The Negative Aspects of Globalisation - Essay Example

Protection for Small Firms against the Negative Aspects of Globalisation Introduction The essence of globalisation is not entirely new. Sincethe 17th century major economic powers in the world, countries with the means of reaching out to the different parts of the globe because of their relatively advanced shipping industries, had been expanding their spheres of influence beyond their national borders. The explicit aim then was not just to open up new markets but to access sources of raw materials that were not available in their respective countries. The mercantilism of the 17th and 18th centuries was the foremost reason why England, Spain, France, and Holland launched various expeditions in order to establish colonies in the underdeveloped areas of the world, particularly in Asia, Africa, and South America. Despite the differences in methods, the objectives related to the launching of international and colonial trade in those times are not absolutely distinct to today’s globalisation. Globalisation in modern times is being pursued with the premise that former relationship of colonizers and colonies is no longer dominant. It is founded on the concept that the world is now made up mostly of independent countries that have sovereignty in managing their respective domestic economies and also have the capability of joining international trade. Free trade is the main objective of globalisation. It aims to make the entire world an open and free market, where people can easily avail of commodities coming from other countries. It allows businesses to expand beyond their countries of origin, thereby exporting not just goods but also capital. However, in doing so, it also seeks the removal of major barriers that each country may have established to deter the influx of too much imported goods as a result of unconstrained foreign trade. Consequently, this has an adverse effect on the sustainability of small local firms in any particular economy. The arrival of huge volumes of imports would lead into a competition strong enough to force their demise. This is the reason why debates on the nature of globalisation continue to be waged and international trade organisations and treaties are relentlessly being attacked by sectors that are most affected by its negative effects. This is also the basis why governments must not absolutely subject their economies to unconstrained foreign trade but instead legislate and enforce policies that would protect the small local firms. The Negative Aspects of Globalisation Apologists for unrestrained capitalism have always extolled the salient features of globalisation. Capitalism is an economic system that thrives on ever growing market and national boundaries and corresponding restrictive trade policies are anathema to it. With trade barriers torn down capitalism would continue to survive as a viable system. Globalisation, therefore, cannot be defined separately from capitalism. In fact, it is the internationalisation of the capitalist system. Through it, businesses are no longer limited to domestic operations. These can branch out to as many countries as possible, thereby boosting their chances of generating more profits from the establishment of a larger market. On the part of part of host countries, it is through globalisation that foreign investments are infused in their economies. Economists and sociologists conclude that it is also the main factor for the major trends that are taking place in the global economy. Such trends include reduced wages for employees and higher profits for businesses based in the West, increased migration to urban centres in underdeveloped countries, and lower inflation in the midst of stronger economic growth (Schifferes 2007). From this description alone, it is clear that the economic benefits of globalisation may not be enjoyed equally by all countries. Aside from the said economic benefits, globalisation is said to have positive effects on the political and governmental situation too. This is because “a free market diffuses economic decision-making among millions of producers and consumers rather than leaving it in the hands of a few centralized government actors who could, and often do, use that power to suppress or marginalize political opposition” (Griswold 2007). Under such premise, it is expected that less democratic countries are often pressured to institute political reforms that are supplemental to the economic measures being made in line with globalisation. Since the early nineties, governments in many countries that are perceived as authoritarian have been struggling to ride on the bandwagon of free international trade. Due to the insistence of foreign counterparts and to the pressure of potential investors, these have been prompted to provide concessions in the form of political or democratic reforms. However, liberalisation, which is globalisation’s implementing feature, “could also create opportunities for groups who have strong commercial interest, who may wish to influence political development away from democracy” (Jonsson, 2005, p.117). The bottom-line here is that state or government policies have an impact on implementation of policies related to globalisation. While advantages are being constantly being emphasized in order to promote globalisation, there are actually serious issues that must also be pointed out and addressed. There are disadvantages that demand consideration by governments in order to protect the local businesses in their respective countries. Even the apologists of free trade admit that the underdeveloped or developing countries have the tendencies of suffering such ill-effects. The most common practice of the governments that desire to join the globalisation trend is to liberalise the economy. The policies of privatisation