Globalization and the Worlds Poor - Essay Example

Due Globalization and the World’s Poor A bruising force that has that now left a permanent markin the world of academia like no other, the subject of globalization and its effects, particularly to the world’s poor, remains a gold mine, generating numerous scholarly papers that only serve to widen the gap between two sides armed with counterfactual data that either cannot effectively pull down. Indeed even in the face of obvious benefits, the 1999 Seattle, 2000 Prague, 2011 Quebec, 2002 Washington, and the growing number of protests against the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund’s policies are but stark reminders of missing links. As a result of the hard hitting Washington Consensus [—the West’s interest-serving set of socio-economic and political prescriptions, for instance], it is quite obvious that the world’s poor have surrendered a huge chunk of their sovereignty to the powerful global forces, which apparently, are at constantly at work circumscribing their spheres of action (Dreher 1092). The resurgence of Adam Smith’s laissez faire economics is today more of a reality than it was then; seldom since the nineteenth century’s heydays of free trade has this theory galvanized such certainty; certainty that has also been far removed from the realities on the ground. Quite frankly, all [scholars] are entitled to personal opinions, for globalization is but a multifaceted concept that encapsulates changing fortunes [both for the rich and the poor], but with a convincing conviction that deregulated markets and the accompanying elements creates super-humans who earn their lifestyles even by the most despicable moves that includes but not limited to taking the world’s poor six feet under. It is quite evident that globalization has enabled increased access to a variety of consumer goods courtesy of the competitive market forces that have served well to limit the pricy monopoly powers in the hitherto insulated markets. Technological diffusionism, in particular, has more than enabled local production in plenty, increasing the world’s food supply multifold through industrial agriculture (Osland 139). Quite a number of economists contend than going global is but a better way of encouraging higher standards; that apart from the increased overall quality of goods and services due to the increased competition, the development of information technologies has enabled crucial knowledge enhancing exchanges between nations, the poorest included. More importantly, it has availed the hitherto unavailable access to foreign capital in addition to advanced technology and subsequent export markets, thus breaking the jinx of the old, domestic monopoly production approaches riddled with wasteful inefficiencies (Osland 137-138). Martens and Raza notes that globalization has added a great deal of impetus to the world’s economic growth, without which the population of the worlds’ poor would be much greater, and in even much deplorable circumstances without the advances that has secured a stream of food supply for the world poor that know less of family planning even at their states of affairs (281). It is, however, unfortunate that while globalization is credited for the significant improvements above across the globe, the global nature tendencies of the same forces have destroyed lives in equal measure, perhaps even worse than the benefits. A carefully designed process whose control is a tightly knit affair in the hands of the transnational corporations (TNCs) suspended by the governments of wealthy industrialized nations, the interests of the world’s poor seems to have been relegated to the periphery. With capitalist mindsets driving the disproportionate allocation of resources globally, capital movement, exchange, revenue, structural adjustment and interest seem to be the trending terms, yet sinking the disadvantaged by taking away even the very little in their custody. Indeed, it is; for never in history has the world’s inequality been stretched to the 21st century limits. The United States only constitutes approximately four percent of the world’s population, yet dominates the global free markets with resource-draining effects elsewhere, subjecting thousands into forced misery. Chua notes that the world’s richest one percent sits on as much wealth equivalent to fifty-seven percent of the poorest nations’ wealth combined (243). As the rich nations continue to experience rapid economic prosperity, a phenomenon that more than tripled over the past two decades, many in the developing world, not sparing the world’s poorest, continue to wallow in the ever declining living standards. Between the years 1980 to 1998, for instance, the United States’ per capita private consumption increased an average rate of 1.9 percent per annum, while human living conditions in sub-Saharan Africa declined by 1.2 percent annually during the same period (Gallup and Sachs 89-90). Indeed as the world‘s richest continue to reap super normal benefits of globalization, more than one billion people the world over [the worse off being in Africa] live on less than a dollar a day (UNDP (a) 17) Even at their current state of affairs, globalization is increasingly making it difficult for the poor nations to identify just what exactly constitute their national economies. Governments have been reduced to mere actors with ceremonial roles in their own backyards as aggressive production systems and capital markets take the center stage in commanding their