“Globalisation is Good”

by

Globalisation means different things to different people. Meaning that, it has both positive and negative effects. However, according to the video, globalisation is good; the reporter (Johan Norberg) did not note the downside of globalisation. He arguably said that globalization is good because we were equal 5o years ago (focusing on Vietnam, Taiwan and Kenya). He acknowledged that obstacles have blocked the development of Kenya whereas the lack of some of these impairments have facilitated in the development of those countries.
It is believed that the unrestricted market can be a major economic source capable of generating sustainable growth, prosperity and opportunity for human-being. Globalisation is tempting and desirable strength that does not recognize the border that realises and improves the living conditions of those affected by it. It increases income, the standard of living and in turn reduces poverty. But it also believed that anti-globalization movements are not against the process of globalization as it seems to be, but the current arrangement of globalisation itself. The world is unequal and unjust, where some are born into prosperity, others into hunger and misery. Globalisation decisions are taken politically, ideologically and according to Washington Consensus. It is common sense, that in spite of globalization being a driving force for reducing poverty, its beneficial results are inevitable.
The warriors of anti-globalisation, paradoxically, often do not oppose globalization, but are rather against a particular brand that often exploits child labour and tirelessly seeking for cheap raw-materials and labour or to escape taxes in most developed countries.
Despite this criticism, I believe that globalisation entails more positive than negative aspects, and alike, I share the reporter’s opinion that globalisation is incompatible with socialism and it is democracy adherence, however, I think it needs to reach worldwide comprehensively.

About these ads

4 Responses to ““Globalisation is Good””

  1. charlieeze2011 Says:

    There is no gainsaying that Globalisation is good; just like comparing dictatorial regimes to democracy, there is a gulf. The collapse of communism and disintegration of the Soviet Union further gave the Bretton Wood institutions power to boost capitalism, manipulate the World and exploit the weaknesses of the poor nations. We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the worldwide web invented by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, it is arguably the backbone of modern globalisation. It has changed the world so is globalisation, the world economy cannot do without it as ‘buying and selling’ is built around it. Moreso many companies for example now outsource some of their operations to countries thousands of miles apart, India and China easily come to mind. But it must be said here that many multinationals took advantage of the economic situations in the developing nations to engage in unethical work practices for example; child labour in Sierra Leone’s mining industries, oil pollution of Niger Delta region of Nigeria and cheap labour in Taiwan, Malaysia, China and other developing countries. Annoyingly is the destruction of their environment in the quest for their natural resources. It is indeed paradoxical to attribute reduction of poverty in the developing world to globalisation when the common resources of the people (farmlands and rivers) are polluted and destroyed. It then suggests to me that a high percentage of people are sacrificing for others to enjoy the goodness of globalisation.

  2. eddie4ndm Says:

    Let me have a sizeable bite from this globalisation cherry. The views are many and I will tread cautiously to avoid hinging on Johan Norberg’s argument lest I present the same argument for two purposes…

    It may sound rhetoric but what is the supposed goal of globalisation? I guess it’s development. What then is development? The capability approach views development as facilitating the expansion of choices/capabilities. And the generic definition of Sustainable development is ‘…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. http://www.iisd.org/sd/

    From all the available empirical evidence of what globalisation is, industrialisation and ‘unrestricted’ international market are the means through which globalisation’s dreams are realised. Industrialisation comes with a package: pollution and depletion of nature. For industrialisation to hold sway in any country there has to be massive enclosures. Commons have to be enclosed and expropriated. This obtains without consent from the affected communities or ‘commoners’. If development is intended to expand ‘opportunities’/capabilities, is expropriation of the commons not a contraction of those same capabilities it was meant to enlarge? Taking away a family land where the father is the boss and turn that same father into a labourer in a (‘globalisation’) factory, does that make him more independent or dependent? That obviously rips him of his authority and social reputation as a landlord now turned labourer. Forests are depleted and natural reserves ravaged because almost every item will be commodified. This makes the families heavily dependent on the factory owners and farmers who, before now, controlled their wake-up time and when they go to work suddenly become enslaved to the dictates of the industrialists. Even the traditional healers’ knowledge will be bio-pirated by the industrialists when they obtain patent license. How can all these facilitate wellbeing which is at the core of modern development?

