Debates about the Merits and Demerits of Globalization - Term Paper Example

Globalisation is one of the most controversial topics today. It has a strong impact on the economic, social, cultural and technological aspects of nations. Aside from its impact on nations, it also affects the quality of life of individuals worldwide. According to (Giddens 2001), globalisation is “the growing interdependence between different people, regions and countries in the world as social and economic relationships come to stretch worldwide”. The International Forum on Globalization defines it as, “the present worldwide drive toward a globalise economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments.” (Rosenberg 2000) defines “The term ‘globalisation’ after all, is at first sight merely a descriptive category, denoting either the geographical extension of social processes or possibly, as in Giddens’ definition, ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations’.” According to the (World Bank Brief 2000) globalisation gained pace in the 1980s and 1990s, with the advancements in information technology, transportation and global communications. These include improved telecommunications, the Internet and faster world travel, to name a few. These technological improvements enabled people to transport goods, services and knowledge, faster, farther and more reliably. Governments have also adopted more open policies that allow for closer international economic cooperation. Supporters of globalisation claim that its goal is to reduce poverty worldwide. Supporters point out that despite the world population increasing from 1.8 billion to 6.0 billion, with the presence of political and armed conflicts, the real average income of each individual today is five times more than it was at the beginning of the century. However, globalisation also revealed vulnerabilities, which raise concern among both developed, and developing countries. If there is global reduction of poverty, it has also produced problems for its players. (Giddens 2001) states that, “Globalisation is not an ‘out there’ phenomenon, as if some external forces are at work. September 11 showed that it’s an ‘in here’ phenomenon”. He emphasized that globalisation is not a product of external factors, but also occurs within nations. “With interdependence comes vulnerability, a shift in our institutions, our emotions, our anxiety…”, he stressed (Giddens 2001). (Giddens 2001) stated that tradition in early modernity “remained central”, involving collective memory, ritual and “formulaic truth”, which all contribute to its continued existence and protection. These traditions are continuously repeated by society as a system for controlling time. It was tradition which allowed for the establishment of individual and collective identities as modernization continued to run its course. With tradition’s control over time, tradition also controls space. He points out that globalisation dislocates or “disembeds” tradition and its institutions. He contends that globalisation does not come from a known centre or point of origin, but comes from different directions. He calls globalisation as a peculiarly post-modern phenomenon, with effects and ramifications that are always present. According to Krause (in Riggs, F. 2000), “trade liberalization destroys rural societies as well as the environment, weakens the labour movement, and threatens cultural diversity and self-determination....”. This suggests that rural societies have to cope with the advancements and demands brought about by a globalise economy and the corresponding changes will alter their essence. Likewise, the environment will also be altered as new values and attitudes will be introduced to meet the demand of free trade. Environments, both social and physical will also change, as an integration of ideas, values and infrastructure will be adopted in order to compete in a global market. Krause (in Riggs, F. 2000) added that, “technology is providing a communications forum for organizations and individuals that are generally ignored -- or stereotyped in negative terms -- by the corporate-controlled mainstream media. By giving these organizations a voice, technology is increasing the likelihood that their concerns will be acknowledged, and -- hopefully -- addressed.” This means that the technology brought about by trade liberalization also gives formerly marginalized sections of the population a degree of empowerment, to be heard and counted. Communications technology provides the opportunity for their voices and concerns to be heard and given due attention. Dr. Louay M. Safi, Executive Director, ISNA Leadership Development Center (ILDC), Plainfield, Indiana, pointed out that globalisation has brought new challenges to the Muslim world. Stating that globalisation served mainly as a vehicle for the expansion of western ideas into non-western cultures, it has challenged traditional culture. The changes felt by non-western societies were mainly brought about by technology and organization, which he said was partly positive. He enumerated that the positive effects of globalisation on Muslim culture were the appreciation of the value of education, organizational discipline and scientific research. However, he added that, “one can see many negative impacts, including the erosion of the traditional make-up of family, the new evolving of promiscuity and illicit behaviour, the increase in the crime-rate, the increase in the use of narcotics, and other social ills. These are real problems, not only for Muslims, but for humanity at-large”. Thus, Safi raises the same concerns