, it grew at 8% to 9% annually. In 2006 China’s annual growth rate marked significant growth and touched the 11% mark (Layne, N.d., p.13). In short, China argues that America is trying to cause problems in China in the name of globalization. China does not like the idea of political and social interference in the name of globalization. They believe that globalization is capable of enhancing the economic relationships rather than political relationships. From these discussions, it is evident that the perceptions of China and America with respect to globalization under the scanner of progressive liberalism, yields different results. Liberal democrats and globalization Liberal democrats (Lib Dems) promote social liberalism through constitutional reform, civil liberties, and higher taxes for public services. They oppose the over control of state on individuals; at the same time they do favor a welfare state that which provides enough helps to the individuals (Dolhenty, 2003). It should be noted that people in many countries forced to sacrifice many of their rights in the name of globalization. For example, in India, the government is trying to cut down all the subsidies given to the public in the utility sectors. The government is trying to stay away from public utility service sectors such as water supply, electricity, telecommunication etc. Private capital is welcomed in all such sectors and people forced to pay more for such things now because of globalization. In an ordinary person’s point of view, the cutting down of subsidies and tax incentives as part of globalization are big setbacks. The living costs are increasing rapidly because of such things. The governments are trying to shift their focus from non-productive sectors to productive sectors as part of globalization. Such measures would definitely contribute heavily to the overall growth of a country; however ordinary people may suffer a lot because of it. In short, globalization has the ability to bring opportunities and threats at the same time. Realism and globalization According to Korab-Karpowicz (2010), Realism, supports the competitive and conflictual sides of international politics. They pointed out that liberalism and idealism promote cooperation while realism promotes conflicts. They mentioned that realists always work in pursuit of their own security, of their own national interests, and struggle for power. In their opinion, realists have less respect towards, ideas, ethics and morals. While liberalism stresses the importance of cooperation, realism stresses the importance of conflicts in international politics. Realists believe that a nation should first address its own needs and then concentrate on other’s needs. In other words, realists do not believe in the integration politics. They do not have much belief in the role of ethics in international politics. Realists argue that acquisition of military power is more important than the acquisition of economic power. In their opinion, military power helps a nation to protect its interests even if the economic progress is not so good. For example, American economic progress in recent times is very slow. However, America is able to control global political and economic matters effectively because of its superior military power. It should be noted that America was able to interfere freely in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of war on terror. Even Pakistan is currently struggling to prevent American interference in its internal matters. Globalization and realism are traveling in opposite directions. The core principle of globalization is cooperation among international community whereas that of realism is safeguarding of selfish interests. For example, America is currently trying to stop all the other countries from acquiring nuclear arsenal. America’s tensions with Iran over Iran’s ambitions to become a nuclear state are currently causing big threats to global peace. It should be noted that America has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world. They are not ready to destroy any of the nuclear weapons in their armory. At the same time, they do not like others developing such weapons. In other words, America wanted to avoid any threats to its supremacy. America’s foreign policies in Middle East are highly controversial. According to Shannon, (2003, p.3) American foreign policies towards Middle East of or Arab-Israeli conflict have different dimensions. In his opinion, America’s special relationship politics with Israel, contrasting national interests, bureaucratic politics and individual beliefs are contributing heavily to the shaping of US foreign policy towards Middle East. It should be noted that Christians and Jews have almost similar beliefs and customs. Moreover, both are believed to be related to each other in many ways. Historically, no US presidents tried to isolate Israel from global politics because of this cultural similarity. Even though Muslims, Christians and Jews have a common father in Abraham, America does not believe in treating Muslims as brothers, even though they have no problem in assuming that role to Jews. Even in this globalized era, America’s foreign policies in Middle East have not been changed much. America believes that “If the United States had not been a strong supporter of Israel, it would have been very difficult for Soviet Union to win friends and allies in the Islamic world” (Sheffer, 1997, p.32). The presence of Soviet Union or China in Middle East or any other Islamic countries is indigestible to US. Therefore, they are doing everything possible to weaken the ties between Arab countries and other global powers. According to Harrison (2006, p.4), the core argument of realists rests on the belief that the concept of a highly integrated world economy is an old one and globalization is dependent on state support. In his opinion, realists look, mainly to security issues and military matters to define the interstate system. It was believed that the increasing economic interdependence among countries as part of globalization would prevent large-scale state-to-state wars. This assumption is true up to certain extent when one would analyze the war history in recent times. For example, India and Pakistan came close to a war over the Mumbai attack issue in recent times. However, international community was successful in preventing this