and deregulation are then implemented in line with economic liberalisation. In liberalising the economy, restrictions or barriers to foreign consumer and capital goods, as well as direct investments, are lifted. Governments who actively promote such policies are desirous to make their respective economies more attractive to foreign investors. This is prompted by the belief that such steps are necessary to overcome the limitations of domestic capital and that such is the best way for them to become competitive. In the event that a domestic economy opens completely its doors to imported goods, it is but natural for the local businesses to immediately experience more intense competition. The seriousness of the competition though can result in the death of the local industry also. Small local firms of developing countries usually do not have the strength in terms of financial viability and technology to compete with giant multinational or transnational corporations. Imported goods manufactured through technologically advanced means are not only superior in numbers but also in quality while maintaining low prices when sold in the market. These are aspects that small local firms do not possess. In fact, even the small companies based in the developed economies are vulnerable of the same circumstance. In the Philippines, for example, liberalisation or unregulated market has served the interests of “transnational corporations and richer foreign nations that are able to control the local market, forcing local production and local entrepreneurs, especially those engaged in small-scale industries, out of the market” (Lindio-McGovern, n.d., p.5-6). The negative impact of globalisation on the small local firms is considered as one of the major problems being experienced in developing and underdeveloped countries. While the small firms are constantly in danger of being deprived of any share of the market, especially local, because of intense competition from giant corporations, the jobs of the workers that these employ lose security. The employers would have no choice but to further lower allocations for labour in order to remain competitive. This is a normal capitalist practice since it is the instinct of the employer to reduce wages rather than voluntarily cut the targets for profit generation. Even the rights of the workers to organise themselves and to bargain collectively are negatively affected. In order to “stay competitive in a global economy, many companies reduce wages, close plants rather than have a unionized workforce, reduce health and retirement benefits, and eliminate some pension plans” (Du Brin, 2009, p.57). It is therefore, clear that while globalisation may have advantages, it also has negative repercussions on the smaller and less competitive firms. The proponents of globalisation based in the advanced capitalist countries of the world assert that globalisation allows capital to be exported to developing and underdeveloped nations. They say that the times when such countries are hesitant in bringing out capital from their own respective economies and distributing it to others are gone. It is believed that fresh capital from abroad will be advantageous for the local businesses. However, even an International Monetary Fund report states otherwise. According to the report, “there is little evidence that financial integration has helped developing countries to better stabilize fluctuations in consumption growth, notwithstanding the theoretically large benefits that could accrue to developing countries in this respect” (Prasad, Rogoff, et al., 2003, p.6). This report, with the title Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence, points out that in theory there may seem to be a transfer of capital that take place when foreign corporations establish operations or bring in portfolio investments in developing countries. However, despite the infusion, there is still no significant level of economic progress taking place in such countries. Apparently, while capital may have been brought in a country from abroad, large amounts of funds may have also been extracted through capital and profit repatriation. While this takes place, the competition introduced by the foreign direct investments as well as the portfolio investments made in large domestic firms have only been disadvantageous to the small and struggling firms. The so-called levelled playing field of free trade has, in practice, become unfair from the vantage point of smaller businesses and entrepreneurial endeavours. The Philippines, which has been successively ruled by governments who have pushed for policies greatly supportive of globalisation, has an economy that is chronically in crisis. Instead of a growing industrial and agricultural that serve as a backbone of a progressive economy, it has become a hub for business process outsourcing firms owned and operated by mostly foreign firms. The decline in the sectors where the smaller firms play has been consistent. Agriculture’s share in the gross domestic product from 1946 to 2009 had dropped from 40.4 to just 18.1 percent. The industrial sector’s share has declined from 20.9 percent to 21.8 percent from 1978 to 2009. In 2009, manufacturing’s share was only 31.8 percent. While these sectors’ contribution to the GDP had considerably plummeted, the service sector has risen to 50 percent in 2009 (Ibon Foundation). With the decrease occurring in the sectors where the small firms are mostly found, it can only be expected that company closures, especially those that are considered as small and medium-sized enterprises or SMEs have been occurring for several decades. Such phenomenon would not have occurred, of course, if government has not been implementing economic policies under globalisation, which are detrimental to the viability of the SMEs. One of the