The topic of globalisation dealt with in all its facets on D@dalos makes a variety of attempts at a definition (Basic Course 1), emphasises the multi-dimensionality of the processes involved listed under Globalisation as a generic term (Basic Course 2),investigates the essential causes (Basic Course 3), and the resulting problems (Basic Course 4), and finally deals with strategies for solutions sketched out in the debate (Basic Course 5).
We have provided a summary in the form of a illustrated overview on this Main Subject Group, as well as a written Table of Contents with direct links to the individual pages and sections for orientation purposes, and as a navigational guide. Besides there is a section with suggestions how to start a teaching unit about globalisation (first steps).
Full article with working links here
Showing posts with label Globalisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Globalisation. Show all posts
How does globalisation affect international politics?
Globalization has many positive effects on both the developed and developing world.
Supporters of the movement, globalists, claim that countries to which globalization has not appeared to be beneficial have simply failed to embrace the concept. Countries like India and China are the best recent examples. Until the 1980s these countries had relatively closed trade policy regimes, but when they opened up their economies they achieved accelerated growth.
This demonstrates well the second argument also that economies that are open to free trade, grow faster. This is because free trade allows countries to specialize in what they do best rather than produce everything on their own. This benefits not only developing countries but developed ones as well. For example, the free market allows the USA to specialize in services, which as a result accounts for 80% of the USA's total output.
Globalists also argue that globalization improves developing countries' legal, financial and political systems. *The argument goes that globalization is a major factor underpinning the trend toward democratization as the pressures released by free market economies can only be contained by democratic and open societies, as international organisations which help regulate the market also help to prevent corruption. For example, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) criminalised bribery by passing the anti-bribery convention. Until this point many countries used bribery to obtain business.
As well as encouraging democracy, globalization is argued to promote human rights and better working conditions. When people in MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries) believe that the people who are making the products are being treated fairly, they are more likely to buy the MNCs (Multinational Corporations) products, and so to attract more capital and avoid boycotts and protests of their products in MEDCs, MNCs improve the working conditions of their factories. For example, in Vietnam and other LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries), Nike factories provide better working conditions and pay than local companies, because they are more able to as a MNC.
Globalization is claimed to improve standard living conditions, as the increase in trade results in GDP growth. For example, newly industrialized economies, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, which have all been open to trade during the past four decades, have been entirely free of poverty according to the dollar-a-day poverty line. In fact in Malaysia the opening of the economy resulted in the per-capita income rising from $350 to $5000 in just 2 decades.
However these countries are known as the Asian Tigers and it must be noted that they did not always follow the ideals of free trade. They first began nurturing their economies through the state before opening them up to the global market.
Also the foreign investment, which globalization creates, can be a significant driver of development in poorer countries, like China, India and Mexico, as it brings not only money but technical and managerial expertise.
Trade also helps the poor through three important channels; gainful employment, anti-poverty programmes and public services such as education and health.
Globalists also claim that globalization has a positive effect on the environment. NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations) and environmental groups lay pressure on developing nations and this can lead to improvements, in areas such as waste disposal and factory emissions. For example in Sao Paulo and Mexico City FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) has increased, creating more factories, yet air pollution levels have fallen.
However anti-globalists argue that globalization will lead to more environmental damage instead of less, as countries specialise in certain things, exploiting the land and ultimately destroying it. For example, the rapid expansion of coastal shrimp farming in several countries in Asia and Latin America in the 1980s, driven principally by the demand for exports, led to the contamination of water supplies and destruction of surrounding mangrove forests.
The term anti-globalization is allocated as a unified name to the movement by the media. It refers not to the opposition of globalization per se, but the opposition of different aspects of globalization. There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization".
In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account. This has resulted in a number of negative effects of cultural, political, and economic globalization.