war. Moreover, the tensions between North Korea and South Korea were also intensified recently. However, the break out of a war was prevented by the global community. It is a fact that the problems in one part of the world may affect other part as well because of globalized nature of the world order at present. That is why international community showed eagerness to prevent the clashes between India and Pakistan or that between the Koreans. At the same time, America faced little obstacles in conducting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were all set to interfere in Syria also. It is evident that America’s supremacy in global politics is helping them to act selfishly even in a globalized world. When it comes to the protections of American interests, they are careless in honoring the principles of globalization. The war on terror is currently going on. America tries to convince the international community that this war is against terrorism. However, a substantial portion of the people in this world believes that it is imperialism rather than war against terrorism. It should be noted that America earlier argued that Iraq or Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction. Even after the execution of Saddam and a prolonged search in Iraq for around a decade, America failed to seize any weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi soil. Many people believe that America attacked Iraq to gain control over Iraq’s oil resources and fresh water resources. America is currently struggling to find enough oil resources and drinking water to cater the needs of Americans. Therefore, they are eyeing such resources in other countries. Whenever, they get an opportunity, they will exploit it to loot the wealth of other countries. In that perspective one can safely argue that globalization is a kind of imperialism. Neo-Neo debate and globalization According to Broga, (N.d. p.4), neo-liberals visualize states as rational “egoistic value maximizers” who are concerned only with selfish interests. In his opinion, they are particular about their own gains and losses and do not bother much about other’s gains and losses. On the other hand, neo-realists believe that states show readiness to cooperate with other states only if the gains of other states are lesser than that of theirs, because of the association. The above argument can be well understood with the help of America’s stands towards Kyoto protocol or treaty. It should be noted that Kyoto protocol was formulated as a measure to protect the environment. As part of this treaty, industrialized countries should reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as much as possible. It should be noted that America is one of the major culprits in terms of greenhouse gases emission since American people use automobiles more than any others in the world. In America, more than one vehicle in a single family is a common scene. Moreover, America is one of the heavily industrialized countries in the world. The industrial units in America are liberating tons of toxic gases to atmosphere. It should be noted that the increased automobile use and heavy industrialization in America is causing damage not only to America, but also to the neighboring countries since it would be impossible for America to keep the greenhouse gases in its boundaries alone. In short, America is one of the major villains in the world in terms of environmental destruction and it is their duty to actively participate in environmental protection activities. However, America has not signed the Kyoto treaty yet. Kyoto treaty was negotiated by more than 100 countries after a lengthy discussion. It took over a decade to formulate the principles of this treaty. As part of this treaty, 38 largest industrial nations should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012 to 5.2 percent below the levels in 1990. However, former American President Bush denied sign this treaty citing the reason that this treaty is against American interests. America’s action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is essential for the successful implementation of this treaty (U.S. Withdraws From Kyoto Protocol, 2001) One of the major problems in implementing suitable environmental policy is the interconnectedness between economic development and environmental protection. In other words, it is impossible to attain economic development without industrialization and agriculture. In other words, industries and agriculture are the major revenue source of all the countries in this world. However, both industrialization and agriculture developments are causing big damage to the environment. It should be noted that fertilizers, chemicals and pesticides used in the agricultural fields are causing huge pollution problems not only to land but also to water and air. Developed countries have more industrial units and automobiles compared to developing or underdeveloped countries. Thus, these countries are causing more environmental problems compared to other countries. At the same time, these countries are asking poor and developing countries to control greenhouse gas emission. Polluted air can travel across countries with the help of wind. Same way, there are plenty of rivers which passes through different countries. For example, River Brahmaputra originates in China and ends in India. It is impossible for China to stop the polluted Brahmaputra water from entering Indian soil. In short, collective efforts are necessary to counter environmental problems. That is why developed countries are insisting underdeveloped world to put more efforts on the implementation of environmental protection activities. America is currently forcing other countries to sign Kyoto Protocol and engage in environmental protection activities. At the same time, they are staying away from such things because of their awareness that environmental protection activities may affect economic growth in one way or another. In other words America does not want others to progress rapidly whereas they wanted to progress at any cost. The debate between neos continue on the importance of international regimes; Neo-liberals argue that nevertheless anarchy constrains the willingness of states to cooperate states still can work together and can do so especially with the assistance of international institutions. However neo-realists tend