Benefits That Globalization Has Delivered For All Countries - Essay Example

Anti-globalisation arguments seriously undervalue the benefits that globalization has delivered for all countries of affiliation: Anti-globalization arguments seriously undervalue the benefits that globalization has delivered for all countries. This work will look into anti-globalization arguments and analyze if the claims fail to appreciate the benefits of globalization. The work will follow an approach where it first defines globalization and then present the arguments of the opponents. A special feature of globalization is in the many dimensions in which it can be explored. However, this paper will focus mainly on its role on poverty reduction, the environment, and economic growth of countries considered. The work will further delve into the arguments which support globalization by presenting evidence of its contribution to poverty eradication. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn based on the evidence presented. Globalization has been defined in many different ways. Most of these definitions have their basis in the different schools of thoughts in existence. Globalization is not only an economic phenomenon but also a socially constructed and a vibrant process which is constantly being transformed by human activity (Zhang, 2003 pg, 7). This account therefore presents globalization as a multidimensional phenomenon and not just a simple conventional material process (Zhang 2003). It is important to note here that the term lacks a generally accepted definition; however one common application is that which puts it as “a process of increasing connectivity, where ideas, capital, goods, services and people are transferred across country borders” (Yeates, 2009). Poor countries suffer the numerous problems associated with globalization. For instance, competition and interdependence between world top economies that always experience stiff rivalry. This is particularly seen when considering the trading in products and service, movement of money, labor employment and environment. Following these, the domestic market condition and policies of the underdeveloped nations lack the power to influence the domestic economic advancement in such nations. Globalization carries the ability to bring new opportunities for the developing countries including access to global market and transfer of technology. This enhances productivity and improves efficiency in such countries (Thorgren, 2010). Globalization is sharply contested based on the varied perspectives built by different people. According to The Economist, (2008, pg 14) the clashing perspectives on globalization can be traced to issues such as different background experiences, faiths and denominations and the diverse schools of thought. In all these perspectives different premises take the centre stage. However, they all acknowledge the problems presented by the global economy citing the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor. This is partially blamed on globalization. Paul Streon (2010) shares the same view based on his finding that showed globalization as benefiting only the wealthy countries, huge firms, asset holders and the private sector. He further points out that globalization adversely affect developing countries especially when considering the workers, small companies, women, local cultures and the unskilled public sector. Another development economist, Chang (2010), argues that globalization only makes the wealthy wealthier while the poor continue to get poorer. He further fault free markets strategy for the economic sluggishness and growth failures currently experienced in Africa. According to his opinion, the guidelines presented by IMF as outlined in its structural adjustment programmes left terrific effects on the economic growth of Africa. Related criticisms take the environmental point of view and blame the lay blames on the huge advertising companies, media and multinationals (Thorgren, 2010). Kinley, 2009) also faults the globalization of economy and blames its influence on consumption. He argues that the patterns of consumption are greatly influenced by environmentally damaging forces as opposed to individual performances; favorite –forces such as cultural norms, publicity and psychological associations. Sept, (2008) equally blames the globalization of economies stating that it is inherently detrimental to the environment since it is based on an ever rising utilization of resources. According to him these transnational corporations are not only big but they are also powerful. For instance he points out the GDP of Exxon’s which in its entirety exceeds that of about 180 nations (Speth, 2008). The only shortcoming with this argument is the fact that it lacks consideration and alternative policy for poor countries that rely on 75% or more of the total energy needs. Another argument by environmentalists like (Speth, 2008) holds the view that one major characteristic of globalization is its strong support for production that is export oriented. Transport activities have been said for to increase ecological infrastructure like airports, ports, canals and dams and thus cause environmental degradation. This argument is true, although a serious weakness is found in the argument since it fails to appreciate the benefits of such infrastructures. On the other side, globalization advocates like Friedman (1999) Wolf (2004) support the idea of ‘borderless world’, a factor that is deeply enshrined in the policies of IMF and World Bank. In their view, globalization is the best solution for poverty. Fellow supporters refer to globalization as the ‘savior’ of mankind (Gore 2012, pg 7). Globalization has been said to help decrease severe poverty and imbalance in the section of the world’s population. It has been argued that due to globalization infant mortality rate has declined, life expectancy boosted, polio almost wiped out and war on malaria recording tremendous success (Kieh, 2008). Additionally, India and China, which jointly account for the 43% of the developing world’s total population, have benefited from the speedy economic growth. Benefits of globalization are also evident through countries like Singapore and Hong Kong which have moved out of extreme poverty. However, critics insinuate that these benefits only favor South East Asia while leaving out Africa (Dunning, 2003). Findings by Norberg (2001), Swedish historian, have brought