as Giddens (2001), “The downside of globalisation is therefore a source of real challenge for Islam and Muslims who are called upon to restore morality that lies at the centre of any civilization” (Safi 1997). Opponents of globalisation argue that the exposure of traditional societies and cultures to western values which are perceived to be more liberal and promiscuous tend to undermine and destroy their moral foundations. There are claims that globalisation produces inequalities wherein some countries benefit while excluding other countries from reaping its benefits. Others contend that there has been too much globalisation that its effects have become detrimental for developing countries. In labour, globalisation critics fear that traditional institutions such a country’s workforce can be displaced or wholly marginalized by the influx of migrant workers. Marx’s Communist Manifesto lends support to globalisation, describing it as, “a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country... In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations...” Marx describes the phenomenon of homogenisation by writing, “The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world literature” (Ornvedt 2001). This statement contends that globalisation is the instrument, which will remove mercantilism and feudalism, thereby giving people from different nations the same opportunities for self-realization in all aspects of human life. However, concerns have been raised regarding migration of workers because of globalisation. Vulnerabilities in labour were identified by both developing and developed countries. Globalisation critics claim that worker migration can lead to their exploitation. Likewise, developing countries fear that cheap migrant labourers entering industrialized economies raises will displace local labour. Low-wage workers, as the contention goes, will inevitably replace workers in high-paying jobs. It is also feared that the demand for less-skilled workers will also plummet since labour from low-wage economies may also be highly skilled and competent to do multiple tasks (IMF Brief 2000). In 2003, BT announced its plan to open two call centres in India which sparked fears among labour unions that jobs will be lost in the north of England. The move, which would create 2,000 new jobs in Delhi and Bangalore, was evidently initiated to take advantage of the lower wages among Indian workers, without necessarily compromising the quality and competence in the English language. Despite assurances by management authorities that no job displacements will happen, unions protested what they called the “exporting” of badly needed jobs”. Objections also arise from host countries that migrants would exploit and abuse the services being provided by their welfare state. They do not only become competitors for such welfare services, but also limit the access to such services, which were originally intended, for the local populations. Talbot Parson stated that four functions must be satisfied to maintain as social system: 1) Adaptation which is mainly an economic function, is the relationship between a system and its environment; 2) Goal attainment is primarily a function of politics and its players; 3) Integration refers to the “adjustment of conflict” through application of law; and, 4) Latency, which is a functioning dealing with core values and culture (Bharadwaj 1987). According to (Bharadwaj 1987), Although Parson’s model is largely insufficient to explain globalisation; it helps to explain the tendency of economics to acquire primacy over culture and politics. Parson places social elements such as money, markets, military and consumerism in the centre of a global society. He states, “The ideology of globalisation is trying to superimpose onto the existing institution of a society a radically new set of rules and ideas” (Bharadwaj 1987). He points out that under globalisation, the role of adaptation is a function of money; goal attainment becomes the function of markets; Latency is the function of homogenisation, especially in terms of consumption patterns; and integration is the prime responsibility of the military. Advancements in communications and information technology have increased the pace of globalisation in the past decade. Globalisation is closely connected to post-modernity and Americanisation. It is characterized by an “image industry, in which desires are created over needs” (Gibbins and Reimer 1999). They explained that media is responsible for image building with which traditional societies are continuously exposed. Media exposure tends to homogenise the aspirations of the buying public. However, media does not have the ability to democratise the ability to purchase. Thus, those who are unable to purchase resort to violent means to acquire their desired goods. The Internet, television and other media are powerful contributors to integration through globalisation. The global market economy as a whole coupled with the widespread access and influence of information technology and mass media have led to an acceleration of cultural homogenisation. Both information technology and mass media have allowed millions of individuals to access knowledge, information and services at the blink of an eye. This integration or homogenisation through information technology has several impacts on cultures and societies. (Fotopoulos 1997) wrote, “the establishment of the market economy implied sweeping aside traditional cultures and values. This process was accelerated in the twentieth century with the spreading all over the world of the market economy