The Relationship Between the West and the Third World - Essay Example

Final Exam Question s Affiliation Introduction Globalization is still at the epicenter of today’s debates. Until now, despite much research, vital dimensions are still poorly understood. Latest decades of globalization created a more interdependent, interconnected and complex globe than ever seen before. Whereas global policy has emphasized on simplifying integration, the implications of increasing interdependence have been essentially ignored. The acceleration witnessed in global integration, by far, has brought several benefits. However, the global integration has also created fragility through augmented exposure and vulnerability to global shocks, like today’s suffering of women and children and financial crisis in developing nations. This paper examines Daniel Cohen`s argument vs. Alison Jaggar`s argument regarding globalization. Daniel Cohen`s Arguments Cohen deals with a very important and timely subject or topic for that matter – globalization – though he does so inefficiently. The title of his book leads one to think that Cohen will actually defend globalization from its enemies or pinpoint those enemies and pronounce their arguments. Nonetheless, the book offers, at best, a somehow weak defense of the topic – global capitalism. Cohen does not openly identify enemies of globalization and their agenda. Cohen puts the present wave of globalization in an historical perspective. He tries to explain why poor countries have failed to be like developed nations and what possibly the world can do to make globalization be more beneficial. Cohen claims that globalization, thanks to the enormous speed of the 21st century communications, presents to the people a world with material prosperity which everyone wants. That is, a vivid world full of promises that are not yet fulfilled. For the poorest developing countries, globalization remains just an elusive image. Economist Daniel Cohen opposes the idea that globalization is something that is imposed and meant to exploit poor nations. Instead, he offers an innovative concept to make globalization benefit the poor. According to Cohen (2006), to understanding the modern globalization requires us to reject the idea that poor nations are exploited and stunted by globalization. Undoubtedly, rich nations protectionist practices and prejudiced trade terms negatively impact poor nations, but these nations stay poor just because they have nothing or very little that the richer countries desire or need. Cohen equates the condition of the poor nations to that of “persons lost inside French welfare system.” Cohen asserts that developments in technology and communication do nothing apart from showing individuals the prosperity of richer nations. The irony of modern globalization is that real economic forces still lag behind the expectations of better welfare or life. That is, what is expected to happen, not what has happened, makes modern globalization the contentious issue it is currently in the 21st century. Cohen says that never before has the mode of communication, such as the media created a global consciousness or never before has economic forces lagged behind expectations. Modern globalization, Cohen claims, is just the third act within a history that started with Spanish Conquistadors around the sixteenth century but continued with the 19th century of Great Britains empire of the free trade. During the 19th century, just as in the 21st century, a revolution in communication and transportation promoted the spread of wealth over a wider range but favored polarization. For instance, India, that was part of the Great British Empire, was poor in 1913 just as it was during 1820. Will the current information economy continue to do better in distributing wealth than the historical telegraph did, close to two centuries ago? Probably yes, if one considers the result from Chinas viewpoint; surely not, if the experience of Africa is a guide. However, at any rate, developing nations require much effort as well as investment so as to become equal partners in the global arena. The notion that technologies and global trade cause wealth distribution by themselves is very true in today world than it was in the last two centuries. We should not, as Cohen claims, view globalization as an achieved fact. Just because of the unmet promises of prosperity – what is yet to occur – that globalization has very many opponents in the modern world. Alison Jaggar`s arguments According to Jaggar (2001), modern processes of globalization have come along with serious deterioration in women health across the globe. Particularly worrying is the drastic drop in the women`s health status in developing nations such as the global South and some women within the global North. Jaggar argues that this health vulnerability of children and women in most part of the world is inseparable from the women`s economic and political vulnerability. More specifically, Jaggar links the worsening health of many women and children with neo-liberal economic policies which characterize modern economic globalization. He argues that such sufferings are sustained by unending burden of debt settlements imposed on many developing nations. In conclusion, Jaggar argues that many developing countries` debt obligations cannot be morally binding since such obligations may not be democratically legitimate. Comparison of Cohen`s argument and Jaggar`s argument Jaggar poses, in his argument, as an enemy of globalization. He condemn the exploitation of developing countries by rich counties by imposing Western values on their traditional cultures. That is, jaggar sees globalization as something that forces unwanted system of economy on people. She ultimately claims that globalization as most people know it, it is not good for humans, especially for most women and children. However, Cohen disagree with Jaggar`s argument. According to Cohen, people who refute globalization find themselves hanging to the notion that globalization enforces a model that the people of the world do not want. However, the truth, is probably the opposite: globalization presents to the people a world which subverts their expectations. Unfortunately, this revelation is unable to satisfy them (Cohen, 2006). The unique aspect of modern globalization, as Cohen claims, is that the pace of technological innovations has given third world nations the ability to perceive that the West or developed nations has prospered faster compared to them. The central issue concerning globalization has nothing to do with the fact that it develops very rapidly or that its impacts are too brutal. On the comparatively short term scale of capitalism, the concern is the globalization`s poor ability to diffuse technical advancement rather than the propensity of globalization to impose advancement everywhere (Cohen, 2006). Nevertheless, the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and other nations can demonstrate that capitalism has been successful in speedily improving the living standards where people have embraced it. Cohen appears to conflate trade and globalization with entirely embracing capitalism. What I think about globalization. Personally, I think globalization is good for the world because it is a process that brings the poor nations come at same level with the rich nations. We should not only think about country but also about the nations that are living below the poverty line. Globalization has a number of benefits, since it: a) Develops international tourism b) Help people become aware of events or incidents very quickly c) Promote free trade and thus help improve the economy of nations d) Encourages nations around the globe to provide classic western services e) Makes individuals more familiar with cultures of other countries or society. People are exposed to fresh ideas about goods, food, and services. Consumers also benefit from it since products become cheaper. The consumer can also get new services and goods more quickly. Globalization also gives us a larger market where we can sell extra goods and make more profit. f) Enables global access to cheap raw materials. This easy of access enables companies to have fair competition in their own markets as well as in overseas markets. Going for the cheapest raw materials from other parts of the world is known as global sourcing. And because of reduced cost and increased revenue associated with global sourcing, globalization can generate more profits for investors. g) Let countries specialized in what they know best. If, for instance, Brazil can acquire cheap steel from China, Brazil does not have to manufacture its own steel. Conclusion For Cohen, the relationship between the West and the Third world is not that of exploiter-exploited. He believes that globalization shows individuals a world with material prosperity that everyone wants. That is, a vivid world that is full of unfulfilled promises. For the poorest developing nations, they are yet to fulfill such promises given by globalization. Cohen challenges the idea that globalization is something that is imposed and meant to exploit the poor nations. Modern globalization, Cohen claims, is just the third act within a history that started with Spanish Conquistadors around the sixteenth century but continued with the 19th century of Great Britains empire of the free trade. During the 19th century, just as in the 21st century, a revolution in communication and transportation promoted the spread of wealth over a wider range but favored polarization. However, in her article Is Globalization Good for Women?, Alison Jaggar gives us a different explanation to Cohen`s account. She ultimately claims that globalization as most people know it, it is not good for humans, especially for most women and children. Reference Cohen, D. (2006). Globalization and its enemies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Jaggar, Alison M. (2001). Is Globalization Good for Women?, Comparative Literature; Vol. 53 Issue 4, p298 Read More