|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
In economics, a broad definition is that globalization is the convergence of prices, products, wages, rates of interest and profits toward developed country norms.[2] Globalization of the economy depends on the role of human migration, international trade, movement of capital, and integration of financial markets. The International Monetary Fund notes the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions, free international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology.Theodore Levitt is usually credited with globalization's first use in an economic context.[3]
TrendsGlobalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways:
Globalization has become identified with a number of large trends, most of which may have developed or accelerated since World War II. These include the greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. Some of the trends include the following:
Globalization can also be defined as the internatonalization of everything related to different countries [Internationalization however, is a contrasted phenom to that of Globalization] Historical precedentsThe term "globalization' was coined in the latter half of the twentieth century, and the term and its concepts did not permeate popular consciousness until the latter half of the 1980s. Various social scientists have tried to demonstrate continuity between contemporary trends of globalization and earlier periods.[4]. Globalization is a centuries long process, tracking the expansion of human population and the growth of civilization, that has accelerated dramatically in the past 50 years. Earlier forms of globalization existed during the Mongol Empire, when there was greater integration along the Silk Road. Global integration continued through the expansion of European trade, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires reached to all corners of the world. The effects on European industries were notable, e.g. the Silver Mining in Schwaz, Austria was partly abandoned, as silver was available from the Spanish colonies for lower prices. Globalization became a business phenomena in the 17th century when the first Multinational was founded in The Netherlands. During the Dutch Golden Age the Dutch East India Company was established as a private owned company. Because of the high risks involved with the international trade, ownership was divided with Shares. The Dutch East India Company was the first company in the world to issue shares, an important driver for globalization. Liberalization in the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalization", a period characterized by rapid growth in international trade and investment, between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and, later, the United States. The "First Era of Globalization" began to break down at the beginning with the first World War, and later collapsed during the gold standard crisis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by advances in technology which have reduced the costs of trade, and trade negotiation rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT, which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on free trade. The Uruguay round (1984 to 1995) led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization (WTO), to mediate trade disputes and set up a uniform platform of trading. Other bi- and trilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade. The world increasingly is confronted by problems that can not be solved by individual nation-states acting alone. Examples include cross-boundary air and water pollution, over-fishing of the oceans and other degradations of the natural environment, regulation of outer-space, global warming, international terrorist networks, global trade and finance, and so on. Solutions to these problems necessitate new forms of cooperation and the creation of new global institutions. Since the end of WWII, following the advent of the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions, there has been an explosion in the reach and power of Multinational corporations and the rapid growth of global civil society.[5] The Global scenario group, an environmental research and forecasting organization, views globalization as part of the shift to a Planetary Phase of Civilization, characterized by global social organizations, economies, and communications. The GSG maintains that the future character of this global society is uncertain and contested. Measuring globalizationLooking specifically at economic globalization, it can be measured in different ways. These centre around the four main economic flows that characterize globalization:
To what extent a nation-state or culture is globalized in a particular year has until most recently been measured employing simple proxies like flows of trade, migration, or foreign direct investment, as described above. A multivariate approach to measuring globalization is the recent index calculated by the Swiss Think tank KOF. The index measures the three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political. In addition to three indices measuring these dimensions, an overall index of globalization and sub-indices referring to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information flows, and data on cultural proximity is calculated. Data are available on a yearly basis for 122 countries. According to the index, the world's most globalized country is Belgium, followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The least globalized countries according to the KOF-index are Haiti, Myanmar the Central African Republic and Burundi.[6]. A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine jointly publish another Globalization Index. According to this index, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the U.S., the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark are the most globalized (the absence of Hong Kong is curious), while Egypt, Indonesia, India and Iran are the least. Measuring Attitudes to GlobalizationMeasurement of attitudes toward globalization were sought after in a 2003 worldwide globalization study. The study focused on teenagers' perceptions towards globalization and globalism, because soon they will be the adults living out the results of today's policy. The study examined the thesis of: Teenagers are natural globalists & Teenagers are afraid of globalization. The sample for this study included two hundred teenagers between the ages of 14 and 18, from New York, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and the Philippines. The locations were urban. There was a survey administered with input from Gene Ellis, a professor (Wirtschaftswissenschaft Seminar) at the Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, and global consulting principal, economist, and former World Bank employee Andrew Mack. Topics of globalization and globalism were grouped into sub-categories. Globalization categories included immigration, trade, and diplomatic relations. Globalism included consumption, personal freedoms, technology, and culture. The results of the research suggested that both American teenagers and international teenagers are natural globalists and are largely in favor of globalization. Teenagers in New York had higher levels of support for globalization than globalism. International teens were more globalists. Importantly, all teens were very positive towards technology, cultural exchange, trade, consumption of international goods, and immigration. The study suggested that the future of international technology, trade, and culture will depend on bringing the concepts of globalization and globalism together. More so, the Internet seems to be one of the most important tools in linking teenagers globally and this suggests that this sort of communication should be developed around the world at a faster rate. Finally, it was suggested that the future of culture and trade will depend on the rate of technological progress. Pro-globalization (globalism)Supporters of free trade point out that economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output. Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are both ends in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism. Supporters of democratic globalization are sometimes called pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of world citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orient this will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process[citation needed]. Supporters of globalization argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their protectionist view; whereas worldwide statistics strongly supports globalization:
However, some of these improvements may not be due to globalization, or may be possible without the current form of globalization or its perceived negative consequences, to which the self-styled 'global justice movement' objects. Some pro-capitalists[citation needed] are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never carried out promised reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too much. They[citation needed] also note that some of the resistance to globalization comes from special interest groups with conflicting interests, like Western world unions. José Bové, one of the leaders of the movement, also represent French farmers, who are protected from competition from the developing world by high tariffs and receive very large subsidies from the European Union. Others, such as Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., simply view globalization as inevitable and advocate creating institutions such as a directly-elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies. Supporters of globalization are highly critical of some current policies. In particular, the very high subsidies to and protective tariffs for agriculture in the developed world. For example, almost half of the budget of the European Union goes to agricultural subsidies, mainly to large farmers and agribusinesses, which form a powerful lobby.[16] Japan gave 47 billion dollars in 2005 in subsidies to its agricultural sector,[17] nearly four times the amount it gave in total foreign aid.[18] The US gives 3.9 billion dollars each year in subsidies to its cotton sector, including 25,000 growers, three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa’s 500 million people.[19] This drains the taxed money and increases the prices for the consumers in developed world; decreases competition and efficiency; prevents exports by more competitive agricultural and other sectors in the developed world due to retaliatory trade barriers; and undermines the very type of industry in which the developing countries do have comparative advantages.[20] Anti-globalizationCritics of the economic aspects of globalization contend that it is not an inexorable process which flows naturally from the economic needs of everyone, as its proponents typically argue. The critics typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to corporate interests, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.[21] The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of relocalization and others. Some are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for what they believe is a more humane system than capitalism) and others are reactionary believing globalization destroys national industry and jobs. In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political, and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalization — in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly — contribute to the enormous growth of slums."[22] Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice.[23] Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French. There are a wide variety of 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, the working class, and the natural environment into account. Their solution is to raise the prices consumers must pay -- particularly poor consumers -- via protectionism. Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.[24] Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist interests, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policy of nation-states[citation needed]. Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and is forcing savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations; it can therefore be said that "globalization" is another term for a form of Americanization, as it is believed by some observers that the United States could be one of the few countries (if not the only one) to truly profit from globalization[citation needed]. Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises[citation needed]. The financial crises in Southeast Asia that began in 1997 in the relatively small, debt-ridden economy of Thailand but quickly spread to the economies of South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Philippines and eventually were felt all around the world [25], demonstrated the new risks and volatility in rapidly changing globalized markets[citation needed]. The IMF's subsequent 'bailout' money came with conditions of political change (i.e. government spending limits) attached and came to be viewed by critics as undermining national sovereignty in neo-colonialist fashion[citation needed]. Anti-Globalization activists pointed to the meltdowns as proof of the high human cost of the indiscriminate global economy[citation needed]. Many global institutions that have a strong international influence are not democratically ruled, nor are their leaders democratically elected. Therefore they are considered by some as supernational undemocratic powers[citation needed]. The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are supposedly not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism". Some "anti-globalization" activists and supporters object to the fact that the current "globalization" globalizes money and corporations, but not people and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls in nearly all countries, and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world. Another more conservative camp opposed to globalization is state-centric nationalists who fear globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as encroaching upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen. Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength. Protests by the global justice movement have forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities where they used to be held, into remote locations where protest is impractical[citation needed]. Reference
Further reading
See also
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Globalization" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||
