Current and Future Economic Development in Both the US and the Rest - Assignment Example

1) Fareed Zakaria has labeled the present moment as the onset of a “post-American world.” Provide an overview of Zakaria’s argument and an assessmentof whether his view makes sense or not. You should address issues related to current and future economic development in both the US and the “rest.” Fareed Zakaria’s assessment that we are entering a “post-American world” is a valid one. In the six decades since the end of the Second World War, the United States had dominated global politics. In the process it had also attained the status of an economic and military superpower. But with the onset of globalization, countries with abundance of cheap labor such as India and China are primed to assume the leadership position in another 10-15 years. India has a huge pool of skilled workers who have the added advantage of proficiency in English language. The re-election of Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister is also a positive development from an economic perspective, for it was he who initiated India as a participant in globalization in 1991. China, on the other hand, started participating in the process of globalization much before India did. As a result, their economy is more than twice that of India and is catching up fast with that of the United States and Japan. Some of the South American countries such as Venezuela and Russia (rich in oil resources) and Brazil (rich in natural resources) also pose a threat to American domination of global economy. In fact, American media believes that the threat will come from BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). The South East Asian region also poses a collective threat. In this scenario Fareed Zakaria is quite correct in claiming that the “post-American world” has begun. 2) Discuss how scholars have analyzed the transnational corporation and its part in globalization. What are the historical strategies of transnational corporations, and how have they changed over time? The transnational corporation is the façade of the neo-liberal global economy. In the period after the Second World War, the policy makers and influential elites within the United States made a conscious effort to promote free market capitalism to all parts of the world. Transnational corporations it their early days focused on areas such as automobiles, technology and oil industries. But steadily, the phenomenon caught up in other sectors of industry. Toward the end of 1970s, these corporations were generating huge revenues that surpassed even the Gross Domestic Products of many individual countries. This indicates the growing concentration of power and wealth by a handful of business enterprises. Scholars such as Miguel Korzeniwiez and Gary Gereffi have studied and critiqued the phenomenon of transnational corporations. They have studied global footwear brands such as Nike and Adidas and have investigated the manufacturing practices adopted by these firms. In essence, their strategy is to take advantage of the cheap labor available in Third World countries such as Indonesia, Philippines, etc. When the marked prices on these products were compared to the wages paid for laborers, one can see the level of exploitation in the process. In other words, the impressive profits of these transnational companies would not have been possible if it had not adopted an aggressive and inhumane strategy for manufacturing products cheaply. 3) Compare and contrast between the discussions on the winners and losers of globalization. In your discussion, touch on how scholars have looked at inequality, poverty, and global corporations. Based on what you’ve read thus far on these issues, who do you think presents the most convincing argument of how to solve the problems of this dichotomy of “winners” and “losers” and why do you choose that point of view? One of the key objections directed against globalization is its tendency to create wealth for a few and poverty for the many. It is a well documented fact that the Chief Executive Officers of many MNCs, who are at the forefront of globalization draw unreasonably high salaries, while workers in lower positions get paid only a fraction. In the thirty odd years since the ascent of globalization, the inequalities in distribution of wealth has kept widening, leading to greater discontent among the large majority of people. In other words, the process of globalization creates few winners and a whole lot of losers, in terms of economic rewards and opportunities. Scholars such as John Mickelethwait and Adrian Wooldridge endorse globalization on the grounds that it has increased economic opportunities for many people as well as providing a counterbalance for political hegemony. But somehow, this assessment does not weigh up to the ground realities of a vast majority of people who fall under the category of ‘losers’. In this regard, the proposal made by Indian born economist Amartya Sen makes more sense. Sen had done extensive studies on poverty and famine in Third World countries and has come to the conclusion that globalization is not ineffective in and of itself. He argues that unfettered capitalism across national borders is to be encouraged, but the accrued wealth has to be more evenly distributed among the people. In other words, what Sen proposes is a benign form of globalization, whose benefits reach all strata of society. Renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz is also not in favor of globalization as it exists today. He condemns the prevailing system as following market fundamentalism and suggests that proper governmental regulation is essential for reducing disparities in wealth. 