arguments that insist on globalisation’s advantage for developing countries is that the opportunities for trade favour greatly their respective agricultural sectors and the manufacturing firms closely related to these. Economies that thrive on agriculture can further open up new markets abroad. However, in return for these favours, they also have to liberalise further and subject their domestic markets to the entry of foreign agricultural products as well. Naturally, it is the local farmers and the agricultural businesses that suffer negative effects. A case in point is that which happened in India as it attempted to liberalise its agribusiness sector. With the sector’s liberalisation, “3 million jobs have been lost as a result of the closure of small oil mills producing mustard seed oil following the influx cheap soya-based cooking oil from North and South America” (Carr & Chen, 2004, p.14). In this regard, the products are not the same but the imported soya cooking oil became a more attractive alternative for the Indian consumers. It is cheap because it has been processed through more advance technology and is produced in mass quantities. Supplemented by packaging and Western advertising strategies, the imported products can indeed become better consumer choices than the local ones. However, in the long run, this phenomenon may also affect the sales of imported soya cooking oil as well as other consumer goods manufacturing firms within and outside the country. The closure of many small and local oil mills would naturally result in the increase of unemployment. With joblessness, the targeted consumers would not have the capability to purchase goods, rendering the once cheap imported alternatives still beyond their means. The Indian market would shrink and hurt businesses, especially those local and smaller ones. It is not just the manufacturing sector’s smaller players in developing countries that are adversely affected by economic liberalisation. Many of the national governments in these countries have gone to the extent of allowing foreign firms to enter the retail sector. This is being made possible by legislating policies that opened the sector to welcome the entry of giant retail companies based in the advance capitalist countries such as the United States and those in Western Europe. In some cases, local retailers associations have opposed such policies although the big local supermarkets, assuming that they could withstand the onslaught from the competition, have been lukewarm. Nevertheless, many national governments have been successful in their efforts to liberalise the retail sector. One particular example is that of Mexico, which has been aggressively implementing the policies formulated by the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA. Under NAFTA, Mexicans have shifted their preferences and favour imported goods over those locally made. This is further guaranteed by the entry of U.S.-based retail giants such as K-Mart and Wal-Mart, which could easily pull down the prices of the commodities they are selling just to attract a bigger number of customers. This has resulted in “strong competitive pressures on local businesses” (Beneria & Lind, 1995). Not only Mexico’s local retail sector is being threatened by the operations of Wal-Mart and K-Mart. With the entry of the said retail companies from the U.S., the sale of American products is boosted to the detriment of the local manufacturers. However, it is not just the small firms in developed and underdeveloped countries that are reeling from the negative effects of globalisation. Even those owned and operated by citizens of developed countries are badly affected by the sudden surge of competition due to a more liberalised economy. In the U.S., the SMEs have experienced lower sales and profits due to the influx of products coming from countries with cheaper labour. The severity of the effects, however, is observable in the widening racial divide among SME owners. A paper presented in the 2007 annual meeting of the American Economic Association concludes that “minority-owned businesses that operate in more globalized regions earn lower profits” while “globalization has no significant effect on the profits of white-owned businesses” (Asiedu & Freeman, 2006). Looking beyond the differences in race, however, it is presumed that businesses controlled by whites are often larger compared to those owned by minorities. Therefore, although globalisation in the U.S. may seem to have different effects on businesses by virtue of the ownerships’ race, it is in fact the size of the capital that actually matters. The Measures that Governments can Implement to Protect Smaller Firms It is only appropriate for governments to provide protection for small local firms. It is a fact that despite the size of such companies, these also employ a large number of workers although, unlike those of giant corporations, are far less concentrated. If these small companies are forced to shut down, the immediate effect will be sporadic cases of employment termination which when accrued would turn out to be massive job losses. Consequently, this would result into the reduction of purchasing power, which is a factor for a shrinking market. Aside from this, the closure of local producers may render the economy even more dependent on importation, which is naturally controlled by foreign businesses and countries. The lack of self-reliance leaves the economy vulnerable to fluctuations to foreign exchange. At any instance that the advance capitalist countries suffer minor economic crisis, the developing ones would experience serious inflationary situations. It is ironic that while developing and underdeveloped countries increase the vulnerability of their local small firms through certain policies in line with globalisation, the U.S. continues to