Globalization: Boon or Doggle - Essay Example

first A Summary on ‘Globalization: Boon or Doggle?’ Globalization has brought about multi-dimensional integrationbetween nations of the world. While globalization has benefited and uplifted many people and nations, it is also believed to be the cause for some serious disturbances and imbalances in the world today. This paper summarizes two such discourses for and against globalization by pointing out certain key findings and arguments made. Further, a brief note on personal view of this entire debate will be presented also with some personal opinion on globalization. While globalization has, and continues to increase interdependency among masses of different countries, it is also causing them to believe that their respective identities are at stake besides other changes related to ethnicity, culture, social beliefs and norms etc. The prominent impact of globalization has been economic advancement, supported by technological advancement, of many countries, including some of the developing countries. Globalization has brought about ‘oneness,’ creating a ‘global village,’ both indicating coming closer of people, which is resulting in blending of tradition and giving rise to a new and modern trend. This dynamic process of globalization that has started cannot be stopped or slowed down; hence, it is better to adapt to the situation and try to make its best use; globalization is believed to be the only way to uplift humanity all over the world, which will help improve standards of living, health, political situations and education. The author supports this ideology with the transformation to democratic types that has taken place in most of the countries’ politics and governments, greatly improved communication across borders and terrific flow of cross-border investments. Globalization, unlike wars and battles, enters nations only to offer people economic and cultural choices; and diluting some cultures is a common phenomenon in such situations. The US does not support non-populist ideals followed in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Syria, and Libya. Globalization encourages harmony between culture and, multi-linguistic groups; this mixing eventually results in hybridization, which further breeds new forms of political authority. On the contrary, democratic governments have not been equally successful in all countries because of internal conflicts, economic situation and other factors, thereby resulting in neo-colonialism wherein transnational corporations (TNC) enter the less developed countries to set up businesses using resources from these countries. Globalization renders all countries as winners if all countries are able to reap its benefits by being flexible and adapting their internal environment and external relationships accordingly, thereby creating healthy interdependency. Like India, Mexico and China, other less developed countries (LDC) can adopt policies that will reduce income inequality. Moreover, partnering with international trade pact organizations for fair trade will help LDCs to retain their capital. The benefits of globalization can be reaped by nations with stable political and legal conditions; else, most of the capitalist organizations would not dare to venture into LDCs. Therefore, the responsibility of benefiting from globalization lies partly with the LDCs, which can be accomplished by providing stable political environment, protection and educated workforce to the TNCs willing to invest in LDCs and offer opportunities. For example, the Asian Tiger countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia, have benefited greatly by seeking external help from TNCs. The opposing view is that in the name of globalization, advanced countries partner with the governments of LDCs in order to do business and/or provide job opportunities, only to sell the finished goods at higher costs and a very high margin after branding. This will be of no help to the LDCs and its people. Instead, the intentions of non-governmental organizations (NGO), are reaching out to the people, who are reaping better benefits out of the efforts. While NGOs and other trade pact institutions can do much better job to benefit all masses, their bureaucratic structures, lack of transparency, power imbalances and other issues are demeaning their own initiatives. Another flip side of globalization faced by developed countries such as the US, UK, France, Japan and Germany include issues such as resentment from citizens towards their political groups and immigrants, unemployment, agitations for constitutional change, ethnic disturbances etc. The author ridicules excess focus towards self-interest against community needs shown in these countries. Some crucial findings advocate that globalization helps in reducing inequality, and in providing greater political and civil rights for all citizens, which can be seen in advanced countries; and that these countries are less corrupt and more advanced. Challenging the confronting view of anti-globalization to uplift country’s citizens, the author blames larger population, little education, and low economic growth as the causes for inequality supported by weak political culture and law, rather than capitalistic approach. Hand-holding by the government to support its citizens is a much weaker choice for uplifting compared to empowering citizens and providing them the rights they duly deserve, which will also encourage them to pursue their choice of occupation or business. Countries, and their governments, that have embraced globalization adopt such liberational view. It cannot be ignored that globalization has benefited, but very few. In Asia, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea are a few to name; but their economies are most imbalanced and also highly vulnerable to fluctuations in international economies. The author criticizes globalization for making capital-oriented benefits for few countries, thereby increasing income inequality and causing market dominance, which is also the cause for breeding terrorism and violence in LDCs. Countering this view, the author argues that terrorism cannot be a consequence of globalization, but a wrongful, and mostly psychologically driven, approach adopted by certain groups to show their resentment towards advancements because their own inabilities. It is because of this extremist approach that the US attracted hostility of the countries it supported for peace, like, Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Nations that have experienced crucial turnarounds had sometime received external support. Another critique of globalization is that though people have embraced globalization, there is still resentment and anger, especially when globalization synonymises Americanization. The author points out that the peoples of the world have embraced American goods, but not its policies as a trade-off for their own culture and life styles. Some advanced countries, like Canada and France have despised American goods in order to promote their own products. This argument, for and against, globalization presents a powerful insight into the process and impact of globalization on different groups of people. Moreover, it helps us to understand that this phenomenon is multi dimensional dynamic process that cannot be controlled or stopped, or even directed. Globalization has opened up numerous job opportunities for people irrespective of their age, gender, ethic or cultural association. The roots of globalization can be traced back to late 1800s with the invention of telephone, and has continued to increase in scope and impact ever since, which cannot be stopped (Brooks, Weatherston & Wilkinson, 308). Advanced technology needs to continue to reach out to all people in the world so that everyone can benefit and progress. In order for this to happen, the nations and their governments and constitutions, NGO groups, educational institutions, legal bodies etc have to work together and for the benefit of their people. This has been achieved in many countries, and have experienced immense increase in job opportunities, better incomes for households, better life styles and better health and education systems; however, other consequences such as inflation, global warming, violence etc have also increased (Abdullahi, 28). In my opinion, globalization indeed creates win-win situations for all nations involved in transactions; and there is no other way out but to cooperate and collaborate with each other on the global platform. Finally, globalization is not idealistic, but a pragmatic and dynamic paradigm and an inevitable truth that will continue to create a progressive interdependency and is time-consuming, yet promising, process that will bring about immense change to cultures, beliefs, lifestyles, traditions etc. Works Cited Abdullahi, Sadiq A. “Rethinking Global Education in the Twenty-first Century.” Global Pedagogies: Schooling for the Future. Ed. Joseph I Zajda. New York: Springer, 2010. 23-34. Brooks, Ian, Jamie Weatherston and Graham Wilkinson. “Globalisation, Challenges, and Changes.” International Business Environment. 2nd ed. Canada: Pearson Education, 2010. 306-336. Read More