Globalization, Industrialization, and Deindustrialization - Essay Example

Globalization, Industrialization and Deindustrialization Which zone of the world-system has the most industrialized countries? How has this changed over time, if at all? The developmental trajectory of industrialization could provide an understanding of globalization, highlighting its relationship in the process. The modern era saw the oldest industrial zones emerging in Europe, particularly Britain. Locations such as Liverpool and Manchester are excellent examples. Later, these zones were succeeded by the cities of London, Paris and Barcelona. In the United States, the heart of old American industrial zones was located in New York, Chicago, Pittsburg and Philadelphia, among others. These would give way to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta and Houston. In recent years, however, there is another trend happening, wherein the zones are transitioning from the old industrialized countries on to what came to be considered as semiperipheral and peripheral countries. The dynamics of the shifts of the locations of industrialized zones appear to indicate the developmental stages of industrialization. According to Tellier (2009: 234)., this could be attributed to the evolution of location requirements, pointing out that initially, what was important was the proximity of fuel such as coal and the relocations to the new zones thereafter were driven by new variables such as market accessibility and manpower quality. The shift followed the evolving requirements through the years: requirements that became more complex, as induced by critical variables such as the forces of globalization. For some experts, the dynamics of the changes to industrialization could also mean the advent of deindustrialization. Alderson (1999: 706), for instance, outlined two deindustrialization models: positive and negative deindustrialization. The former involves a point of prosperity in an economy where it could manage to diversify until employment in the manufacturing is finally eclipsed by other industries such as services. According to Alderson this is achieved through higher productivity rate in the manufacturing sector, which sustains a high level of development (p.706). Negative deindustrialization, on the other hand, occurs in the event of weak productivity or trade performance. He pointed out that once trade position plummets and investment in the manufacturing sector follows in deterioration, the employment in the sector dips as well (p. 706). If you had to predict the kinds of industries in which core countries should deindustrialize over time, what would they be and why would you make your prediction? Considering the patterns of industrialization, particularly with respect to how the location of industrialization zones changes and the way deindustrialization occurs, it appears that certain industries particularly in industrialized countries are poised to decline or driven toward this path. For instance, the automotive industry in Germany could be part of a positive deindustrialization strategy. The labor and production costs of the manufacture of parts and their assembly could be higher when sourced in the country. Globalization now allows for outsourcing labor and the relocation of industrial facilities overseas within a global operation framework for multinational companies where aspects of operations are located in various parts of the world. This setup allowed a more cost effective and profitable enterprise. In the same vein, positive industrialization could also be pursued in order to create a better environment for investment in other non-manufacturing industries. As economies diversify, there is an imperative for the eradication of pollution, contamination and the decay entailed in industrialized communities. Sustainability and better living spaces are necessary in order to attract better quality of workers, for example. If you had to predict the kinds of industries in which semiperipheral and peripheral countries would industrialize over time, what would they be and why would you make these predictions? Within the globalization framework, semiperipheral and peripheral countries are considered important with respect to the role they play in the entire global economic system. Mahutga explained this better in the interdependency of countries in the world system. Hence, when a semiperipheral country industrializes or a peripheral country deindustrializes, it means it is related and significant in the economy of the world-system. For example, the Philippines could quickly industrialize as more and more manufacturing facilities are built in several of its port cities, owing to its cheap labor cost and excellent potential as base for goods aimed at other markets such as China. This is aligned with the new trend within the world-system where the core deindustrializes while the periphery industrializes. This could mainly be attributed to the role of multinational companies that thrive in the globalized world. These entities operate across countries and they have the power to rearrange the core/periphery system according to what would be most efficient and profitable for their organizations. Given your answers to points (1) (3), what does the relationship between globalization and industrialization / deindustrialization suggest about future employment patterns for countries in each world-system position? Through globalization, the world sort of became one single playground for multinational companies, with countries functioning as mere zones for their operations. These entities also encourage the international division of labor. What this means is that industrialization transpires in the global scale: facilities are set up in countries where the resources are. For example, Apple has relocated much of its manufacturing facilities in China because the labor is cheaper and the materials for the manufacture of its product are located there. As a result, there is rapidly changing dynamics in employment across all types of countries within the world-system. It has been previously cited that there is a rapidly emerging trend of deindustrialization. Here, developed countries are increasingly becoming service economies beginning in the 1970s to the present (Dicken 2007: 476). In addition, there is also the issue of unemployment. With the shift of manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor markets elsewhere in the world, more and more work opportunities are lost in developed countries. This is evidenced in the near stagnant employment rates in many developed economies (Dicken: 478). Globalization radically changed the way organizations and economies operate on account of the way it integrated the global economic system. For most, this development became a feature of the world-system, which has been emerging and increasing for centuries (Chase-Dunn, Jonas & Amaro 2001: 210). Indeed, globalization satisfies two critical criteria that Mahutga cited as what constitute a world system: global economic interdependence and a competitive polity. Chase-Dunn and Gills (2005: 45) proposed that this view allows an understanding of the concept as both a political ideology and a long-term spatial integration process of formerly unconnected or only loosely connected peoples. The process was thought to be achieved through “the expansion and intensification of large-scale interaction networks” (Chase-Dunn and Gills: 45). These variables all support the position that globalization is related to industrialization and deindustrialization. All in all, globalization became sort of an enabling platform for both industrialization and deindustrialization in the modern era. It has provided all the mechanisms that allowed these two economic phenomena to perpetuate within a world-system. References Alderson, Arthur S. 1999. Explaining Deindustrialization: Globalization, Failure or Success? American Sociological Review 64(5): 701-724. Chase-Dunn, Christopher, Jonas, Susanne and Amaro, Nelson. 2001. Globalization on the Ground: Postbellum Guatemalan Democracy and Development. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Gills, Barry. 2005. Waves of Globalization and Resistance in the Capitalist World System: Social Movements and Critical Global Studies. In R. Appelbaum and W. Robinson (Eds.) Critical Globalization Studies. London: Routledge. Tellier, Luc-Normand. 2009. Urban World History: An Economic and Geographical Perspective. Quebec: PUQ. Read More