uphold the Robinson-Patman Act, “which is widely interpreted as one effort to protect small firms that would otherwise have been too inefficient to survive” (Audretsch, p.419). Despite efforts to reduce the efficacy of the Act through changes in implementing rules, the protectionist essence remains. Majority of the states in the country also have their own laws that are similar to it. One of the most immediate measures, that governments usually implement in order to open the doors further for free foreign trade, is the drastic reduction on tariffs. However, maintaining or even increasing the tariff rates can also serve as the best protection for smaller local businesses. Governments can impose tariffs on both exports and imports. Obligating the local exporting firms to pay more taxes, such as tariffs, will just push them closer to the brinks of closure. Reducing or removing absolutely all forms of tariffs or customs duties on imports, on the other hand, is similar to opening the floodgates for foreign goods, which may threaten the portions of the market held by the small and medium-sized enterprises. Because of this, a government that is determined to provide protection for its small local firms must not totally reduce tariffs on imports to zero. In fact, the economic planners in the bureaucracy must be able to evaluate whether certain imports are bound to challenge or even beat the products produced and sold by small local firms. If such is the case, it would be wise for government to impose higher tariff rates for such imports. Governments may also legislate and enforce anti-dumping laws in order to prevent the over-importation of goods which the small local firms are also already producing. Import-dumping is a phenomenon that usually occurs when the tariff duties of a particular country are reduced substantially. Lower taxes would naturally encourage importers to multiply the volume of orders from foreign manufacturers or wholesalers. If such kind of laws does not exist in a country, the government must push for its legislation and must seriously implement this when enacted. It may be true that there will be local industries that will “employ a strategy of overloading the antidumping system with complaints in order to get authorities to finally act on one of the complaints” (Raslan, 2009, p.16). However, with deregulation being enforced to further make the country more competitive globally, government may not have any other means of controlling the market, including foreign trade. With anti-dumping laws in place, the small local firms, at least, have a mechanism to ensure fair trading practices. There is no doubt that anti-dumping laws may be considered as protectionist in essence but these are not yet powerful enough to defeat the purpose of trade liberalisation. It is expected that some exporting countries would protest over policies that are protectionist in nature. However, the governments can definitely assert on their national and economic sovereignty without totally abandoning foreign trade at the same time in order to continue availing of the benefits that it brings. Instead of emphasizing on only a few policies that overtly reduce the entry of foreign goods, it may also promote and actively support the small local firms so that these can become more competitive. This may be done by subsidizing the local manufacturing and agricultural sectors. Again, the irony here is that while governments in many developing and underdeveloped countries have yet to implement any form of subsidy for local producers, those in more advanced economies have been providing state financial support for its farmers and small processing firms. In year 2000, the U.S. allocated $27 billion for the farming sector, although a major chunk of this went to the agro-industrial farms. Aside from this, direct subsidies were also provided “to large-scale food processors and exporters: $90 million went to companies that advertise their food products abroad, helping corporations like Campbells Soup and Mc Donalds take over the markets of local producers in other countries” (Norberg-Hodge, Merrifield, & Gorelick, 2002, p.71). Through these subsidies, the U.S. has been able not only been able to protect its food producers from entry of imported goods but have made them capable enough to increase their exports and enter the domestic markets of other countries. While such form of state intervention is no longer necessary in the U.S., the governments in developing and less developed countries must enforce similar measures in order to protect their small local producers. Imposing quotas on imports has always been considered as completely anathema to the essence of free trade. This is basically a policy that restricts the quantity of imports for certain commodities. With the quota imposed, foreign traders could only bring in a limited amount of imported goods, which would consequently result in higher prices. The lower the supply, the higher the price would become, and correspondingly, the less attractive it would be to consumers. Ultimately, this would serve the interest of the small local firms as it would leave a good portion of the market to under their control. To some extent, import quotas indeed contradict the very principle of globalisation. However, governments must also realize that, in order to sustain economic development and maintain competitiveness in global trade, they should not entirely deliver the fate of the small local firms to the dictates of the world market. By guaranteeing that the small firms would not just remain stable but would become more competitive through a system of controls in importation, they also ensure that their economies would prosper without being absolutely dependent on foreign trade. Small local firms not only have access to indigenous raw materials. The ingenuity