Impact of Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Internationalization in Global Sustainable Development - Essay Example

Message from ***dear client, this is not yet the final paper. I’m just polishing the last two pages and checking the references and in-text citations. I will upload the finalized paper in 1-2 hours. kindly ignore the completed status of your order. Thanks! Discuss the impacts of globalization, neoliberalism, and internationalization in global sustainable development Globalisation is a force of innovation, expansion, and development in the market. It has a tendency to boost resource utilisation with all the economies focusing on the production of goods for which their human and natural resources are best suited for. It results in a decrease of costs, national development, rise in competitiveness and productivity, but globalisation had worrying impact on sustainable development. The new structural adjustment programme (SAP) and economic policy usually foretell environmental effect without precision due to the multifaceted interaction of different ecological, political, social, and economic forces. This will result in an adverse effect on ecological balance. The overexploitation of natural resources caused by greater demand and the destruction of ecological systems because of rapid population increase has a severe effect on the environment. Thus the notion of sustainable development emerged, which denotes a method of human growth wherein resource use aspires to satisfy human needs while protecting the sustainable performance of the environment or the ecosystem, so that the needs of both the present and future generations will be met. Globalisation is definitely changing the global environment. Some believe that globalisation has a favourable effect on sustainable development, as a phenomenon of growth and higher living standards. It cultivates economic development and supportive organisations, both needed in the long term to deal with the global environment. Others view globalisation’s effect as detrimental, as a phenomenon reducing the world into a swamp of environmental deterioration. It is speeding up the disastrous process of overexploitation of natural resources without regard for social justice or equality. These two strands of argument are both valid. Globalisation is characterised by multifaceted and diverse groups of overlying mechanisms. Unavoidably, there will be diverse and on occasion intersecting outcomes for the global environment. Despite the capabilities of globalisation toward economic integration it contributed to inequality leading to greater environmental effects like desertification, biodiversity, conservation of the ozone layer, and climate change. In general, pollution, depletion of the ozone layer, deforestation, and global warming are the major issues affected by globalisation. The relocation of multinational enterprises (MNEs) to nations where environmental regulations are lacking or weak has led to more serious environmental deterioration. Nevertheless, the 1992 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) annual statement reported that higher incomes arising from globalisation may lead to greater rather than poorer environmental value if higher income is invested in environmental conservation. Whalley (1996), on the other hand, explained that “environmentalists, [by contrast], argue that increased trade inevitably results in increased consumption and production and, hence lowered environmental quality” (p. 82). But then again, some claim that globalisation enables the dissemination of strategies such as metal recovery methods, resource substitution techniques, and enhanced energy efficiency. The industrial ecology campaign aims to raise environmental awareness while also cutting down production’s global cost for companies. Companies have lessened costs, removed wastes, and raised production efficiency through organised attempts at reducing total material utilisation and through attempts at raising their products’ service quality while giving little weight to their physical aspects. Due to technological advances, demands from regulations, consumer organisations, and advocacy groups, developed countries have considerably enhanced energy efficiency. The utilisation of energy in developed economies has dropped significantly over the recent decades. Likewise, globalisation comes with extensive replacement of more environmentally adverse sources of energy and materials for those with lower environmental effects. Greater dependence on renewable energy sources is an illustration of this phenomenon. In contrast, globalisation is associated with the spread of techniques and technologies that can have adverse impact on the environment. For instance, globalisation of technologies for metal recovery has serious effects on the planet’s crust. Even though less aggressive technologies are usually accessible, adoption may require huge volumes of resources or capital and inappropriate for use in numerous countries. To demonstrate the severity of this outcome, William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel coined the term ‘environmental footprint’. They explained that industrialised nations demand higher per capita energy and material flows, and thus larger land area than developing economies. The per capita impact on the planet’s crust is most severe in industrialised nations, which mine and utilise resources at a much faster rate than they can be replenished. Globalisation of materially wealthy standard of living, disseminated by improved travel and the media, increases the need for extracted resources. Majority of the home-grown businesses in developing countries produced modest goods by using labour-exhaustive technologies. Nevertheless, developing economies, enticed by the western notion of progress, have shifted their production emphasis to contemporary goods that demand wide-ranging industrial and infrastructure schemes. Present-day infrastructure and industrial facilities, consequently, demand megaprojects in the energy industry. Normally, this energy is supplied by massive nuclear power facilities and hydroelectric dams. The dams flood huge areas of land that had been utilised for agriculture or forested in the past. In many instances, communities