The term globalization is not unheard of. In simple terms, globalization is a process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. Globalization has always been there; it has existed since the beginning (although, in a slightly crude sense) when people undertook voyages to discover new places and people, which resulted in exchange of culture and, later on, trade. However, changes in the world economy, with major turning events like the World War 2 and then the later on collapse of Soviet Union had led to serious intellectual debates on the impact of opening of global market. Thus, the world ushered into a new age of globalization, marked by an array of institutional changes.
Globalization spurred an increase in the amount of international trade and investments and a general trend in economic growth across the nations. Globalization, with its overtones of free trade policy, had significantly reduced customs duties which gave a strong impetus to companies to enter the international market. Foreign direct investments, which represents the main forms of capital flow between nations, grew by an exponential rate (almost thrice of that of trade). Technological developments, which were also one of the driving forces of globalization, grew at high rates which further facilitated in development of both physical and human capital. As a result, the world prospered; with the nations sharing the fruits of globalization equally, is what only some people might believe.
Anti-globalization, as the name implies, is a movement to counter the growing negative impact of globalization. This movement was born along with globalization, although it is incorrectly suggested to have been started in Seattle, 1999 during the World Trade protests. With the election of Trump and his efforts of turning the world’s largest economy inwards, the anti-globalization movement seems to have caught a second wind. Anti-globalization proponents justify their stand by pointing out to the capitalistic overtones of globalization, growing income disparities not only within a nation but also between the nations, environmental degradation, homogenization of cultures, movement of job opportunities from developed countries and other such related issues. But has globalization impacted us that negatively?
There is no denying that globalization finds a big-time support in the big business houses which have, indeed, benefitted from the opening up of world economy. With reduced duties, free flow of technology and movement of cheap labour from one country to another, they have been giving a conducive environment to grow. Also as a result, they have grown (politically) powerful and influential. It has been made easy to procure cheap labour from labour intensive countries and with advanced technological developments, they have been able to maximize their profit margins. This very fact becomes one of the most popular point of contentions amongst the anti-globalists. They argue that because of globalization, these business houses have been exploiting the labour in an attempt to increase their profits (paying lower wages, hiring children, poor working conditions), without giving them a share in this profit. Because of this, many people started using the words ‘globalization’ and ‘capitalism’ interchangeably. This also brings us to the point of income disparities. Generally it is said that due to globalization, the rich nations are becoming richer while the poor ones are getting poorer. Although they fail to see that overall the world economy has grown parallel to globalization.
With the opening up of economies, a wave of job opportunities, FDIs and other improved services (in sectors such as education, health, IT), the benefits of which increased not only their economic prosperity but also improved their quality of life. Thus it doesn’t seem strange when a finding of world economic forum (conducted in 25 countries with over 25,000 urban respondent and presented at its annual meeting in 2002) revealed that policy makers and public in developing and poor countries viewed globalization as a positive force whereas the rich countries of the world had anti-globalization sentiments. This could be a direct outcome of the fact that many companies in developed countries outsource some of its functions to developing countries in a bid to get work done at cheaper rates. As a result, people at home countries lose out on possible employment opportunities.
However, the situation isn’t that grim as it appears because new jobs are been created because of expansion and creation of new employments. Lastly, the argument of environmental degradation. With the increase in trade and tourism and new capital intensive methods of production (globalization), the environment has been severely affected. This is surely a very negative result of globalization as it not only affects our quality of life but also threatens our very existence. But here, we should keep in mind that globalization hasn’t exactly started the degradation; only accelerated the rate (which is still grim but it would have happened anyway because of rapid growth of human population).
We have just taken a very few arguments of pro-globalization and anti-globalization. Just as every cloud has a silver lining so is the case with globalization. However, to give a personal opinion, I think I would go with globalization because of the way in which it has opened up the world for everyone along with a plethora of opportunities for almost everything, from creation of jobs and profits to even world peace through mutual cooperation.
Image Source: Jagyasi
Arushi Sharma