Many claim that it is simply a "buzz-word to denote the latest phase of capitalism", whereas others believe that globalization maybe "the latest stage of Western imperialism". The latter claim that the only forces being globalized are those found in the Western World. - However critics of this belief argue that it is thinly veiled anti-westernism. They maintain that such people routinely villainize Coca-cola, Hollywood and Nike, but conveniently forget the globalization of Chinese tea and Japanese manga.
A further criticism of globalization is that it leads to cultural homogenization, sometimes referred to by sociologists as 'Coca-Colaisation or McDonaldization. They claim that as a result everyone is losing their national identity, their culture, their individuality.
Globalists believe that cultural homogenization isn't happening, because the fear and threat of homogenization provokes cultural and political resistance. Meaning that instead of people losing their cultural and national identity, they are fighting to maintain it and as a result it is growing stronger.
Supporters of globalization also argue that even if cultural homogenization is occurring, it is not necessarily a bad thing, as cultural and national differences become less obvious, and so racism decreases.
Another allegation made by anti-globalists, mainly by state-centric nationalists, is that globalization is displacing the role of nations. They maintain that nations have a declining capacity to organise political and economic life satisfactorily, resulting in national governments becoming powerless in the face of national trends and subjects to global economic forces. This raises the problem of accountability as many of the emerging powerful actors in the globalized world are unelected NGOs, including seemingly good organizations such as Greenpeace.
Anti-globalists argue that globalization has actually undermined democracy in 2 important ways.
Firstly, it has concentrated economic power, and hence political power, in the hands of MNCs. It is in the capacity of MNCs to relocate capital and production elsewhere in the world that gives them the advantage over national governments and enables them to escape democratic control.
Secondly, democracy is also threatened by the fact that the pace of economic globalization far outstrips that of political globalization. So, whereas economic activity pays little attention to national borders, politics continues to operate largely within them, and the international organizations of governments are too weak to call global capitalism to account.
Anti-globalists also argue that although the global economy is strong it is often volatile. Capital flows in and out of countries so freely that it can result in economical problems. For example in 1995 Barings bank collapsed due to one single trader.
They also argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises.
Read more
Supporters of the movement, globalists, claim that countries to which globalization has not appeared to be beneficial have simply failed to embrace the concept. Countries like India and China are the best recent examples. Until the 1980s these countries had relatively closed trade policy regimes, but when they opened up their economies they achieved accelerated growth.
This demonstrates well the second argument also that economies that are open to free trade, grow faster. This is because free trade allows countries to specialize in what they do best rather than produce everything on their own. This benefits not only developing countries but developed ones as well. For example, the free market allows the USA to specialize in services, which as a result accounts for 80% of the USA's total output.
Globalists also argue that globalization improves developing countries' legal, financial and political systems. *The argument goes that globalization is a major factor underpinning the trend toward democratization as the pressures released by free market economies can only be contained by democratic and open societies, as international organisations which help regulate the market also help to prevent corruption. For example, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) criminalised bribery by passing the anti-bribery convention. Until this point many countries used bribery to obtain business.
As well as encouraging democracy, globalization is argued to promote human rights and better working conditions. When people in MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries) believe that the people who are making the products are being treated fairly, they are more likely to buy the MNCs (Multinational Corporations) products, and so to attract more capital and avoid boycotts and protests of their products in MEDCs, MNCs improve the working conditions of their factories. For example, in Vietnam and other LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries), Nike factories provide better working conditions and pay than local companies, because they are more able to as a MNC.
Globalization is claimed to improve standard living conditions, as the increase in trade results in GDP growth. For example, newly industrialized economies, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, which have all been open to trade during the past four decades, have been entirely free of poverty according to the dollar-a-day poverty line. In fact in Malaysia the opening of the economy resulted in the per-capita income rising from $350 to $5000 in just 2 decades.
However these countries are known as the Asian Tigers and it must be noted that they did not always follow the ideals of free trade. They first began nurturing their economies through the state before opening them up to the global market.
