For Globalization - Intercultural Exchanges, Economic Growth, and Technological Diffusion - Literature review Example

April 27, For Globalization: Intercultural Exchanges, Economic Growth, and Technological Diffusion For many people, globalization is about living in one nation and yet being touched daily by other countries beyond it through imported products and cultural beliefs and practices. Globalization, however, is not a simple case of international trade and commerce, but a contested concern for politicians, activists, and scholars, among others. Different groups and institutions from different countries are interested in knowing whether globalization is something that brings more “good” than “harm,” not only to rich countries, but more so for the vulnerable, specifically, various marginalized groups, such as the poor, the working class, and small local cultural/ethnic groups. The advantages of globalization outweigh its disadvantages because it promotes intercultural exchanges, it contributes to the economic growth of both developed and developing countries, and it spreads technologies that are essential to the creation and sharing of new and old ideas and information. One of the advantages of globalization is that it actually promotes, rather than prevents, intercultural exchanges, instead of merely eliminating or assimilating local and ethnic cultures. Pico Iyer, a British Indian writer, believes that globalization has brought the global village to many villages all over the world in multiple directions. He does not believe that globalization is the same as Americanization: “As fast as the world comes to America, America goes around the world- but it is an America that is itself multi-tongued and many hued, an America of Amy Tan and Janet Jackson and movies with dialogue in Lakota” (Iyer par.5). Iyer asserts that globalization both culturally enriches America and the world, as people move and travel in different places and bring their local identities with them in foreign nations. Joseph Samuel Nye, Jr., an American political scientist and previous Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, agrees with Iyer that globalization is good, rather than bad, for multiculturalism’s growth in different parts of the world, including America. Nye argues that America and the rest of the world learn cultural values, systems, and practices from one another: “Vibrant cultures are constantly changing and borrowing from other cultures. And borrowing is not always from the United States” (par.9). He provides examples of how other countries borrow political models and values from Canada, not the U.S too (Nye par.9). Nye proves that globalization presents the advantage of allowing different cultures to learn from and build up one another. These authors use logic and provide evidence that globalization is not a one-way road toward Americanization, but a strong and dynamic exchange among diverse cultures. Other scholars, however, point out that globalization is harmful to local cultures because it has an American homogenization effect. Brendon O’Connor, senior lecturer at the School of Politics and Public Policy at Griffith University in Australia, complains that the American cultural industry, which has more money and political influence and power, is promoting cultural conformity in many countries, including Australia. He expresses his “worry” that the “conformity and blandness that comes with much American popular culture” will strongly Americanize Australians (O’Connor par.10). He is saying that globalization is more of Americanization through spreading conforming to American popular values and practices. O’Connor opposes the beliefs of Nye and Iyer that globalization is not Americanization, when there is evidence everywhere that America is leading global cultural domination by spreading its cultural icons, values, and symbols through mass media. Mark Rice-Oxley, a correspondent for Christian Science Monitor, at some point, supports O’Connor’s fear for America’s cultural domination. Rice-Oxley cites Ian Ralston, American studies head of Liverpool John Moores University, who says: “The U.S. has become the most powerful, significant world force in terms of cultural imperialism [and] expansion” (Rice-Oxley par.2). The American ideals of materialism and consumerism can destroy local cultures (Rice-Oxley par.2). Cultural globalization is then harmful to local cultures because it threatens to destroy, not add to, smaller and weaker local cultures. A number of scholars would respond that cultures are not static and passive, and it is wrong to blame the U.S. for the spread of its values across the world, especially when local cultures are adapting the latter to their own cultural systems. Iyer argues that the world will not take a purely American face. Instead, through globalization, the world will be a “mosaic” with “new hybrid forms” because intercultural interactions are “more fluid, “more human, subject to daily revision” (Iyer par.14). He resists the idea that globalization is a one-way force that America intends to control. Nye agrees with Iyer by saying that globalization affects the U.S. too and that it is wrong to assume that local cultures are static. Instead, Nye explains that globalization is a “two-edged sword” because other cultures are also changing American culture through America’s adoption of European model of human rights and accepting numerous cultures through accepting refugees from diaspora (Nye par.10). Rice-Oxley gives examples of how local cultures are twisting American brands and values as a way of preserving local identities, such as the Japanese who have localized American fast foods and music (par.11). These arguments prove that local cultures are not entirely Americanized, but are powerful enough to integrate American values and practices to their local identities. The second advantage of globalization is that it contributes to the economic growth of both developed and developing countries. The effects of globalization to developed countries are already clear. Transnational companies are not all owned by the U.S., but several come from Japan, Singapore and South Korea, for example. Developed countries, or First World nations, are benefitting from using their economic resources to further market their products to different parts of the world, while also opening new businesses that are distinct to local markets. Developing, or Third World countries, are also benefitting from globalization because they can tap the markets of rich