are dislocated. On occasion, health issues arise because of irrigation canals that cause water-borne illnesses, like malaria. There is also the risk of a dam eruption. Numerous of the nuclear power plants in less developed countries lack the safety methods practiced in developed countries. If the facility is risky or hazardous, the country confronts a predicament to either suffer a loss or discontinue operations or carry on and face the possibility of a mishap; if a facility is believed to be safe, then the problem concerning the dumping of radioactive waste surfaces. Therefore, it is still unclear whether the impact of globalisation on sustainable development is good or bad. However, there are increasing empirical findings suggesting globalisation’s adverse impact on sustainability. A systemic framework demonstrates that globalisation is neither an absolute blight nor a universal remedy. It requires major compromises—employment opportunities and economic growth to the detriment of labour rights and the environment, among many others. Internationalization Internationalisation and firm modernisation in developing markets are connected to sustainable development and the importance of sustainable global development. The economic component of sustainability places emphasis on greater return on investment (ROI), higher market share and profits, lower risk and costs, and so on. The environmental component includes programmes to conserve, protect, and revive natural resources and the environment (e.g. reduction of radioactive wastes, conservation of natural resources, and climate change regulations). The social component deals with circumstances and responses/measures that particularly affect human communities (e.g. health, education, poverty, etc.). Informal and formal institutions cultivate or hamper sustainable development. Thus the importance of integrating the institutional perspective, comprising normal, cognitive, and regulatory aspects, in examining sustainable development in developing markets. In recent years, a growing number of scholars have examined and contested the impact of expanding regional and global economic integration on sustainable development. Specifically, scholars have contested the level to which such global demands limit policy alternatives by obliging other nations to implement the same national policies, and whether such demands shoves labour, social, and environmental quality downward or upward. Differentiating globalisation and internationalisation pushes this discussion, for it sheds light on essentially diverse mechanisms at work that limit national policies in different ways or shoves them in different paths. Internationalisation is defined in the following way: “phenomenon whereby policies within domestic jurisdictions face increased scrutiny and participation from actors and/or institutions outside of those jurisdictions.” Although internationalisation has worked to intervene and at times change the impact of globalisation, it has been discovered that a global norm-complex recognises market incentives and dynamics, free trade, and economic growth as a way to deal with global environmental problems. In the 1980s and 1990s, the internationalisation of the economy has sped up as expanding foreign direct investment (FDI) and global portfolio investment have supported the global interdependence of regional competition and markets. Concurrently, Eastern Europe’s and China’s decision to open up their economies has bolstered the process of globalisation. Global capital movement and trade hence have become vital, and thus have environment dilemmas associated with increasing transportation capacities and rising tradable outputs. Furthermore, there is an intensifying impact of multinational companies (MNCs) whose operations are in part associated with the development of trade. Escalating locational competition greatly contributes to unsustainable development. Fast-paced global economic development in the 1990s has worsened problems with pollution. Economic internationalisation raises competition and thus makes companies more guarded about cost-intensive environmental strategies; because different policy alternatives, such as tradable emission licenses and ecological taxes, involve various cost obligations the selection of effective environmental policy instruments has become imperative. Moreover, governments may have greater motivations to work with partner nations so as to reunite the gains from economic internationalisation and the mounting pressure for environmental conservation, which is a favourable outcome of per capita income. As stated by the neoclassical perspectives, opening up and expanding global capital movement and trade should further promote global economic convergence, which implies reducing inequality in global per capita income. Yet, this is refuted by empirical findings. Instead, the global economy is distinguished by incomplete regional convergence, and divergence, as well. Whereas convergence enables global economic collaboration in the area of sustainable development, divergence decreases the motivation and capability to cooperate. Some scholars also observed that the increasing number of member countries highly involved in the international community somewhat complicates global and regional cooperation. The issue has become more difficult when China became a major economic and environmental player and became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001, while Ukraine and Russia remain outside WTO membership. With regard to the part of the WTO and sustainability problems, it is important to consider that the WTO was obviously unsuccessful in establishing plan in the Seattle Meeting, but somehow it has released a statement on sustainable development and trade. The International Panel on Climate Convention released a disturbing statement in 2001 about global warming when it pushed the numbers up on the increase in the average global temperature in the twenty-first century. Neoliberalism Neoliberalism is a deviation from the 19th-century classical liberalism when imperialist countries like Great Britain adopted the ideology of free trade and market competition to defend colonialism and capitalism. Neoliberal economic globalisation promotes the quest for profit