A Review of the Costs and Benefits of Globalisation - Essay Example

?Table of Contents Page Number Introduction 2 Analysis of the Economic and Political benefits of Globalisation  3 Analysis of the Economic and Political Costs of Globalisation  5 Discussion of Conflicting Claims 7 Analysis of Possible Compromises and Ways Forward 9 Conclusions 10 A Review of the Cost and Benefit of Globalisation Introduction The development of globalisation has been creating enormous impacts on the development of each country worldwide, particularly in terms of culture, economy, and politics. Globalisation is defined as the network of relations among countries in order to create and sustain the global economy (Jones 2010). Basically, globalisation denotes global economic and social integration. Globalisation has led to what economists and political thinkers call ‘a new world order’ that focuses its effect on the political economy of each region and the world generally (Stonehouse et al. 2004). As a result, the national, regional, and global political economies have had a major impact on the globalisation process. The relationship between political economies and globalisation is quite complex, revealing the impersonal effect of globalisation on a variety of political economies and the levels of progress of each country (Amoore 2005); on the presence of inequality, discrimination, and injustice in international relations, on guiding principles of misuse and subjugation of other countries, and on the excessive voracity of commercial institutions, especially monopolistic and capitalistic corporations (Jones 2010). Globalisation, essentially, offers a number of advantages or favourable opportunities for each country. Nevertheless, its disadvantages reflect numerous challenges and demands. With its heart anchored in trade liberalisation, remarkable progress in science and technology, and expansion of synchronised economic investment and operation globally, globalisation has created favourable effects on every region of the world (Amoore 2005). However, even though globalisation provides vital advantages, it also poses major risks and challenges. According to Stonehouse and colleagues (2004), the existence of flawed contract implementation and disproportionate information in the actual world makes matters worse. This essay will review and discuss the benefits and costs of globalisation to political economies all over the world. It will also include the continuing debate over globalisation as well as the possible compromises and solutions. Lastly, it will present a brief observation on the progresses and achievements of globalisation thus far. Analysis of the Economic and Political benefits of Globalisation  Globalisation increases the use and transfer of science management competencies and products of science and technology, generating advantageous situations for underdeveloped and developing nations to acquire and build sophisticated technology, advancing their own management and organisation proficiencies, and perform the processes of industrialisation and modernisation (Amoore 2005). Globalisation builds favourable conditions to accelerate the adjustment of occupational arrangement within a nation. Every nation can gain advantage from the alteration of economic system to capitalise on its vantage points in the market. Globalisation generates positive circumstances for underdeveloped nations to take advantage of foreign investment for the conduct of industrialisation and modernisation, by making use of foreign and local assets efficiently (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Globalisation builds an excellent condition for the formation of the global economy. The inputs from global information system, infrastructure, and advanced technology have enhanced business success and production efficiency, improved productivity, surpass problems of oversupply, and reduced prices (Stonehouse et al. 2004). An enlarged market brings about advantageous conditions for economic competition and alliance, giving rise to mutual growth and development. Globalisation builds favourable situations for every nation to enhance cultural interaction and economic collaboration, strengthen mutual understanding and trust encouraging for development, equal opportunity, mutual aid, and peace (Jones 2010). Globalisation necessitates the formation of global and local regulatory groups. It is important to institute multilateral and bilateral regulatory structures in every country and globally to resolve conflicts emerging from international relation not just in the criminal justice system, culture, economy, and politics, but also on international crises regarding terrorism, fatal disease, environment, crime, population, and food availability (Jones 2010). Nevertheless, the levels of growth and political administrations of every country vary significantly. The dominant imperialist nation among the antagonistic forces, the United States, enforces its strategy of ‘International Boss’ (Stonehouse et al. 2004, 5). This strategy exploits and represses underdeveloped and small nations by imposing its mode of production and culture (Stonehouse et al. 2004, 5). The disadvantages of globalisation will be explored in the next section. Analysis of the Economic and Political Costs of Globalisation  Drastic globalisation in labour markets, preferences, and production has led to a massive boost in the degree of global competition. Growing global competition has compelled companies to curb production cost (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Consequently, increase in real wages and job opportunities within developed nations has been