Major Oppositions to Globalization - Essay Example

Globalization Compare and contrast globalization as understood and explained by corporations and other supporters on the political right with globalization as understood by anti-globalization opponents and critics on the political left. There is a constant dispute between the global forces: those in favor of globalization and the representatives of traditional and indigenous culture who fight for the safeguard of their unique and unprecedented heritage. The pro-globalization forces view the structural arrangement that corresponds to power distribution in the three concentric circles. As argued by Emanuel Wallerstein, these power circles are comprised of core, semi periphery and periphery. The core mostly consists of the elite and upper class whereas semi periphery is composed of middle class and lastly the periphery realm encompasses the poor and unprivileged. This representation of power distribution is deeply criticized by many such as Neo Marxist who is of the opinion that this definition of globalization is based on pure inequality and injustice. He concludes by denoting globalization as zero sum process that results in either winners or losers. Even in the past, the dispute between the state government and indigenous forces emerged over defining the private property, ownership and natural resources. Also, over time the same entity needs to have a different definition as the former may not be acceptable in the changed era. Conservatives view nation-state as a sole representative of upper class or the core, according to Wallerstien’s depiction, and they work with aim to safeguard their interest rather than those belonging to the periphery. Therefore, mostly they reject the founding idea of globalization and global governance. In contrast to the conservatives, from the transformational vantage point the single cause behind such globalization cannot be determined as many factors contribute to its emergence and the outcome is very unpredictable. Again, this notion is denied by the opposition that believes that there is nothing that cannot be predicted or controlled of globalization and this form of explanations are given by those directly benefited by its outcome. Defining the role of modern corporations (MNC) is also an issue of conflict between the indigenous or anti globalization and the global forces. Although MNC opens the pathway for many job possibilities, conservatives still believe that it narrows down the job opportunities for the poor or middle class population as they favor the rich and core of the power circle. From these conflicting ideas of those defining globalization in a different perspective, I feel that there cannot be a single, unanimous and unopposed interpretation of its meaning. I can support by statement by giving examples of various anti globalization movements that originated to boycott the extent of economic neo-liberalization and corporate globalization. The main aim of these anti globalization movements is not to completely stop this process of globalization, as I believe is not possible to do so, but to channelize it in a specific direction in a form that can ultimately benefit the lower class or the semi peripheral and peripheral circle. 2. What explains the very different effects that globalization and world economic recession have had on U.S. households as compared to the effects that globalization and world economic recession have had on individual European households? Globalization and the world economic recession had a great impact on both US and European households. America has been one of the strongest supporters of globalization as many believe it to be something that affects the other nations and not US. But the recent trends in globalization and its effects on US are quite evident. Many Americans now are not very jubilant with the idea of globalization and have different thought than you would expect decades ago. The Yale Global Centre analyzed this situation and concluded that jobs are the main driving force behind such a change in thinking pattern. This means that globalization mostly affects the US households by depriving them of job opportunities. Most of the citizens believe that these jobs have been taken by the foreign immigrants who approach US in pursuit of their American Dream. According to Chanda, US citizens are angry on unavailability of jobs and country’s poor state of economy. But he believes that blaming the Asians is not appropriate. There are many internal factors that could have contributed to such effects of globalization such as shabby infrastructure and insufficient political consensus. But compared to the other countries of the West, America only suffered in the decline of its credit rating. As for the European countries, this effect is even more magnified as most of them had to suffer a lot due to the simple fact that they are on the same platform and any recession in one part will inevitably influence the others. States like Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are more severely affected than the other members of the European Union. This recession and decline in the economic growth had been the cause of downfall for many political leaders and ultimately affected the common people of the country as different political leaders possess different economic policies which can either proliferate or decline economic growth. Although governments are capable of fixing the problem of economic recession, the lack of will and difference in opinions have led to a locked situation making them part of the dilemma rather than providing any solution. Therefore, political influence and economic policies had a major influence on the outcome of the recession and its difference of effects between US and European Union households. Most of the individual members of the European Union have been affected by recession in Europe as they are entangled on a common platform. But along with a disadvantage, it can provide with some advantages as well. In case of economic recess, those affected less can contribute to sustaining the others who have been affected more. For example, Germany being the strongest member of the European Union can provide assistance to the rest of the members until a solution can be devised to stabilize economy and pull the plug of economic recession. Therefore, the effect on the individual households of the European Union can be minimized as compared to those of US who do not enjoy such liberties. 3. What is the greatest positive consequence of globalization? What is the greatest negative consequence of globalization? How in your view can the effects of globalization in a particular like the economy, security, trade, commerce, crime, etc. be better managed? Based on my understanding of the word globalization, it can be imagined as coalescence of countries and nations of the world into a single uniform entity where they share common interest. Every country has its own resources that are required to be safeguard in their own national interest. The fact that such amalgamation of nations makes these resources and national sovereignty vulnerable and poses a threat is the root cause of the split opinion regarding the pros and cons of globalization. There is no doubt that globalization makes this whole world a unified system where modifications at one part can affect the organism as a whole. Many interpreters of globalization including Peter Mendelson are of opinion that a check is required on the extent of globalization and to balance the competition that originates as a result. There are certain threats imposed by unchecked globalization that include the antisocial elements penetrating from one part to the other such as illegal drugs supply, human trafficking, etc. The need of energy and other various resources to run the economical engine of any country is the main cause of competition and global race that can affect the stability of our current globalized world. As I mentioned before, any element affecting one part of this globalized community can inevitably shock the whole founding structure. The existence of globalization is not new. As Chanda argued, its foundation in human society is quite old and its progression is inevitable and catalyzed by the development in technology. Therefore, everyone should contribute in providing a stable environment for the sake of humanity as a whole. Economic stability is also largely affected by the effects of globalization. According to Mendelson, the governments have that potential to correct any imbalance and thus, can control globalization. In his views, international platforms provided by many organizations such as WTO, UN and European Union can be used to achieve this goal of stabilized globalization. But to impose a rule on globalization will ultimately challenge the sovereignty and national security of any country, hence a big hindrance to achieve that state. So far we discussed the liberal views on the issue government controlled globalization. However, some political conservatives view this issue in a different perspective. According to them, any government interruption in channelizing the flow of globalization is a barricade in the progress of US economy. Therefore, they are of the opinion that the market should be left alone and it can find a solution on its own. They have a theory of self regulation which can better promote the economy than the government regulated effects of globalization. So in conclusion, we can say that there are two schools of thoughts which view and interpret globalization in their own perspective. As far as I have understood, the process of globalization is inevitable. Therefore, the only possible solution is to properly modify global governance in a way that is acceptable to most and posses least threat to the sovereignty of any country, state or region. Read More