irrespective of environmental, social, and economic costs. It brings about negative consequences for sustainable development: results in more unstable international cooperation in the area of sustainable development; discourages the building and preservation of locally-suitable and sustainable commercial structures; causes loss of cultural and biological diversity and promotes overexploitation of natural resources; contributes to economic insecurity, and economic, political, and social marginalisation; erodes democracy by giving power to a select few; and, broadens the income gap, within and between countries. Moreover, the global North, exploiting the global South’s resources at extremely low prices, has created environmental problems for the South. These deteriorating conditions of trade make it much more problematic for the South to settle its financial obligations. In general, the major problem that has to be deal with is the fact that due to these effects the policies advocated by supporters of neoliberalism weaken those required to build sustainable societies. Sustainable societies demand, in theory, sustainable production and consumption, diversity, and equality. They entail greater co-operative activities and more stable local economies and communities at the global arena. Apparently, the neoliberal economic model has a number of key weaknesses. Primarily, neoliberal economic globalisation is not sustainable. Original proponents of free trade as an answer to global economic issues were perhaps not aware that the increased need for the world’s non-renewable resources would be a serious restraining force in the 21st century. Consequently, the present economic framework is rooted in unsustainable and intensifying levels of resource utilisation. An ‘invisible hand’, which would direct the market towards sustainable development, is non-existent. These resources have to be managed; and sustainable development has to be overseen. Because of such disadvantages, neoliberal economic globalisation is, for most countries, a win-lose framework. Nevertheless, such theoretical weaknesses are being taken for granted. This could be due to the fact that these countries able to gain overall advantage are usually those which managed to successfully boost their social and economic institutions by abusing the world’s physical and human resources—those which are environmentally indebted to the rest of the globe. Paradoxically, these strong countries are the major advocates of neoliberalism. Differentiate impacts of globalization from impacts of internationalization, westernization, neo-liberalism OR cultural convergence Globalisation can actually be defined as internationalisation, westernisation, and liberalisation. Therefore, differentiating the impacts of globalisation from the impacts of internationalisation, westernisation, and liberalisation is somewhat difficult. Globalisation is internationalisation in the sense that it is an expanding and evolving movement of people, capital, trade, and information between countries. Nevertheless, this description of globalisation is primarily economic. Material trade is required and information is necessary to be capable of complying with high economic interests and trade in terms of capital, labour, etc. On the other, globalisation as liberalisation denotes the mechanism of abolishing or diminishing government—enforced constraints on flows of people, capital, services, and goods between countries so as to build a ‘borderless’, ‘open’ global economy. Such measures are to enable global economic convergence. In order for the flow of capital, people, goods, and services to be successful, it is essential to remove barriers on trade, capital, foreign exchange, and so on. Such demand is political. In the meantime, the concept of globalisation as Westernisation has become widely popular among scholars in less developed countries. Advocates of this concept believe that globalisation is a Western notion and it is a transmission of Western culture, hence, it is fundamentally Eurocentric. Scholars explain that globalisation is the immediate outcome of the spread of European culture all over the world thru cultural mimesis, colonisation, and settlement. This concept is also tied to capitalist growth through cultural and political domains. Globalisation launches a ‘single world culture’ focused on the English language, mass media, and consumerism. There is a standardisation of culture which creates either repressive imperialism or liberal cosmopolitanism. Therefore, the impact of globalisation on sustainable development differs in terms of the form it takes—internationalisation affects economic sustainability; liberalisation affects political sustainability; and westernisation affects social and cultural sustainability. The growing mobility of goods, services, capital, people, and information through economic and political globalisation has in the meantime resulted in expanding division of labour and an emphasis on the major capabilities of each person at all levels. MNCs limit their operations to goods and/or services, which they can produce in higher quality than their competitors, or they build partnership with other organisations to create synergies and to be capable of selling their products and/or services at competitive prices. The economic power relations are gradually shifting towards Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC). Such is the impact of globalisation as internationalisation The planned specialisation of individuals and companies in the production of goods and services, through international trade, creates greater affluence; yet, such can also result in environmental problems. It is widely recognised that an exclusive production of a certain good, such as rice and coffee, breeds monocultures, which makes soil barren and uncultivable. In the foreseeable future, particularly in Latin America, the massive production of biomass-energy facilities will bring about a serious deterioration of biodiversity, even though, primarily, the construction of energy facilities was proposed to protect the environment. Until now, the unequal but needed mineral resource extraction in developing nations like China relatively causes environmental damages of unmatched proportions. Read More