countries. Globalization allows businesspeople from all over the world to export their products and services outside national borders. Iyer’s own personal experiences provide examples of the international benefit of globalization to many countries, not just the U.S.: “For lunch, I can walk to a sushi bar, a tandoori place, a Thai café or the newest burrito joint (run by an old Japanese lady)” (par.1). Products from all over the world are literally all over the world. Thus, globalization enriches the whole world as it promotes global trade and commerce. Several scholars will question the notion that globalization is an economic benefit for many because they believe that globalization benefits rich countries more. O’Connor argues that the American culture is too powerful that it can dominate local businesses. He states that “…it is entirely understandable that people worry about local business and art being overrun by American cultural icons such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Time AOL, and so on” (O’Connor par.3). Rice-Oxley gives his own examples of how globalization is bad for local industries. He says that “…local industries are truly at risk of extinction because of U.S. oligopolies, such as Hollywood” (Rice-Oxley par.6). He fears that economic globalization only benefits rich Western countries, particularly, the U.S. These fears are based on what scholars think as the connection between cultural and economic globalization that benefits the rich more than the poor. Such thoughts about the unfairness of globalization are not entirely true. Diana Farrell, Director of the McKinsey Global Institute, studied the effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) on the local industries of China, India, Brazil, and Mexico, all developing countries. She found out that FDI positively contributed to the economic development of developing nations because it increased productivity and output and national income, while reducing prices and widening quality of choices for consumers (Farrell par.4). Globalization through FDI brings more good than harm to developing countries. The third advantage of globalization is that it develops and spreads technologies that are essential to the creation and discourse of new and old ideas and information. Edward M. Crenshaw and Kristopher K. Robison, from the Department of Sociology of Ohio State University, studied the role of modernization to the international diffusion of the Internet. They learned that globalization and structures that are supportive of Internet development are essential to Internet diffusion. Globalization spreads technologies, as long as supportive structures are in place. Nye argues that technology will create a more global, not Americanized world. He believes that: “As technical capabilities spread and more and more people hook up to global communications systems, the U.S. economic and cultural preponderance may diminish” (par. 12). Nye sees technology as important to the construction and discourse of new and old ideas and information because they are means for sharing the latter all over the world. Other scholars assert though that global technology means greater Americanization and the formation of technological gap between the rich and the poor. Rice-Oxley notes that since America owns many technologies, it will only be more culturally and economically powerful. He reasons that “[the] U.S. domination of technologies, such as the Internet and satellite TV means that, increasingly, America monopolizes the view people get of the world” (Rice-Oxley par.9). Iyer is also concerned of the “widening” “gap between the haves and the have-nots” (par.9). These scholars fear that technology benefits the powerful and the rich more than empowering the poor and marginalized people. In reality, however, even developing nations can catch up and use technology for their development. Khaled Elmawazini of the Department of Economics & Finance, Gulf University for Science & Technology (GUST) studied economic globalization as the means of creating technology gap between Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. He learned that local companies of OECD countries “have strong technological, innovation, and financial capabilities [that] allow them to successfully compete with their rivals in both local and international markets and, in turn, benefit from economic globalization” (Elmawazini 98). In other words, countries that have certain capabilities can also use technology to improve their economic conditions. Nye adds that poor countries will catch up with rich ones because they will develop their own knowledge workers and adopt technologies, which will enable them to benefit from technological globalization. These scholars prove that technology is not a tool for the rich only. Globalization is not a perfectly good process with purely good outcomes for all, but it does present means for cultural, economic, and technological development for both rich and poor countries. Indeed, rich countries have certain advantages because of their economic resources, political influence, and technological advantage, but globalization will soon erase it as the poor continually use globalization’s various tools and resources to improve their cultural dynamics, economic growth, and technological advantages. Globalization has a trickle-down effect because people in developed countries have freedom and intelligence to change their socio-economic conditions, not merely in accordance to global conformity, but in integrating local and global values, beliefs, practices, and technologies that are advantageous for them. Hence, globalization is still the making of a global village and a process with more benefits than drawbacks. Works Cited Crenshaw, Edward M., and Kristopher K. Robison. “Globalization and the Digital Divide: The Roles of Structural Conduciveness and Global Connection in Internet Diffusion.” Social Science Quarterly 87.1 (2006): 190-207. Print. Elmawazini, Khaled. “Economic Globalization and the Technology Gap between Nations.” Atlantic Economic Journal 39.1 (2011): 97-98. Print. Farrell, Diana. “The Case for Globalization.” International Economy 18.1 (2004): 52-55. Print. Iyer, Pico. “The Global Village Finally Arrives.” 193-197. Print. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. “Fear not Globalization.” 208-210. Print. O’Connor, Brendon. “Bored with USA?” 160-162. Print. Rice-Oxley, Mark. “In 2000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato?” 163-167. Print. Read More