negligible. Application, economising, and modification of advanced technologies have enabled companies to compete actively and aggressively at the global market place (Czinkota et al. 2003). In majority of industrialised nations at least several sectors of the society regard the expansion of globalisation as a disadvantage to employment (Jones 2010, 91). Because of vast prevalence of poverty, opposition to the expansion of globalisation is not solid within developing nations. Nevertheless, rising contest for foreign resources can compel the regimes of underdeveloped nations to initiate structural modifications to the detriment of the enduring security of regional economies (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Globalisation can lead to modifications in cultural systems and political structures. Czinkota and colleagues (2003) have regarded political and cultural concerns in the point of view of the most competitive markets, such as Japan, where the interconnected ties among producers and suppliers render market development and entry a very difficult endeavour to outsiders. Contest in the arena of foreign capital can oblige governments to use up substantial amounts of resources on production systems that may not be helpful for the society (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). This can lead to excess capacity. Too much venture in production systems may be financed to the detriment of social welfare agendas that could reduce a society’s standard of living (Castells 2009). Without regulations on capital movement, capital can flow to places where there is a comparatively low tax rate. As a result small nations are stripped of their independence in relation to rates of capital tax (Amoore 2005). The globalisation of the financial sector with its unpredictable impacts on local economic organisation has threatened and undermined the independence of all societies (Amoore 2005). It has been claimed that the international market embodies a power concentration able to affect countries’ macroeconomic strategies (Czinkota et al. 2003). Adversaries of globalisation claim that it is a mechanism of controlling state control of the economy and of granting private venture rights over investment steps (Czinkota et al. 2003, 82). It is becoming more and more complicated to differentiate local economic operations from global activities. Actions taken elsewhere in the world are by now considerably affecting local markets. Given the advantages to be obtained from the development of globalisation, administrations are willing to capitalise on the prospects, but may simultaneously have to allow the unfavourable outcomes of enhanced competition (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Scholars, such as Czinkota and colleagues (2003) have taken into account the contribution of export assistance by examining the domains that render exports distinct from other economic operations. Other scholars claim that the successful export assistance attempts by administrations should have lucidity of objective and strength of emphasis (Amoore 2005). Despite these global threats and prospects, a large number of business organisations are discovering that the core means where in they create policies and approaches and mobilise themselves are becoming outdated. Managers, due to enlarged competition, have to come up with a solution or decision immediately (Amoore 2005). Shortage of qualified global managers can delay the globalisation process. Discussion of Conflicting Claims Possibly the most widely known illustration of the weak claim against globalisation has been developed by an Oxford political scholar with connections to the Labour Party, Paul Hirst (Stonehouse et al. 2004). Hirst and Thompson (1996), in their latest work, state that the development of globalisation of the last two decades has been overemphasised as a process: ‘It is not unprecedented in world history, they say, and foreign investment and trade are concentrated in the so-called triad—Western Europe, North America, and Japan’ (as cited in Ritzer & Atalay 2010, 8). Basically, they believe that markets are becoming increasingly international, not global. The claim for the weakness of globalisation is relevant in that it offers a major corrective to falsehoods and images of globalisation asserting its permanence and unavoidability (Stonehouse et al. 2004). Nevertheless, there are several important counterarguments. Castells (2009), concerning the subject of the diverse expansion of globalisation across the globe, accurately identifies that the global market is not intended to include the whole world. Instead, it makes up only specific sections of operation in developing and developed nations. Another counterargument is that advocates of the ‘weak’ theory concentrates almost entirely on the financial and economic features of globalisation at the expense of cultural, social and political aspects (Stonehouse et al. 2004). The literature provides and presents findings substantiating the argument that cultural and political globalisation is, in general, relatively compelling. Furthermore, media globalisation, the spread of AIDS, and global warming enhanced our understanding of existing in an ever more interrelated world (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Basically, scholars claiming the weakness of globalisation have played a major role in demystifying particular beliefs and fables about a process that has quite frequently been passively actualised (Ritzer & Atalay 2010, 59). Nevertheless, they are possibly very much bonded to a ‘monolithic’ perspective of globalisation and unmindful of the idea that globalisation is a system of