4) Discuss how the media enters into debates on contemporary globalization. How does the relationship between core and periphery work when it comes to media relationships? How can you construct the relationship between cultural imperialism and media? Some of the adverse effects of the process of globalization often fail to get media attention. For example, the poor working conditions in sweatshops, the breach of minimum wage laws, refusal to provide workers with medical insurance and pension, as well as the damage caused to the environment are some of the issues that mainstream media does not cover sufficiently. It is fair to say that the so called Fourth Estate has failed to perform its duty in this regard. On closer scrutiny, it is obvious why this is the case. Many of the media organizations are transnational corporations themselves, whose priority is to promote a consumerist culture at the cost of people’s general welfare. As a consequence, the truth does not often get reported and instead the views and opinions of those in power get coverage. The media had played a key role in promoting globalization. For example, the adoption of phrases such as “anti-globalization agitation” instead of “social justice movement” gives away the implicit bias in mainstream media coverage. As Appadurai mentions in his writing, we are witnessing the homogenizing of culture and the deterioration in local traditions and customs as a result of globalization of media. Highly relevant to the discussion is the media empire run by Rupert Murdoch that stretches from Australia to the Asia Pacific to the United Kingdom and beyond. With such concentration of power, people like Murdoch can virtually dictate governments on policy matters and also play a role in homogenizing of culture. 5) Provide an overview of the history of anti-globalization movements. Who are some of the actors and what are their methods? What happened to the anti-globalization movement that was so organized in the 1990s? In the last two decades, there have been instances of protest and demonstration against policies in favor of neo-liberal globalization. The issue of globalization and the resultant injustices in terms of exploitation of labor and degradation of environment has outraged intellectuals and community leaders across the world. This movement for an equitable and just economic system is termed in the mainstream media as “anti-globalization” movement. But this is a subtle ploy to undermine the movement, as those involved in it refer to it as the “social justice” movement. Generally, the issue of globalization has divided the world into two opposing camps. Those on the Global North are predominantly in support of it and they also happen to possess most of the wealth and power. The majority of those opposing it are from the Global South, including the continents of South America, South Asia and Africa. The regions of the Global South were the erstwhile colonies of European imperialism and are undergoing rapid transformations in the post-imperial period. Events such as the World Social Forum are conceived and conducted in the developing world and purport to serve as alternatives to the policies initiated by the World Economic Forum. It is no coincidence that the WEF takes place in Davos in Switzerland, a country that is a banking haven for the rich. The World Social Forum events that are conducted with periodic intervals are proving to be a great success in invoking the spirit of resistance in the impoverished people of the world. WSF events in Porto Allegre in Brazil and Mumbai in India have seen large participation from people all across the Global South. Intellectuals such as Vandana Shiva and Arundhati Roy (both from India) and the poet Marcos (from Mexico) are at the forefront of the movement for social justice. Text Book: Frank Lechner and John Boli, The Globalization Reader (Wiley-Blackwell, 2007) Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (W.W. Norton, 2009) Th November 5: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: Nation-States or Civilizations? Readings: Lechner and Boli ch. 4, 5, 8, 9 (Benjamin Barber; Samuel Huntington; Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye; John Meyer et al) Tu November 10: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: Globalization and Economic Inequality Readings: Lechner and Boli ch. 1, 2, 3, 10, 28 (John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge; Amartya Sen; John Gray; Dani Rodrik) Th November 12: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: The Death of the Nation-State? Readings: Lechner and Boli ch. 11, 12, 25, 26 (Arjun Appadurai; Ulf Hannerz; Kenichi Ohmae; Susan Strange) Tu November 17: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: Corporate Strategies under Globalization Readings: Lechner and Boli ch. 18, 19, 22, 23 (Miguel Korzeniewicz; Gary Gereffi; Mary Robinson; David Henderson) Th November 19: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: Poverty and Inequality Readings: Lechner and Boli ch. 20, 21, 24 (Martin Wolf; Robert Hunter Wade; Joseph Stiglitz) Tu November 24: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: Media and Cultural Hegemony Readings: Zakaria ch. 1-2; Lechner and Boli ch. 38, 39, 40 (John Tomlinson; Heather Tyrrell; Tyler Cowen) Tu December 1: Theories and Debates on Contemporary Globalization: Anti-Globalization Movements Readings: Zakaria ch. 3-5; Lechner and Boli 54, 55, 56 (Peter Evans; Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash; James Harding) Th December 3: The Post-American World Realized? Readings: Zakaria ch. 6-7; Lechner and Boli 57, 58 (Vandana Shiva; Subcomandante Marcos) Read More