Globalization and the Increase of Poverty on an International Level - Essay Example

Globalization and the Increase of Poverty on an International Level   In the Thomas Friedman piece “It’s a Flat World, After All,” written for the New York Times Magazine, Friedman discusses his own personal experience in India to that of Christopher Columbus’ experience when he discovered the New World.  Though Christopher Columbus thought the world was flat and was geographically incorrect, Friedman states that one can still really think of the world as a flat, connected plane. Though not in a geographical sense, the readings from class and knowledge gained on globalization might prove Friedman absolutely true, especially in terms of poverty.  Through increased globalization and an unprecedented interconnectedness, one can see lots of changes. “Migration lies at the core of globalization in world history-the migration of funds, of people, of technology of commodity and ideas” (Harper 147). The Berlin wall coming down brought this about, initially. This forever changed the way that countries related and connected, and symbolized the beginning of a globalized world. With the rise of the Internet, we’ve reached a new conceptualization of how our world works and how we exist within it. “It is this convergence—of new players, on a new playing field, developing new processes for horizontal collaboration—that I believe is the most important force shaping global politics and economics in the early 21st century” (Friedman). In this new world, low-income and poverty stricken groups of people succumb to the “roundness” of the bygone world.  This interconnectivity might be good for some, but it brings about a global spread of competitiveness and commerce that leaves some countries in the fray. Though countries like China and India are exploding ahead politically and technologically, minorities within the United States and poverty-stricken countries in such places as central and South America and South Africa have little opportunity to keep up. Globalization has increased poverty in the world through a depletion of resources, a leap in expensive technologies and a forced exploitation of the poor.                First, however, one must have working definitions for the rhetoric that will be used when discussing the issue of how globalization increases poverty.  Globalization formally means the ongoing process that interconnects economies, societies and cultures by way of communication and exchange on all fronts. The Era of Globalization is fast becoming the preferred term for describing the current times. Just like the Depression, the Cold War Era, the Space Age, and the Roaring 20s are used to describe particular periods of history; globalization describes the political, economic, and cultural atmosphere of today. This new age is something that has been precipitated and will be our era for years to come. Globalization is made possible by many things, but one such label that is discussed at length is the term “technology.”  Technology means every element of human knowledge and use of modern ways of communication and interfacing.  For example, the Internet, telephones and television will be under this blanket expression when it is described in this essay.  These terms are important in that they are large and wide reaching. Their significance is historical, but also deals with specific parts of our world and how it now functions.               Poverty will mean any human condition that lacks basic and essential human needs, such as clothing, shelter, health care and sustenance.  Poverty can be described in terms of relative depravation or absolute depravation, but absolute depravation is what this paper will be focusing on.  Relative depravation is the depravation of elements of live that a person or society thinks that they need, while absolute depravation is the depravation of what can be agreed upon as basic necessities.  Absolute depravation is touched upon in terms of the American definition of poverty, which generally varies from relative to absolute.  An example of relative depravation would be only having one set of clothes as opposed to more, whereas absolute deprivation is not having shelter in which to live. In terms of the world at large, relative depravation is less of a concern than absolute depravation, which is occurring in many places around the world. This paper will be discussing absolute depravation and the affects of globalization on this form of poverty. “The prospects for the empowerment at the outset of the present century may be less promising than at the outset of the last” (Harper 166) A depletion of resources contributes to globalization’s impact on the world’s poverty and American poverty. The global marketplace is based on a sort of “winner take all” system. This means that the wealthy, “winning” companies and countries are able to successfully sell their goods and services to a global market, while the “losing”, poorer countries and businesses are limited to their local markets, and don’t have a hand in the profits from interconnected, larger economies. Massive global markets also create huge incentives for businesses and nations to market products internationally through the large profits that come out of these transactions. The restriction and low availability of resources to the poverty stricken makes the circulation of goods in poor areas narrower, giving large businesses and industrialized companies the advantage.  This “winner take all” system can be extended to America, where the small percentage of wealthy controls the globalization that occurs in international marketplaces.  In America, The economic restructuring that affords us the technological advancement and mobility of the rich has crippled the lower class Americans that make up much of our important work force backbone.  They are in dire need of resources and are left at the wayside with the limited availability of resources that will heighten the quality of their lives.  According to Friedman, “In Globalization 3.0, you are going to see every color of the human rainbow loose” (Friedman, 2).  This speaks volumes for the poverty-stricken, which cannot become upwardly mobile or better their lives through the limitations that globalization brings to their marketplaces and avenues of commerce.  