development. The neo-liberal policies imposed through the IMF and the World Bank has more than forced the raw commodity prices that these countries so much depend on down to the sustenance levels. Without a doubt, the policies have drastically reduced the social safety nets of the poor countries, thus making their economies less and less competitive in the globalized economy (Falk 112). The imbalanced relations has so far strengthened the rich by increasing their wealth and power [influence] as the poor’s cake gets even much smaller (Stiglitz 9). Besides the policies are the inadequate foreign aids comprising largely of food supplies that only serve to ensure that the poor remain at the mercy of the west. The inequality gap is further driven by the constant brain drain that hinders proper development manpower to drive the poor states towards the desired real change. It is rather pathetic that the richest 20 percent of the world’s population are firmly in control of [receives-sound better] 86 percent of world’s GDP combined, pockets 82 percent of export trade as well as 68 percent of foreign direct investment the world over, yet the world’s poorest 20 percent only receives one percent (UNDP(b) 38). The same report further revealed 358 individuals own as much wealth as that owned by 2.5 billion people. With capital firmly in their hands, poor nations find it prudent enough to introduce non-conventional ways that include but not limited to attracting the multinational enterprises with tax free-status and exemptions from the national labor codes in order to effectively fight off globalized competition; facts that only serve to amplify their developments prospects relative to the famous race to the bottom (Osland 141). As the world grapple with the concern that man is destroying his very own foundation of existence, the environment, the world’s poor remains the worst hit. The highly publicized controversies such as the Liberia’s Khian Sea waste disposal saga [a cargo loaded with thousands of tons of toxic ash from Philadelphia]; the leaked World Bank memo signed by Lawrence Summers urging fellow economists at the intuition to support migration of the Wests’ pollution intensive industries into the developing countries; and a thorough analysis of the grievances presented by protesters against the summits in the above mentioned cities tell all as to who in the world is at the receiving end to pick the pieces (McAusland 5). At the very core of globalization are policies that basically shift local economies away from small-scale diversified agriculture to the industrial intensive models directed by the so called multinational National Corporations, thus, contributing directly to the creation of poverty itself. Nearly half of the world’s populations whose lives are directly dependent on land are continually rendered landless for export oriented agricultural items such as flowers that does less to add value to shuttered lives. The exotic vegetables grown in these lands are luxurious and highly priced that only find market in the already overfed countries leaving behind hungry, homeless people who once fed themselves growing indigenous foods dependent on the few jobs that are slowly being taken over by robots (Mander, Baker and Korten par 6-9). By and large, the standard measures of economic growth that include GDP and the per capita leaves a lot to be desired, for even the obvious negative, and perhaps harmful, activities such as clearing of forests and/or the building up of toxic dumpsites find their share in these measures. Quite on the contrary, economic growth measurements, which are sometimes cooked to cover massive corruption, are certainly not beneficial to the world’s poor. The fact of the matter is that the flattery "market fundamentalism" and the accompanying ideological principles have fundamental flaws that skew the present mode of exchanges towards a few while creating a mass of losers. Reforms towards a different system, where moral values that places human life and nature above the exploitative returns on investment are long overdue. Work cited Chua, Amy. World on Fire. How Exporting Free-Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. London: William Heinemann, 2003. Print. Dreher, Axel. “Does Globalization Affect Growth? Empirical Evidence from a new Index.” Applied Economics 38.10 (2006): 1091-1110. Print. Falk, Richard. (1999). Predatory globalization: A critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gallup, John Luke and Jeffrey Sachs. “The Economic Burden of Malaria.” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 64.1 (2001): 85–96. Print. Mander, Jerry, Debi Baker and David Korten. “Does Globalization Help the Poor?” IFG Bulletin 1.3 (2001): n. pag. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. Martens,Pim, and Mohsin Raza. “Is Globalization Sustainable?” Sustainability 2.1 (2010): 280- 293. Print. McAusland, Carol. Globalization’s Direct and Indirect Effects on the Environment. University of Maryland, 2008. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. Osland, Joyce. “Broadening the debate: The pros and cons of globalization.” Journal of Management Inquiry 12.2 (2003): 137-154. Print. Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002. Print. United Nations Development Program [UNDP (a)]. Human development report 1999. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. United Nations Development Program [UNDP (b)]. Human development report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Read More