up new information that has helped refute this argument and thus blamed the anti-globalization strategies, unsuitable governance and poor land reforms in nations such as Kenya. It can be argued further that the lack of the “the capability to function effectively” is the reason why Africa fails to benefit from globalization (Ezcurra, and Rodríguez,2013). Alleviating poverty is not easy. However, there is overwhelming evidence that globalization is helping to accomplish this. A study by Ouseley-Torrezao (2013) established that underdeveloped nations which embraced international trade experienced a six times growth rate between 1970s and 80s when compared to countries that remained closed to international trade. Another study by Jeffrey Frankel (1998) supported these findings by showing that 1% point in the shares of exports and imports of income realized by nations increased the GDP by 2% or more. Lastly, another compelling finding by Dollar and Kraay established that while the developing nations experiencing globalization recorded an increase in the GDP per person, said to be at 5% annually in 1990s, non-globalizing nations only recorded a rise of 1.4% annually. Based on these findings it is possible to see that that Globalization can help eradicate poverty and create employment in poor countries. Globalization impact is determined based on numerous factors; however a 2008 UN finding on Millennium goals has shown that certain factors like the level of the economy openness and the degree of human advancement as important factors in eradication of poverty. Legrain, 2004 argues that majority of the people opposed to globalization have no problem with free market on condition that they are controlled to uphold fairness and integrity. Other researchers such as Ezcurra, and Rodríguez, 2013, emphatically recommend that globalization can be made good for all by making it ‘civilized. ‘Despite the sharp disagreement, the opposing end still agrees that globalization serves well in bridging the geographical gap and cultural distances, thanks to the constantly evolving transport systems and information expertise. The larger percentage of authors termed as dependent, liken the developing nations to helpless pawn in the chess game. Huysmans, et.al 2006, states that “countries are called dependent by virtue of their characteristics and remain so regardless of their action”. This is not true based on the example presented by nations like South Korea whose development path leaves much to be desired. Such is the case that this country was poor in all the ways just like many other poor nations, but through linkage with rich world trade, investment, credit and technology transfers, it has grown to become wealthy like developed nations such as Portugal. Therefore, it is well thought out that this economic development plan which has been verified can work as a model for nations with the greater need of jumpstarting their development. Contrary to the view held by many anti-globalizations proponents like Schwinn, 2012 underdeveloped nations are not forever condemned to stay in the poor state. It is important to note that natural world and past record does not stop a country from making strides towards a better future (Chang, 2010). Such is the case that if the policy is the main source of problems faced by developing nations then the future can be altered easily like it happened in the case of South Korea. Based on these facts, the best solution is embracing global trade and not protectionism. This can be made possible by removing all restriction to free trade, particularly with regard to imports of the ‘bottom billion’ nations and others. For nations to benefit from the globalization there must be a good understanding of its characterizations, especially as it regards the current world and the interactions it has with related social and economic aspects. With all these evidences it is easy to see that the most practical and attainable goal is ‘civilizing’ globalization to boost the process of reducing poverty as opposed to the move that seeks to generally undervalue it. Reference Brach, J. (2012). Unequal benefits from internationalisation: regional technology differences in China. IJTG, 6(4), p.369. Chang, H. (2011). 23 things they dont tell you about capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Dollar, D. and Kraay, A. (2001). Trade, growth, and poverty. [Washington, D.C.]: Development Research Group, World Bank. Dunning, J. (2003). Making globalization good. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ezcurra, R. and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Does Economic Globalization affect Regional Inequality? A Cross-country Analysis. World Development, 52, pp.92-103. Friedmann, H. and Chossudovsky, M. (1998). The Globalisation of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms. Contemporary Sociology, 27(6), p.597. Globalisation benefits Euro drive makers. (2006). Pump Industry Analyst, 2006(5), p.13. Gore, C. (2012.). Globalization, the International Poverty Trap and Chronic Poverty in the Least Developed Countries. SSRN Journal. Huysmans, J., Dobson, A. and Prokhovnik, R. (2006). The politics of protection. London: Routledge. Kieh, G. (2008). Africa and the new globalization. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub. Co. Kiely, R. (2005). The changing face of anti-globalization politics: Two (and a half) tales of globalization and anti-globalization. Globalizations, 2(1), pp.134-150. Kinley, D. (2009). Civilising globalisation. Cambridge [U.K.]: Cambridge University Press. Legrain, P. (2004). Open world. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. Ouseley-Torrezao, E. (2013). The effects of globalisation and economic adjustment on urban governance. jpag, 3(3). Schwinn, T. (2012). Globalisation and regional variety: problems of theorisation. Comparative Education, 48(4), pp.525-543. Speth, J. (2008). The bridge at the edge of the world. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thorgren, S. (2007). A glimpse of benefits of long-term relationships for innovation. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 2(1), p.34. Yeates, N. and Holden, C. (2009). The global social policy reader. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. Zhang, X. and Zhang, K. (2003). How Does Globalisation Affect Regional Inequality within A Developing Country? Evidence from China. Journal of Development Studies, 39(4), pp.47-67. Read More