of the local population is also available to them. Both human and natural resources are important and distinct parts of their advantage, making them viable despite the apparent lack of financial capital when compared to giant foreign corporations. However, globalisation has also made it possible for foreign businesses to access not just raw materials but also the talents and skills of the people of a sovereign nation. It has also enabled the foreign firms to acquire intellectual assets from another country either through buying out the smaller firms or through plain industrial spying. One measure that government can enforce in order to prevent this phenomenon is by strengthening its laws on intellectual property rights. Currently, a multilateral agreement reached by the World Trade Organization called the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS has been effective in compelling countries to establish laws upholding its essence. TRIPS obligate the legislation of policies that protect the intellectual property rights in each country. However, it was the developed countries that actually pushed for the TRIPS agreement. Conscious of the fact that globalisation also allows others to access their intellectual property they found it necessary to guarantee its protection. In this regard, the governments in less developed countries may find TRIPS not very relevant, considering their lower level of technological advantage. The Role of Supranational Authorities to Guarantee Genuinely Fair Trade Globalisation would be impossible without the concurrence of nations all around the world. Because of this, multilateral agreements would not suffice by themselves. Instead, these must be products of the discussions or debates reached by members of supranational organisations. Currently, there are several supranational organisations that may function as authorities in terms of foreign trade. Foremost among these is the World Trade Organization or the WTO. It is through the WTO that agreements regarding foreign trade are reached. In fact, it is the very proof that globalisation is not just a principle that countries may or may not uphold. Instead, as long as they are members of the WTO, they would have to implement policies promoting it. The WTO’s precursor was the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, GATT. There are also economic blocs with the same objective as the WTO albeit only for particular regions only. Examples of these are the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the NAFTA. These supranational bodies could also be instrumental in protecting the small firms just as they are important in ensuring the globalisation policies are implemented by member countries. After all, representatives of governments compose these authorities. Any agreement forged by them has a profound impact on the economies of the countries involved. Oftentimes, however, the agreements have been in the service of globalisation. These have pushed governments to further liberalise their respective economies and render the small firms even more vulnerable. However, since these are bodies made up of government representatives who are supposed to advance national interests, it is still possible for them to democratically come up with policies that would protect the small local firms. In fact, such reciprocally beneficial measures would be easily approved by these bodies if there is no single country or clique that would insist on its own vested interest even to the disadvantage of others. Upon the WTO’s establishment, it is clear that most of the policies it formulated have been the subject of much criticism by sectors who believe that these are detrimental to the survival of the small firms and beneficial only for the giant corporations based in the advance capitalist countries. However, in recent years, representatives from the developing countries have become more assertive on certain policies that would reduce the vulnerability of their small domestic firms. At the same time, they have also protested over the U.S. subsidy on its own agricultural and manufacturing sectors. The WTO’s Doha talks “aim to help poor countries prosper through trade, but the United States complains current proposals require it to make politically painful cuts in agricultural subsidies and manufacturing tariffs without getting substantial new export opportunities in return” (Palmer, 15 March, 2010). With the strength in numbers though and with the concept that the WTO’s decisions are supposed to be made through a consensus, the U.S. should not be allowed to dictate other countries. Unless this is realized, it would only be the U.S. that can provide ample protection for its small firms while those of other countries will continue to be threatened with closure or shutdowns. If the WTO and other similar multilateral trade organizations remain beholden to the interests of any economic power, it would be difficult for sovereign governments to assert policies that would protect the interests of the small firms. It would then be necessary for other supranational trade bodies to arise, one that could not be pressured into conceding to the dictates of any country or business interest group and one that is truly consensual in nature. The regional trade blocs that do not include economic superpowers such as the U.S. can be established as alternatives to the supranational authorities that have been obviously dominated by big business interest groups. In Southeast Asia, the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement is an example of countries, with nearly the same level of economic statuses, interacting with each other through trade. Being in equal economic footing with each other, such countries could easily reach agreements that are truly beneficial in a mutual way. Recently, the AFTA has