Also the foreign investment, which globalization creates, can be a significant driver of development in poorer countries, like China, India and Mexico, as it brings not only money but technical and managerial expertise.
Trade also helps the poor through three important channels; gainful employment, anti-poverty programmes and public services such as education and health.
Globalists also claim that globalization has a positive effect on the environment. NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations) and environmental groups lay pressure on developing nations and this can lead to improvements, in areas such as waste disposal and factory emissions. For example in Sao Paulo and Mexico City FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) has increased, creating more factories, yet air pollution levels have fallen.
However anti-globalists argue that globalization will lead to more environmental damage instead of less, as countries specialise in certain things, exploiting the land and ultimately destroying it. For example, the rapid expansion of coastal shrimp farming in several countries in Asia and Latin America in the 1980s, driven principally by the demand for exports, led to the contamination of water supplies and destruction of surrounding mangrove forests.
The term anti-globalization is allocated as a unified name to the movement by the media. It refers not to the opposition of globalization per se, but the opposition of different aspects of globalization. There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization".
In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account. This has resulted in a number of negative effects of cultural, political, and economic globalization.
Many claim that it is simply a "buzz-word to denote the latest phase of capitalism", whereas others believe that globalization maybe "the latest stage of Western imperialism". The latter claim that the only forces being globalized are those found in the Western World. - However critics of this belief argue that it is thinly veiled anti-westernism. They maintain that such people routinely villainize Coca-cola, Hollywood and Nike, but conveniently forget the globalization of Chinese tea and Japanese manga.
A further criticism of globalization is that it leads to cultural homogenization, sometimes referred to by sociologists as 'Coca-Colaisation or McDonaldization. They claim that as a result everyone is losing their national identity, their culture, their individuality.
Globalists believe that cultural homogenization isn't happening, because the fear and threat of homogenization provokes cultural and political resistance. Meaning that instead of people losing their cultural and national identity, they are fighting to maintain it and as a result it is growing stronger.
Supporters of globalization also argue that even if cultural homogenization is occurring, it is not necessarily a bad thing, as cultural and national differences become less obvious, and so racism decreases.
Another allegation made by anti-globalists, mainly by state-centric nationalists, is that globalization is displacing the role of nations. They maintain that nations have a declining capacity to organise political and economic life satisfactorily, resulting in national governments becoming powerless in the face of national trends and subjects to global economic forces. This raises the problem of accountability as many of the emerging powerful actors in the globalized world are unelected NGOs, including seemingly good organizations such as Greenpeace.
Anti-globalists argue that globalization has actually undermined democracy in 2 important ways.
Firstly, it has concentrated economic power, and hence political power, in the hands of MNCs. It is in the capacity of MNCs to relocate capital and production elsewhere in the world that gives them the advantage over national governments and enables them to escape democratic control.
Secondly, democracy is also threatened by the fact that the pace of economic globalization far outstrips that of political globalization. So, whereas economic activity pays little attention to national borders, politics continues to operate largely within them, and the international organizations of governments are too weak to call global capitalism to account.
Anti-globalists also argue that although the global economy is strong it is often volatile. Capital flows in and out of countries so freely that it can result in economical problems. For example in 1995 Barings bank collapsed due to one single trader.
They also argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises.
Read more
What is the anti-globalisation movement?
The term anti-globalization is allocated as a unified name to the movement by the media. It refers not to the opposition of globalization per se, but the opposition of different aspects of globalization. There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization".
In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account. This has resulted in a number of negative effects of cultural, political, and economic globalization.
Many claim that it is simply a "buzz-word to denote the latest phase of capitalism", whereas others believe that globalization maybe "the latest stage of Western imperialism".
The anti-globalisation movement developed in the late twentieth century to combat the globalisation of corporate economic activity and the free trade with developing nations that might ensue
Members of the anti-globalisation movement generally support anarchist, socialist or social democratic alternatives to capitalist economics, and seek to protest the world’s population and ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of globalisation
Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself is heterogeneous.
