Winners and Losers of Globalization
Who do you think are the WINNERS and LOSERS of globalization?
The train of globalization has shown no signs of slowing down as information, people, goods and services flow more freely across international borders than ever before. We should recognize that it is unlikely that all parties will benefit equally from this exchange as there is bound to be “winners” and “losers” in every trade.
THE “WINNERS” OF GLOBALIZATION
In my opinion, ostensibly, the greatest winners in globalization would be the businesses in developed countries, namely the likes of the G8. Besides having an enormous world market to sell their produce to, these countries are able to enjoy cheap labour in the developing countries for a fraction of the cost of doing so back home. Multinational companies like, Nike, in particular, is a flag-bearer of such a trend. Thus, businesses tend to profit more as such practices allow them to be more cost efficient. There is greater potential to make more money, allowing them to be more powerful.
India and China are also experiencing growth in capital inflows as foreign direct investment is made possible with globalization. This helped in deepening the domestic capital markets and brought in greater wealth to these countries. In fact, China is already exporting capital, technology and labour to Africa and South-east Asia. These countries benefit from freer market and free trade policies as there is a wider market for countries and emerging markets to tap on. In fact, India who was previously thought of as a definite “loser” is now riding the wave of globalization. India’s green revolution, with its increased reliance on GMO agriculture has been the direct result of American non-resident Indians (NRIs) exporting such technologies to India. With globalization, there is increased sharing of knowledge and skills to benefit Indians which in turn contributes to the economy.
The western media is another winner of globalization, so much so that anti-globalization voices have cried out that globalization is simply a euphemism for “Americanization”. The status of Western media is fortified by the control of large media conglomerates that are able to spread the ideas of Western lifestyles across the globe, consciously or subconsciously. Thus they are able to gain unprecedented amounts of profits and cultural and political influence. Hence, the name: “superpower”.
Consumer gains with increase goods, services and variety to suit their personal taste and preference. Furthermore, consumers benefit with cheaper imports due to extensive competition on an international level which keeps prices down.
Next, although we may think that the developing nations are sure to lose out, they do stand to gain. The UN and World Bank have boon towards the developing nations. I believe in the long run, the positive effects and benefits of such organisations will elevate the status of developing nations. It provides them with a vital international legal system that prevents the more powerful capitalist nations from acting unilaterally, protecting the interests of the developing nations. It has implemented programmes like the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) that help to disseminate economy management techniques to developing nations. Massive relief programs and debt-servicing initiatives are also conducted by these organizations. This is a first step and cornerstone to the rise of developing nations. Therefore, developing nation can also be considered “winners” in this aspect.
Women are winners of globalization. Globalization has rapidly improved the social and economic status of women in the developing world. In a competitive, globalized world, the role of women becomes ever more valuable. Cultures that exclude women from full participation (e.g. Saudi Arabia) would fall behind. By disregarding the importance of women in today’s society, a country would essentially be depriving itself of half its potential pool of talents.
THE “LOSERS” OF GLOBALIZATION
On the other hand, the weaker countries/ developing countries may lose out. As mentioned, developed countries benefit from cheap labour from the developing countries, giving rise to what we disapprovingly termed “sweatshops”. There are cases where the richer nation stands to profit from the desolate conditions of the poor. We learn from corporate social responsibility that corporations should follow corporate citizenship, responsible business, sustainable responsible business, or corporate social performance. “Sweatshops” and child labour are definitely disapproved of. However, we cannot deny that such “sweatshops” are still present today. For example, NIKE workers, workers at a plant in El Salvador etc. The ugly truth, some human rights are still not protected.
This brings me to my next point on income inequality. Although globalization in its utopian application subscribes to the integration of all countries equally, in reality, globalization is an uneven process. Countries lacking in natural resources, economic might, a stable government, or a trained workforce have less bargaining power as compared to countries with this advantages. Some developing countries are put at further disadvantage by the trade sanctions imposed on developing nations. For example, the European Union spends half its budget on agricultural subsidies that benefit mainly only larger farms and agribusinesses. Moreover, trade sanctions are imposed on imports of primary materials from developing countries. The unfair protectionist policies toward the developing nations make these countries the “losers” as they are unable to compete with the treasuries of the developed nations. Hence, the clique phrase: the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer.