The world follows in the same sort of disadvantage as these American poor, only to a greater and more widespread extent.               Much of the limitations in resources and in commerce for the poverty-stricken have to do with their technological disadvantages. Small businesses and third world countries are not capable of updating their technology as often as their larger, wealthier counterparts. They are unable to compete with multinational firms and wealthy nations. Small businesses and third world countries are forced to do business locally, in a narrower scope, unrecognized by larger companies and economic circles. These small businesses are not growing, nor are they reaching their full potential. This occurred as soon as technology started to be of use to businesses and enterprising nations.  Technology became more and more important to the success of business with technologies like cellular phones, fax machines and the Internet, and consumers are it up. “So if consumers are like Roaches, then marketers must forever be dreaming up new concoctions for industrial-strength raid” (New Branded World, 4). Small countries could not afford the technologies that were giving wealthy countries and companies a professional leg-up, and when the prices of such technologies finally became low enough for the poverty-stricken to learn and afford, new and better technologies were being generated. This started the cycle of privilege all over again, giving wealthy countries and businesses a new and continued upper hand in the globalized world.  This continues, even today. In this economic climate, there are many countries in the world that cannot afford to pay such a high price for the latest technology. By the time they can afford to pay, newer, more advanced technology exists. The democratization of technology benefits mainly the wealthier countries. This democratization also extends to the technological learning curve, where businesses and richer nations are given the opportunity to integrate technological learning and understanding into their schools and cultures.  Larger companies and infrastructures can more easily educate their workers, sending them to school, having them do tutorials and having them become very familiar with the technologies that they are using. That they can afford this give them another technological upper hand. This is not so for the poor, who do not have the technological emphasis embedded in their lives, or made a huge priority. They cannot afford it. This has, on an individual level, left the poor at a complete individual disadvantage when entering the work force.  In this world. Unfamiliarity with a technology and a lack of propensity for technological savvy is a huge bane on someone trying to get ahead’s life.               Because poverty-stricken countries are at such a crippling disadvantage, many governments have no choice but to partner with larger richer countries and businesses.  This adds another disadvantage and powerlessness to the world of poverty-stricken and third world nations. Many countries do this by using their resources in a very immediate way, deemphasizing a long-term investment or sustainability plan. Ways third world countries do this is through selling land, resources and goods at a very cheap price and ripping apart the natural resources in their country to the advantage of the richer countries and businesses. A contributing factor to the absolute success of globalization has been the creation of unequal alliances and detrimental economic integration. These unequal alliances seem monetarily beneficial at first, but do not work to the lesser country or businesses benefit in the long-term. The countries that benefit the most from these alliances, of course, are the wealthy, which are able to negotiate contracts and deals on their own terms, having the monetary, economic and technological upper hand. Free trade, customs unions, common markets, and economic unions are essential to the spread of globalization; however, they impede the growth of third world countries that are not included in the group. These third world countries are then crippled, having been milked of the sought-after resources and unable to compete on their own terms.               Globalization is just increasing, which means no end to the expansion of poverty.  More and more the global economy and marketplace is dependent on the interconnected nature of technology, resources, human beings and international politics.  More and more, then, poverty-stricken nations are unable to compete for the aforementioned reasons.  The poorer nations and communities have an inability to be technologically up to date or the resources and funds to make technology a priority.  They do not have the resources to be competitive in a global market that is contingent on money and commerce between many different markets, and have a narrow area of commerce.  Furthermore, they also cannot help but- for the sake of financial perseverance- couple with wealthy and international businesses or other countries and be taken for all that they might be worth for the sake of quick financial gain on the part of the globalized, upper-hand party in the partnership.               Overall, globalization has advantages and disadvantages.  Still, the advantages are reserved for the wealthy and the disadvantages, for the poor.  “We face economic changes that are more complex and more equivocal than even extreme globalists argue” (Globalization: A Necessary Myth 2). It is important to see how globalization is a huge detriment to the poor in the world; they are unable to compete in such a competitive climate in terms of many factors.  Technologically, they are behind and do not have the resources to compete.  Stronger, richer, more globalized forces are constantly manipulating them.  Finally, they are relegated to a smaller area of commerce so they don’t even have a chance to make money in the global marketplace.  Globalization is real, and absolutely detrimental to the poor of the world.  One must understand this if our world ever hopes to better the lives of the poverty-stricken in a permanent and lasting sense.                              Works Cited   Friedman, Thomas L.  “It’s a Flat World, After All.”  The New York Times Magazine.  3 April 2005.  Web. 3 December 2009.   “Globalization: A Necessary Myth?” Harper, T.N. “Empire, Diaspora, and the Languages of Globalism, 1850-1914. “New Branded Worlds.” Read More