Host Country Corporate Perspectives - Essay Example

Between the host country and the multinational corporate perspectives, which is more convincing? PROS Globalization drives the host country’s economic growth. 2. Globalization transforms economic growth through integrating diverse aspects of the host country’s spectrums. 3. Discourages capitalism and encourages liberalism 4. Ensures adequate exploitation of market 5. Facilitates cultural, economic, social, political, and environmental integrations and interactions CONS: 1. Derives people of their main source of income in case of relocation 2. Results to conflicts due to unequal distribution of benefits gained from a country’s resources. 3. Multinationals have the ability to relocate to countries where labor is cheap and easily accessed. 4. Multinationals can operate in both mother country as well as in other market thus increase their volume of income 5. Multinationals view globalization with a market liberalization perspective. The Politics of Globalization To developing countries, rise in globalization has remarkably contributed to more income boosting the economy significantly1. Additionally, it has increased profits for multinationals, as they have been able to maximize on lower cost of production in the developing countries to their advantage. Simultaneously, competition form hundreds of thousands of low-wage laborers from countries like India and China has led to stagnant real wages for large sections of the United States working class. Globalization is politics not fate. As such, it is possible to concentrate politics of power in its opposition. A politics secures the governments and people’s submission as well as those economic and social forces it brags to liberate. This paper will examine critically the politics of globalization and assess which position is more convincing between the perspective of the host country and that of the multinational corporate. Host country perspectives on globalization Globalization is all about the transforming costs of economic integrations and interactions across distance and effects of these transformations on geographical distribution of economic activity. The mechanisms driving globalization include, among others, easier movement of capital, goods, and people2. For instance, the impeding closure of a factory dealing with car components in the Cadiz province in Spain five years ago, by its American owner, Delphi, sparked a wave of protests at the site, supported by political leaders, including the Spanish prime minister and the European Union Commission president. The worker’s trade union organized a two-day general strike that paralyzed transport and business across the region, achieving total global attention. After, the factory closed, affecting not only the 16,000 employees, but also an estimated 4,000 people within the region who ultimately depended on Delphi for business. By 2008, word had it that, the factory had relocated to Morocco, North Africa, where wages read one-fifth of the Spanish levels. Such scenarios have become a common place and analysts identify them with globalization3. Agreeably, processes of globalization shape almost every aspect of modern life to some extent. With relative ease, consumers can enjoy the internet, worldwide travel, and access to goods and services globally. It has become a common place to observe that the whole world is living and working in a globalized environment. Frequently, aspects highlighted in globalization include global media and telecommunications, worldwide production, global brands, and integrated financial markets4. In addition, at the forefront of this phenomenon are multinational enterprises that benefit from the opening markets across the globe, and from advances in computing and internet technology, which makes it possible to interconnect far-flung activities in global networks. Some political analysts describe the world as linked together into a single globalized market village and place driven by the spread of free market capitalism to virtually every nation in the globe. This representation of a thoroughly globalized universe, at times termed as one of the hyperactive globalization has become rather contentious. Some academics argue that, hyperactive globalization analysts are exaggerating the extent of globalization and that, in fact, markets and organizations function more along regional and national lines. The impacts of globalization on societies form the largest part of people’s perspective on globalization. Obviously, economic impacts are the most possible strands unbundling globalization portrayal including environmental, cultural, and technological effects. These aspects have long-term effects on the activities of a state. Even though people tend to view countries as a whole, it is worth noting that some groups in a country may be benefiting whereas others including ecological environment may be worse off. This is so because, whether these changes brings gains or detriments depends in large part on the position of vantage point, governments play a big role in determining the ways of distributing wealth. Possibly, channeled gains from resources may be benefiting people in the society through paying for improved education and health, but often-excluded groups miss out5. For example, oil rich countries in the developing world such as Angola, Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria, and most recently Kenya, have benefited from oil revenues yet the majority of their populations remain inflicted by advent poverty, with limited access to education and healthcare. The most recent research shows that, governments are in position to redress inequalities via spending priorities and policies because there is existing distinction between equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes. The research reveal that, most people would feel the former is preferable, depicting that investment in education, which enables people to get jobs, is preferable to social security payments to the jobless who do not have the relevant skills. However, governments encounter difficult choices: they can pay for education and social programs by raising taxes, but if they dare impose heavy taxation, they stand to risk discouraging business investment. Generally, the trend has been lowering of corporation tax and offering foreign investors an advantage of location. Cognitively, most people’s view of globalization is convincing due to impacts that come along with it6. Furthermore, it is worthwhile noting that government policies aimed at attracting inward investment are ensuring greatest benefit from technology transfer. The multinational corporate perspectives on globalization Hyperactive globalist perspective Scholarly review on perspectives of multinational corporate concerning globalization classifies the perspectives into three categories. They are the hyperactive globalist perspective, the skeptical perspective, and the transformation perspective. The reviews describe the hyperactive globalist perspective as an approach that sees globalization as a new epoch in the history of human life. Denationalizing of economy is on the verge as many hyperactive globalists are quick to agree on general factors behind globalization and its likely outcome. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that, these reviews depict presence of two different orientations of globalization. They reveal that, different people distinguish forces of globalization as neo-Marxist and neo-liberal orientated. If the terms of winners and losers of globalization are the items in subject, both orientations acknowledge that the lines and cleavages of economic benefit are transforming. On one end, neo-liberals’ outlook on this one is a good thing since they put across that almost every country have comparative advantage in one way or another within the economy of the world7. On the other end, scholars of neo-Marxist view the optimism of neo-liberals with suspicion. With this sense, it is agreeable that neo-Marxist scholars believe global capitalism will only create then reinforce inequalities between and within nations. This is because of the fact that, continued increase in economic globalization will give rise to importance of transitional governance. As a result, national governments will lose their affluence and end up operating increasingly according to rules and regulations they do not create8. According to some scholars, this may be a bad thing since the democratic models formulated and protected by states will become increasingly insupportable. Counteractively, other scholars depict that the diffusion of ideologies of consumerists is the first step in the process of breaking down traditional models of identification9. Cognitively, there will be intense chances of a truly globalized civilization through spreading of liberal democracy and extension of universal principles of political and economic organizations. Nonetheless, assessments from both ends agree that the fundamental reconfiguration of the global economy will end up spelling nation demise and the irrelevance of the welfare state. Skeptical perspective In this perspective, most scholarly reviews argue that the current processes of globalization are fragmented and regionalized than globalized. At best, current processes show regionalization according to skeptical scholars. In fact, with reference to the latest study results, the golden age of globalization took place in the late 19th century. Skeptics disagree on the topic that old cleavages are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, globalization is not drawing the Third World into a global economy that destroys old lives of benefit and exploitation but on the contrary, they say, globalization is drawing the Third World into a marginalized economy. The contrast between perspectives of skeptic scholars and others is that the latter emphasizes on growth of capitalism while the other view global capitalism as a myth. The growth of multinational corporations does not implicate that the nation-states are no longer relevant for governing the flows of economic benefits10. Skeptic scholars point to the fact that foreign investment flows into the control of a few advanced economies. Multinational corporations continue to tie themselves primarily to their regional or home states whereby these ties only benefit home states and regions alone11. Skeptical perspectives discard the notions of the development of a global culture or a global governance structure. They argue that structures of global governance and culture exist as a disguised version of neo-liberal economic strategies that benefit the West. This means that, multinational corporations are part of the most visible facets of contemporary globalization. In 1970, there were roughly seven multinational corporations worldwide. Thirty years down the line, the number soared to 60,000 and as of 1999; the 1,000 largest multinationals were responsible for 80 per cent of the output of the world whereas the top 100 multinational corporations in the world accounted for 4.3 per cent of the world Gross Domestic Product. Summary In summary, transformational perspective on globalization differs fundamentally from the rest as it has no single cause of market or economic logic behind globalization and no perspective can determine the outcome of globalization processes. This paper’s case study challenges the states in command and multinational corporations in command approaches to the study of country multinational interactions and integrations. Therefore, this paper stems a strong position that, host perspective is more convincing because of the fact that it comes along with positive effects of globalization. In host, globalization brings about people interconnectedness and allows manufacture of goods in not just one end of the world, but all over, making them accessible to a more diverse group of people12. It increases trading services, growth of technology, as well as development of the world markets. Due to globalization in host countries, barriers to communication are minimal and there are more interactions avid people of diverse backgrounds leading to more tolerance which in turn allows less conflicts and more political and unity stability. People and nations are now able to grow individually and globally, thanks to globalization as it influences and exposes different cultures allowing interactions. Bibliography Malaspina Ann, Critical Perspectives on Globalization (California: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2006) 12, Saenz Mario, Latin American Perspectives on Globalization: Ethics, Politics, and Alternative Visions (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) 112 Veltmeyer Henry, New Perspectives on Globalization and Antiglobalization: Prospects for a New World Order? (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008) 24 Vigouroux, B Cecile and Mufwene S. Salikoko, Globalization and Language Vitality: Perspectives from Africa (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008) 230 Read More