Next, with the western countries gaining power with their wide spread of Americanization, some nations who are not open to this idea suffers. Nations like France have increasing insular and aggressive attitudes towards the influence of Americanisation with the shutting down of several McDonald’s outlets and the quotas implemented on the broadcasting of Hollywood films. The detrimental effect of globalisation on local cultures is undeniable. Attempts by Western corporation to assert their hegemony infringes on the culture and values of other nation. Such an effect of globalization may The conservatives may be dismayed by tof their country’s conservative values and customs.
However, as that is said, America could be the “losers” as well. If such liberal Western ideals are deemed as disruptive or against the ideals of particular nations, wariness against the West may breed, which could eventually lead to the emergence of anti-American counter-culture. This way the West may suffer. Look at the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism and groups like Hamas or Hizbollah. They represent a reactionary force against the corrupting influence of the West; showing us the strength of the pull back towards protecting one’s own culture even if it escalates to violence towards the West. The September 11 terrorist attack is a saying incident about this where there is detrimental effect towards the entire US economy.
CONCLUSION
After all that, I feel that in this wave of globalisation, it is inevitable that some will benefit more than others. Nevertheless, it has the potential to generate an influx of wealth for mostcountry, “losers” or “winners”, if properly directed. The poorest nations are the least globalised providing the extreme counter example of North Korea with its closed door policies and great poverty. For us to benefit equally is not easy. In my opinion, it is only possible when we are all equally globalized. However, that is too idealistic. Developing countries or parties who seem to be on the losing end should take their best foot forward and embrace globalization so as to seek towards a fairer share of winners in this wave. Globalization is not something that only benefits the more powerful nation but something that will benefit those who know how to tap on the benefits it can give.
REFERENCE:
http://www.helium.com/knowledge/8420-globalization-who-benefits-from-it
The train of globalization has shown no signs of slowing down as information, people, goods and services flow more freely across international borders than ever before. We should recognize that it is unlikely that all parties will benefit equally from this exchange as there is bound to be “winners” and “losers” in every trade.
THE “WINNERS” OF GLOBALIZATION
In my opinion, ostensibly, the greatest winners in globalization would be the businesses in developed countries, namely the likes of the G8. Besides having an enormous world market to sell their produce to, these countries are able to enjoy cheap labour in the developing countries for a fraction of the cost of doing so back home. Multinational companies like, Nike, in particular, is a flag-bearer of such a trend. Thus, businesses tend to profit more as such practices allow them to be more cost efficient. There is greater potential to make more money, allowing them to be more powerful.
India and China are also experiencing growth in capital inflows as foreign direct investment is made possible with globalization. This helped in deepening the domestic capital markets and brought in greater wealth to these countries. In fact, China is already exporting capital, technology and labour to Africa and South-east Asia. These countries benefit from freer market and free trade policies as there is a wider market for countries and emerging markets to tap on. In fact, India who was previously thought of as a definite “loser” is now riding the wave of globalization. India’s green revolution, with its increased reliance on GMO agriculture has been the direct result of American non-resident Indians (NRIs) exporting such technologies to India. With globalization, there is increased sharing of knowledge and skills to benefit Indians which in turn contributes to the economy.
The western media is another winner of globalization, so much so that anti-globalization voices have cried out that globalization is simply a euphemism for “Americanization”. The status of Western media is fortified by the control of large media conglomerates that are able to spread the ideas of Western lifestyles across the globe, consciously or subconsciously. Thus they are able to gain unprecedented amounts of profits and cultural and political influence. Hence, the name: “superpower”.
Consumer gains with increase goods, services and variety to suit their personal taste and preference. Furthermore, consumers benefit with cheaper imports due to extensive competition on an international level which keeps prices down.