connections (Stonehouse et al. 2004, 95) that builds shared understanding. Yoshikazu Sakamoto, a scholar of international relations, and Robert Cox, a political scholar agree in claiming that globalisation creates difficulties of global governance and curb states’ authoritarian control (Amoore 2005, 118). Globalisation, as argued by Rodrik (1997), generates political and social conflicts across and within countries. Michael Mosher (1999), a political thinker, raises the question: “is there a successful way of reconciling the boundary transgressing character of markets with the boundary maintaining activities of nation-states? (Mosher 1999, 35)” In addition, he emphasises that globalisation has created two liberal traditions, namely, the ‘liberalism of the market’ (Hyslop-Margison & Sears 2006, 16) and ‘liberalism of democratic citizenship,’ (Hyslop-Margison & Sears 2006, 16) intensifying the issue of whether “moral concerns stop at the national border” (Mosher 1999, 25). Ultimately, the world-society perspective criticises the argument that globalisation weakens nation-states (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Bandelj and Sowers (2010), emphasising the growth of state bureaucracies since the Second World War, argue that “globalisation certainly poses new problems for states, but it also strengthens the world-cultural principle that nation-states are the primary actors charged with identifying and managing those problems on behalf of their societies” (Bandelj & Sowers 2010, 187). This argument implies that the contemporary nation-state may have less independence than in the past but it apparently has considerably more to accomplish. Analysis of Possible Compromises and Ways Forward Some scholars believe that the compromise of globalisation remains an interesting argument, one that aid academics in understanding the ironies innate in how people apply their beliefs and value systems to create their interpretation of the connections between the world and their societies (Buckman 2004). It has been argued that the compromise is not a contributory element in international relations. As an integral rule it can influence how people recognise the boundaries of authority without being something that an individual could express openly (Buckman 2004, 202). This compromise is replicated in people’s ideologies and value systems, and it is these principles, more than their physical and worldly comfort, that permit them to understand what the presence of globalisation embodies. Support for globalisation remains pervasive, particularly when multilateralism is perceived an element for reinforcing social values and norms (Buckman 2004). Specifically, the compromise between global action and local independence remains authentic. How individuals make sense of the world is built by fixed liberalism (Buckman 2004). Allowing the economy to run things or permitting global authority to replace local administration, as entailed by enlarged connections, would be at odds with what some people view to be the genuine social objectives of their leading foundations (Ritzer & Atalay 2010). Whether globalisation can be maintained is hence an independent issue. We cannot conclude whether a newly-fangled ambitious compromise is plausible, but it can be argued that people are eager to try. Conclusions Every nation, in response to the expansion of globalisation, has to adapt its political economies to global policies in order to incorporate into the global economy, take part in global markets, exploit capital, and enhance human resources and technology. The benefits of globalisation rely on global regulations and standards. It implies that every nation has to confront the demands of the local and global economy and negative aspects of the market economy. Hence, they have to change the governmental structures and make regional or local policies in agreement with the global directives that relate to them. In my opinion, modifying political economies does not imply adjusting the economic and political structure or changing the course to attain national objectives. A coherent perspective of the dual features of globalisation in order to initiate suitable modifications will generate prospects to thwart the negative features of globalisation, while restoring the society and building a political economy based on the needs and demands of the people. References Amoore, L. (2005) The Global Resistance Reader. New York: Routledge, p. 118. Bandelj, N. & Sowers, E. (2010) Economy and State. UK: Polity, p. 187. Buckman, G. (2004) Globalisation: Tame it or Scrap it? Mapping the Alternatives of the Anti-Globalisation Movement. New York: Zed Books, p. 202. Castells, M. (2009) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I. & Moffett, M. (2003) International Business. Indiana University: Thomson/South-Western, p. 82. Hirst, P.Q. & Thompson, G. (1996) Globalisation and the history of the international economy. Hyslop-Margison, E. & Sears, A. (2006) Neo-Liberalism, Globalisation and Human Capital Learning: Reclaiming Education for Democratic Citizenship. The Netherlands: Springer, p. 16. Jones, A. (2010) Globalisation: Key Thinkers. UK: Polity, p. 91. Mosher, M. (1999) Border Patrols and Border Crossings: The Seductions of Globalisation. Manuscript, pp. 35, 25. Ritzer, G. & Atalay, Z. (2010) Readings in Globalisation: Key Concepts and Major Debates. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 8, 59. Rodrik, D. (1997) Has Globalisation Gone Too Far? Washington, DC: Inst. Int. Econ. Stonehouse, G., Campbell, D., Hamill, J. & Purdie, T. (2004) Global and Transnational Business: Strategy and Management. England: Wiley, pp. 5, 95. Read More