and its offspring the growth economy…” He also describes convergence, “…today, there is an intensive process of culture homogenisation at work, which not only rules out any directionality towards more complexity, but in effect is making culture simpler, with cities becoming more and more alike, people all over the world listening to the same music, watching the same soap operas on TV, buying the same brands of consumer goods, etc.” (Fotopoulos 1997). Media promotes convergence, developing more common characteristics among societies at the expense of losing their own unique cultural identities. Media has an overwhelming influence on people, and this is evident as individual tastes and preferences, perceptions and ideas, increasingly become similar among individuals of different countries. A major contention in favour of globalisation is alleviation of poverty. The IMF notes that the per capita income of individuals in the 20th century rose significantly. However, it also noted that based on the recent World Economic Outlook studies which represented 90 percent of the global population, although per capita income rose substantially in the last century, the distribution of income among countries also became more unequal. (Rostow 1990) in his 1965 model presented five stages in the linear development of societies. Stage 1 refers to traditional societies, which engage in subsistence economic activities. These societies consume their products. Products and goods may also be bartered in exchange for those produced by others. Production in Stage 1 societies is often labour intensive and is agriculture-based. Their economic activities also require minimal capital. Stage 2 societies are considered transitional, where they begin trading their surplus goods. Transportation infrastructures are also beginning to emerge. Savings and investments are also practiced, and entrepreneurial activities are practiced. Stage 3 is take-off societies, wherein industrial activities increase. There is a general switch from a land-based economy to manufacturing. There is concentration in one or two industries and growth occurs in only a few regions. Political and social institutions are established to support industrialisation. Stage 4 sees technology promoting diversity in economic growth. The fifth stage is characterized by high mass consumption. The IMF states that investments, labour and advances in technology should be accumulated to improve the living standards in poor countries. These are precisely the aspects being espoused by globalisation, and if theory were to be applied, the accumulation of these factors would result in the development and improvement in the quality of life in underdeveloped and developing nations (IMF Brief 2000). This is consistent with Rostow’s requisite that developing nations must reach Stage 2 to foster growth. There are numerous reasons for advocating globalisation. The foremost contention in its favour is that it had been in existence and had been continually applied by humankind for the past 5,000 years. Its rapid acceleration in recent decades is merely a result of the innovations and advancements in science and technology. Advocates contend that whether it be made part of international and national policies, globalisation would continue, determining its own pace and direction. Critics contend that globalisation destroys traditional societies and brings about more conflicts as gaps are widened between the developed and developing countries. Though there may be a tendency of homogeneity in terms of information, preferences and consumer patterns, inequalities within the global system also creates divergences. It merely benefits those who have the financial leverage and further widens the gap between rich and poor nations. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti-globalisation, the paramount undertaking is to ensure that its impacts would benefit both sides of the table, and safeguard the welfare and security of all nations regardless of their economic condition. The vision of a global village has already become a reality, and the paramount concern of all countries today is to ensure that globalisation will be for the benefit of all and not a tool for exploitation and manipulation. References: Bharadwaj, A. 1987, Understanding the Globalisation Mind Game, http://www.idsa-india.org/SAARCHIVES/SA200303/JUL-SEP01.htm Fotopoulos, T. 1997, Towards An Inclusive Democracy: the crisis of the growth economy and the need for a new liberatory project, London: Cassell. Gibbins, J.R. and Reimer, B. 1999, The Politics of Postmodernity, Sage. New Delhi Giddens, A. (ed.) 2001, The Global Third Way Debate, Oxford: Polity IMF Web Site. 2000, Globalization: Threat or Opportunity? International Monetary Fund. Updated: January 2002. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/II. Ornvedt, G. 2001, Marx and Globalisation, Dalit E-forum, http://www.ambedkar.org/gail/Marxand.htm Poverty In An Age of Globalization. 2000, World Bank Brief, updated October 2000. http://www1.worldbank.org/economicpolicy/globalization/documents/povertyglobalization.pdf Riggs, Fred W. Globalization: Key Concepts. Updated: July 29, 2000. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/glocon.htm Rosenberg, J. 2000, The Follies of Globalisation Theory, Verso, London. Rostow, W.W. 1990, The Stages of Economic Growth: A non-communist manifesto, Cambridge University Press Safi, L. M. The Effects of Globalization on the Islamic World. Live Dialogue, Islam Online, Washington D.C., January 24, 2001. http://home.att.net/~louaysafi/interviews/globalization.htm Read More