allowed Japan, South Korea, and the People’s Republic of China, the three largest economies in Asia to attend as observers in its meetings. The grouping is now called the ASEAN plus Three or APT cooperation. The APT is not just limited to trade issues though. Cooperation is also being promoted in the fields of “food and energy security, financial cooperation, trade facilitation, disaster management, people-to-people contacts, narrowing the development gap, rural development and poverty alleviation, human trafficking, labour movement, communicable diseases, environment and sustainable development, and transnational crime and counter-terrorism” (ASEAN). It is expected that these three countries would exert influence over the AFTA members, making them liberalise their economies further and putting the small firms at a disadvantage. However, if the AFTA members would insist on protecting their respective national economies, South Korea, Japan, and China would still have no choice but to concur with what is agreed on. Conclusion Globalisation is indeed a system that has its positive effects for the economies of different countries. However, it must be pointed out that the benefits may vary among the countries themselves. The more developed ones have better opportunities in seizing larger portions of the market as they have the capability of producing more through hi-technological means. Others, on the other hand, may not be able to seize such opportunities because they do not have the capital to do so. The resulting imbalance has made the smaller firms vulnerable. The negative effects of globalisation on small firms regardless of the level of economic development of their home countries are appalling. It is in this light that governments must introduce measures that would protect these small and medium-sized enterprises. With liberalisation considered as a trend natural to globalisation, such measures would certainly be labelled as protectionist in nature. It would certainly take a strong political will on the part of the governments to formulate and enforce policies that would protect the small firms in their respective countries. This is because opposition from foreign investors and their respective home countries would surely arise once such steps are taken. However, the governments, while not withdrawing from the competition that globalisation triggers, should still see to it that its small firms would not only survive the competition but also to succeed in it. This may require the implementation of trade policies such as import quotas, tariffs, subsidies for local produces, and protection of intellectual property rights. Governments only need to see through the allure of having access to imports in order to acknowledge the importance of maintaining a stable and competitive national industry. The supranational trade authorities such as the WTO are, as a matter of fact, dominated already by the major economic superpowers of the world. Because of this, the developing and underdeveloped countries would find it difficult to assert on policies that would best represent their interests. However, if they forge unities or even reach consensus among themselves, they have better chances of protecting their respective small domestic firms. Ultimately though, it is still the political will of their respective governments to protect national industries that would serve as the basis for their attitudes towards the discussions in multilateral trade organisations. References ASEAN. ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation. Official Website of Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Retrieved 9 December, 2010 from . Asiedu, E., and Freeman, J. (December 2006). The Effect of Globalization on the Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in the U.S.: Does Owners Race/Ethnicity Matters? American Economic Association. Retrieved from . Audretsch, D. (2006). Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Beneria, L. and Lind, A. (July 1995). Engendering International Trade: Concepts, Policy, and Action. GSD Working Paper Series No. 5. Gender, Science and Development Programme, UNDF. Retrieved from . Carr, M. and Chen, M. (2004). Globalization, Social Exclusion and Work: With Special Reference to Informal Employment and Gender. Working Paper No. 20. Policy Integration Department, WCSDG. International Labour Office. Retrieved from . DuBrin, A.J. (2009). Essentials of Management. Mason, OH: Thomson Business & Economics. Griswold, D.T. (2007). Global Economic Development Is a Tool for Encouraging Democracy. In Debra Miller (Ed.), Globalization. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, Ibon Foundation. (n.d.). Gross Domestic Product By Industrial Share (1946-2009). Vital Signs, Economic Sectors. Retrieved from . Jonsson, K. (2005). Globalization, Authoritarian Regimes and Political Change: Vietnam and Laos. In C. Kinnvall and K. Jonsson (Ed.), Globalization and Democratization in Asia: The Construction of Identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Lindio-McGovern, L. (n.d.). Neo-Liberal Globalization in the Philippines: Its Impact on Filipino Women and Their Forms of Resistance. Society for the Study of Social Problems. Retrieved from . Norberg-Hodge, H., Merrifield, T. and Gorelick, S. (2002). Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness. London, UK: Zed Books. Palmer, D. (15 March, 2010). U.S. Presses India on Doha Trade Talks. Reuters. Retrieved 9 December, 2010 from . Praswad, E., Rogoff, K., Shang, J.W., and Kose, M.A. (2003). Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from . Raslan, R. (2009). Antidumping: A Developing Country Perspective. Austin, TX: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Schifferes, S. (21 January, 2007). Globalisation Shakes the World. BBC News. Retrieved from . Read More