to regard the effectiveness of regimes as more narrowly circumscribed, and argue that “international institutions are unable to “mitigate anarchy’s constraining effects on inter –state cooperation (Broga, N.d. p.3). The policies of World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monitory Find (IMF) are affecting the ordinary people drastically across the world. Farmers and fishermen like ordinary people are some of the major victims of the WTO policies. The recent protests from ordinary people the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle (December 1999) clearly indicates the growing concerns among people about the utility of globalization in prospering the life of ordinary people. Ordinary people believe that globalization is helping only the elite group in the society. In their opinion, globalization is increasing the gap between the rich and poor. The Seattle protest was an effort to empower the public about the dangers associated with globalization policies. Farmers and fishermen in their home countries were threatened by the liberalization of the economy, the aggressive marketing of genetically modified seeds, pesticides, and similar activities (Rucht, n.d) Conclusions Different international relations theories interpret globalization in different ways. While Liberalism visualizes globalization as a blessing in many respects, realism and the neo-neo debate argue that globalization is nothing but imperialism. Liberalism believes that free trade like globalization principles would enhance a country’s chances of economic growth. It argues that no country can develop rapidly with the help of internal resources alone. It is necessary for all the countries to rely on others to mobilize internal resources. It is a fact that free trade helped many countries to come out from economic slowdowns to rapid economic progress. India and China are two of the best examples for these arguments. However, it is fact that many of the poor countries still failed to boost their economic progress. Realism believes that countries would give first priority to their own progress and then only they would give priority to other’s progress. Even though the slogan of globalization is collective growth, it stays in principle only. America’s war on terror, their foreign policies in Middle East and their stands in the nuclear power issue with Iran are clear indications of failure of globalization. Neo-liberals argue that states are concerned only with their own gains and losses rather than that of the other countries. On the other hand, neo-realists point out that states are concerned with their gains as well as the gains of others, while formulating policies as part of globalization. In other words, states stay away from implementing a policy if that policy gives more benefits to other countries. In short, it would be illogical to label globalization as imperialism since it contains many good elements. India and China like heavily populated countries were successful in boosting their economic progress only because of globalization. Moreover, global wealth distribution at present is better compared to that before the arrival of globalization. References Broga, D. N.d. What are the key elements of the neo-neo debate? What, if anything, is missing?. [Online] Available at: http://www.academia.edu/1083558/What_are_the_key_elements_of_the_neo-neo_debate_What_if_anything_is_missing [Accessed 03 December 2013] Dolhenty J., Ph.D., 2003, Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Individualism, [Online] Available at: http://www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm [Accessed 03 December 2013] Ghai, D. 2003. Economic Globalization, Institutional Change And Human Security. [Online] Available at: http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpPublications)/C458AA6EE636796C80256B67005B6ED7?OpenDocument[Accessed 03 December 2013] Gonzalez, C.G. 2006. Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage. La Raza Law Journal, Spring2006, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p65-93 Harrison, T. 2006. Realism, sovereignty and international relations: An examination of power politics in the age of globalization. [Online] Available at:http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3549&context=etd[Accessed 03 December 2013] Korab-Karpowicz, W.J. 2010. Political Realism in International Relations [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ [Accessed 03 December 2013] Krugman P.R. 1987. Is Free Trade Passé? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 131-144 Layne, C. N.d. China’s Challenge to US Hegemony. [Online] Available at: http://acme.highpoint.edu/~msetzler/IR/IRreadingsbank/chinauscontain.ch08.6.pdf [Accessed 03 December 2013] Lieber R J and Weisberg R E. 2002. Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 16, No. 2 Marshal J.N.d. William Graham Sumner: Critic of Progressive Liberalism, [Online] Available at: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_3/3_3_2.pdf[Accessed 03 December 2013] McEachern, W A. 2009. ECON Macro 2. Publisher: South-Western College Pub; 002 edition (September 11, 2009). Reich, S. 1998. What is Globalization? [Online] Available at: http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/261.pdf [Accessed 03 December 2013] Robinson, W I. 2003. Transnational Conflicts. Publisher: Verso, Meard Street. London Rucht, D. n.d. Social Movements Challenging Neo-liberal Globalisation. [Online] Available at: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/improving/docs/g_ser_glob_rucht.pdf [Accessed 03 December 2013] Skarstein, R. 2007. Free Trade: A Dead End for Underdeveloped Economies. Review of Political Economy, Jul2007, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p347-367 Shannon V.P. 2003. Balancing Act: Us Foreign Policy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Us Foreign Policy and Conflict in the Islamic World) Ashgate Publishing (August 2003) Sheffer G (1997). US-Israeli Relations at the Crossroads Publisher: Routledge (February 28, 1997) U.S. Withdraws From Kyoto Protocol, 2001. [Online] Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/u-s-withdraws-from-kyoto-prot/ [Accessed 03 December 2013] What is imperialism. N.d.. [Online] Available at: http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/lockwoodm/Imperialism/WhatIs.htm [Accessed 03 December 2013] Read More