It includes diverse and sometimes opposing understanding of the globalisation process, and incorporates alternative visions, strategies and tactics
Many of the groups and organisations that are considered part of the movement were not founded as antiglobalist, but have their roots in various pre-existing social and political movements
Read more...
In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account. This has resulted in a number of negative effects of cultural, political, and economic globalization.
Many claim that it is simply a "buzz-word to denote the latest phase of capitalism", whereas others believe that globalization maybe "the latest stage of Western imperialism".
The anti-globalisation movement developed in the late twentieth century to combat the globalisation of corporate economic activity and the free trade with developing nations that might ensue
Members of the anti-globalisation movement generally support anarchist, socialist or social democratic alternatives to capitalist economics, and seek to protest the world’s population and ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of globalisation
Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself is heterogeneous.
It includes diverse and sometimes opposing understanding of the globalisation process, and incorporates alternative visions, strategies and tactics
Many of the groups and organisations that are considered part of the movement were not founded as antiglobalist, but have their roots in various pre-existing social and political movements
Read more...
Globalisation Pt. 2
Covering a wide range of distinct political, economic, and cultural trends, the term “globalization” has quickly become one of the most fashionable buzzwords of contemporary political and academic debate. In popular discourse, globalization often functions as little more than a synonym for one or more of the following phenomena: the pursuit of classical liberal (or “free market”) policies in the world economy (“economic liberalization”), the growing dominance of western (or even American) forms of political, economic, and cultural life (“westernization” or “Americanization”), the proliferation of new information technologies (the “Internet Revolution”), as well as the notion that humanity stands at the threshold of realizing one single unified community in which major sources of social conflict have vanished (“global integration”). Fortunately, recent social theory has formulated a more precise concept of globalization than those typically offered by pundits. Although sharp differences continue to separate participants in the ongoing debate, most contemporary social theorists endorse the view that globalization refers to fundamental changes in the spatial and temporal contours of social existence, according to which the significance of space or territory undergoes shifts in the face of a no less dramatic acceleration in the temporal structure of crucial forms of human activity. Geographical distance is typically measured in time. As the time necessary to connect distinct geographical locations is reduced, distance or space undergoes compression or “annihilation.” The human experience of space is intimately connected to the temporal structure of those activities by means of which we experience space. Changes in the temporality of human activity inevitably generate altered experiences of space or territory. Theorists of globalization disagree about the precise sources of recent shifts in the spatial and temporal contours of human life. Nonetheless, they generally agree that alterations in humanity's experiences of space and time are working to undermine the importance of local and even national boundaries in many arenas of human endeavor. Since globalization contains far-reaching implications for virtually every facet of human life, it necessarily suggests the need to rethink key questions of normative political theory.
Source
Source
Globalisation
The politics of globalization can be improved, argues Peter Mandelson, former European commissioner for trade in an essay based on a March 2011 keynote speech on the future of globalization. Governments have the capability to tame what seems to be a senseless race to devour resources and amass profits. Collective action is the only way to control dangerous competition, prevent unreasonable behavior of a few and ensure stability, Mandelson contends. Plenty of global institutions and policymaking tools are in place, including the World Trade Organization, the G20, the United Nations and more. Governments can act collectively, achieving balance in competition with social programs to boost social confidence and innovation. As demonstrated by the Scandinavian nations, globalization does not require stark trade-off between competition and social protections. Mandelson concludes that global institutions’ potential and governments’ ability to undertake collective action are underestimated, that the politics of globalization must be reassessed and revamped for a new era. – YaleGlobal
The Politics of Globalization
Government can balance competition with social protections, controlling globalization
Jobs in a borderless world: Workers in the West up in arms against globalization
LONDON: As globalization transforms the world, societies and nations are becoming increasingly uneasy.
Yet no one in China, Vietnam, India, or Botswana – let alone the educated young adults in Europe or the US – is in a hurry to reverse integration into the global economy.
Globalization drives trade and innovation, pushing down consumer prices, be it the basics of food and clothing or the luxuries of cars and computers. But the voracious appetite for energy and other natural resources leads to competition and unease, a global race that threatens stability.
Modern economic life seems to me to be characterized pretty simply: new opportunity for many, new uncertainty for most. And two views of globalization are emerging: first, the “Davos view,” seen from 10,000 feet of new opportunity and aggregate growth and, second, the view from the factory gate where globalization is seen as a zero-sum game in which jobs and opportunities in the fast developing world are created at the expense of employment and the standard of living.
Anxiety also emerges among countries with different economic rules. Although the narrative of free trade and liberal economics driving innovation persists, there is a more ambiguous reality, in which some states play by the liberal rules of free economic competition when it suits them, and the rest of the time distort the costs of capital, protect and subsidize industry and operate opaque systems of regulation. The tensions among the fastest growing emerging economies are as great, if not more so, than between developing and developed countries.
Modern economic life seems to be characterized pretty simply: new opportunity for many, new uncertainty for most.
As global competition grows more intense, each country grasps any tool to gain advantage in others’ markets while protecting their own: Russia has set up a sovereign wealth fund so that it can subsidize inward private equity investment. China has added rules governing “national security,” adding to investment uncertainty as it seeks increased international access for outgoing investment. Australia has revised its takeover rules to prevent China buying up wholesale its natural resources.
That the economy has moved beyond our control creates anxiety – globalization is something done to us rather than for us. Far from celebrating globalization, many plead for protection. To this, the financial crisis adds complexity. Unregulated finance capital grew ahead of our ability to manage it, ultimately causing the crash, and for many this exemplified the unaccountable, volatile power of global markets. Jobs and pensions became collateral damage.
This is the defining problem for 21st-century politics in the developed world.
Undermining globalization’s huge benefits are distorting interventions of state capitalism from one direction and anxious politics of an increasingly defensive developed world from the other. The poorest countries are most likely to be uncomfortably squeezed by any clash of interests amongst the more developed countries.
That the economy has moved beyond our control creates anxiety – globalization is something done to us rather than for us.
For these reasons, there’s urgent need to improve the politics of globalization.
Institutions are in place to shape globalization along with an array of public policy tools that aim for greater security. Yet the potential of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the G20, the World Bank and especially the World Trade Organization is underestimated.
The WTO is the only global organization operating in the economic sphere which sets multilateral binding rules with a disputes mechanism for settling conflicts. The WTO must help raise the bar of openness in the global economy to generate growth and reduce poverty. States have surrendered more sovereignty to the WTO and the GATT over the last 50 years than to any other institution or system, possibly with the exception of the Eurozone. The calculation is that a common set of rules for trade, binding on all, is better for all.
Governance of the trading system can go further. While bilateral free-trade agreements have opened trade in the global economy over the last two decades, they cannot do what multilateral agreements can achieve. The WTO should be given new powers to police Free Trade Agreements for transparent and fair trade, and we must exact a minimum ethical price for openness with no back-sliding on previously agreed rights. The EU and the US in particular must be prepared to lead by example in the removal of tariff barriers and subsidies.
Institutions are in place to shape globalization along with an array of public policy tools that aim for greater security.
To achieve agreement on Doha we must have the courage of our convictions that trade and openness are essential for growth, and the determination to build the domestic policy frameworks that will ensure that everyone, including the most vulnerable, can benefit.
The West won’t win by engaging in a race to the bottom – and must compete in the global economy through specialization and by adding value to everything we do. Developed nations can maintain their share of world markets by making more sophisticated products and incorporating technological prowess at every stage. They must compete on quality rather than price. Collective action, led by government, can prepare these economies for global competition.
In fact, I have trouble conceiving of an intelligent response to globalization that does not involve greater collective action.
Read full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)