Next, although we may think that the developing nations are sure to lose out, they do stand to gain. The UN and World Bank have boon towards the developing nations. I believe in the long run, the positive effects and benefits of such organisations will elevate the status of developing nations. It provides them with a vital international legal system that prevents the more powerful capitalist nations from acting unilaterally, protecting the interests of the developing nations. It has implemented programmes like the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) that help to disseminate economy management techniques to developing nations. Massive relief programs and debt-servicing initiatives are also conducted by these organizations. This is a first step and cornerstone to the rise of developing nations. Therefore, developing nation can also be considered “winners” in this aspect.
Women are winners of globalization. Globalization has rapidly improved the social and economic status of women in the developing world. In a competitive, globalized world, the role of women becomes ever more valuable. Cultures that exclude women from full participation (e.g. Saudi Arabia) would fall behind. By disregarding the importance of women in today’s society, a country would essentially be depriving itself of half its potential pool of talents.
THE “LOSERS” OF GLOBALIZATION
On the other hand, the weaker countries/ developing countries may lose out. As mentioned, developed countries benefit from cheap labour from the developing countries, giving rise to what we disapprovingly termed “sweatshops”. There are cases where the richer nation stands to profit from the desolate conditions of the poor. We learn from corporate social responsibility that corporations should follow corporate citizenship, responsible business, sustainable responsible business, or corporate social performance. “Sweatshops” and child labour are definitely disapproved of. However, we cannot deny that such “sweatshops” are still present today. For example, NIKE workers, workers at a plant in El Salvador etc. The ugly truth, some human rights are still not protected.
This brings me to my next point on income inequality. Although globalization in its utopian application subscribes to the integration of all countries equally, in reality, globalization is an uneven process. Countries lacking in natural resources, economic might, a stable government, or a trained workforce have less bargaining power as compared to countries with this advantages. Some developing countries are put at further disadvantage by the trade sanctions imposed on developing nations. For example, the European Union spends half its budget on agricultural subsidies that benefit mainly only larger farms and agribusinesses. Moreover, trade sanctions are imposed on imports of primary materials from developing countries. The unfair protectionist policies toward the developing nations make these countries the “losers” as they are unable to compete with the treasuries of the developed nations. Hence, the clique phrase: the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer.
Next, with the western countries gaining power with their wide spread of Americanization, some nations who are not open to this idea suffers. Nations like France have increasing insular and aggressive attitudes towards the influence of Americanisation with the shutting down of several McDonald’s outlets and the quotas implemented on the broadcasting of Hollywood films. The detrimental effect of globalisation on local cultures is undeniable. Attempts by Western corporation to assert their hegemony infringes on the culture and values of other nation. Such an effect of globalization may The conservatives may be dismayed by tof their country’s conservative values and customs.
However, as that is said, America could be the “losers” as well. If such liberal Western ideals are deemed as disruptive or against the ideals of particular nations, wariness against the West may breed, which could eventually lead to the emergence of anti-American counter-culture. This way the West may suffer. Look at the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism and groups like Hamas or Hizbollah. They represent a reactionary force against the corrupting influence of the West; showing us the strength of the pull back towards protecting one’s own culture even if it escalates to violence towards the West. The September 11 terrorist attack is a saying incident about this where there is detrimental effect towards the entire US economy.
CONCLUSION
After all that, I feel that in this wave of globalisation, it is inevitable that some will benefit more than others. Nevertheless, it has the potential to generate an influx of wealth for mostcountry, “losers” or “winners”, if properly directed. The poorest nations are the least globalised providing the extreme counter example of North Korea with its closed door policies and great poverty. For us to benefit equally is not easy. In my opinion, it is only possible when we are all equally globalized. However, that is too idealistic. Developing countries or parties who seem to be on the losing end should take their best foot forward and embrace globalization so as to seek towards a fairer share of winners in this wave. Globalization is not something that only benefits the more powerful nation but something that will benefit those who know how to tap on the benefits it can give.
REFERENCE:
http://www.helium.com/knowledge/8420-globalization-who-benefits-from-it