    Unrestricted market, yes, but who benefits? Globalisation advocates free market for all goods and all countries. But why is it that there is non-tariff barriers imposed on agricultural products imported from third world countries especially Africa into the EU using health risks as a subterfuge? Why not leave the consumers to determine what they prefer? Market should be controlled by consumers and the powers of demand and supply. If these products are of low quality then the demand would eventually be very low and hence supply. The EU subscribes it farmers and their eventual products are bound to be cheaper. In return they ask for open markets so they can sell their own goods cheap in the international market and take the local goods out of market—price and demand do the rest. I think the western campaign for globalisation is a smart way of advocating a an expansive market for their goods and also a place where they can get cheap labour.

    Development is not all about property; it’s mainly about people. It is not all about economic growth, but human growth. Economic growth is just one of the means to development. Happiness is not obtained through factories and skyscrapers.

    Lest I forget, if industrialisation means factories and constructions everywhere, how are we going to sustain the environment for future generations? Imagine the scale of environmental degradation where factories are left to rule the world. This environmental damage can hardly be sustained or repaired before the next generation. And therefore our generation will be destroying what belongs to not only us but the next and subsequent generations.

    Besides, there is really no ‘free market’ because every country has its checking mechanisms like the non-tariff barriers in the west and the income tax paid at the various ports/quays in the developing countries to clear goods and machinery. How can any country completely leave its borders (including sea borders) in the name globalisation. The salaries these multinational companies pay their workers in the developing countries cannot be medical allowances in the developed countries. Is this not another form colonialism, or even worse, slavery? The recipient countries, especially those in Africa, don’t have much to say as the aids will be withheld.

  3. ngoziokei Says:

    Globalisation is the process whereby goods and services are exchanged around the world. The video clip concentrated on the advantages of globalisation inTaiwan, Vietnam and Kenya.

    According to the video clip (Johan Norberg), the country Taiwan fully embraced globalisation, by using land reform to release lands to farmers. This led to increase of wages, compared to the past of low wages (low demand of labour). In addition, it encourages small enterprises to be competitive with other multinational companies. In addition, globalisation had alleviated poverty in Taiwan, poverty in principle cannot be eradicated.

    On the other hand, Vietnam did not fully embrace globalisation but rather looked at the ethical point of view by investing in the future career of their employees. Furthermore, they allowed other organisations including NGO to be supervised. The writer acknowledges it was not a balanced idea, since it benefited mostly the employer as compared to the employees. This gave ‘false’ satisfaction to the employees (future career) even though there was increase in demands for jobs. In essence, the system does not allow full operation of human rights, economic growth, development and wealth in Vietnam economy.

    Now, in the case of Kenya although globalisation was embraced, other factors mitigate the full advantages of globalisation. More so since in Kenya there are no sincere and transparent democratic procedures. Here, people are not given opportunities to turn ideas into reality due to tax/duty increase, and no land reform/investment. Not forgetting protectionisms, subsidizing or food aid by foreign governments.

    Therefore, in conclusion globalisation in Taiwan benefits all the stakeholders, but in Vietnam the benefit was mainly geared to the employer whereas in Kenyan it was more restricted due to financial constraints.
    What is needed, is to find a New Balance. According to Stiglitz, J, E. (2007) Making Globalization Work, pages (284-287), if we are to make globalization work, is an international economic region in which the well-being of the developed and developing countries are better planned: a new global social contract between developed and less developed countries. Among the central ingredients are:
    A commitment by countries to a fairer trade regime, that would actually promote development.
    A new approach to intellectual property and the promoting of research, which while continuing to provide incentives/resources for innovation, and the rights of the developing countries to have their traditional knowledge protected.
    An agreement by the developed countries to compensate developing countries for their environmental services both in preservation of biodiversity and contribution to global warming through carbon sequestration.
    A recognition between the developed and less developed countries, that global warming represents a real threat to a shared planet.
    A commitments by the developed countries to pay the developing counyties fairly for their natural resources. Also not leaving a degradation behind the developing counties.
    A renewal commitments already made by the developed countries by providing financial assistance to the poorer countries.
    An extension of the of the agreement for dept forgiveness made in july 2005 to more contries and not being thwarted.
    Reforms of the global financial architecture that would reduce its instability.
    A host of international (legal) reforms – to ensure that new global monopolies do not emerge, to handle fairly the complexities of cross-border bankruptcies both of sovereigns and companies.
    If the developed countries are sending little money to the developing countries, they have also been sending too little arms; they have been part and partner in much of the corruption.
    All this points has to be kept into consideration.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers

%d bloggers like this: