Emerging Economies : The Global Economic Growth

That this was also the decade in which globalization came into full swing is more than a minor inconvenience for its advocates” (Rodrick). If globalization is supposed to present an advantage to developing countries, why have there been so many setbacks? Indeed, both sides will have its winners and losers regardless of which side of the development coin they live on, but for the most part globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, improved the standard of living, and increased life expectancy rates all while keeping developed nations relatively competitive to their developing counterparts. Globalization’s value is that it seeks to create an economic equilibrium in the world, where parties are free from barriers and can benefit from one another through a more efficient allocation of resources. This allows all participating nations to contribute to an integrated economy and where all nations willing to embrace globalization have the potential to benefit. Regardless, the path to successful integration to the global economy has not always been easy. There is contention towards globalization as some argue that it is detrimental to developed nations, while many developing countries that were forced to hastily open up their markets and integrate failed. However, if implemented properly, globalization has proven that it can benefit all parties involved and that the potential gains outweigh the losses.

The process of integration of economies around the world, known as globalisation, has catalysed the development of Brazil as a powerful emerging economy, through the expansion of trade and investment. Emerging countries are defined as those progressing toward becoming more advanced, through rapid growth and industrialisation. Consequently, Brazil’s rapid economic growth has secured its place in BRICS, an association of five major emerging economies, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

In 2008, the Global Financial Crisis broke out; both the American economy and the economy in the West suffered a hard blow. However, a big economy system in the East emerged unexpectedly. China is now able to challenge the America’s decades-long dominant position in economic area. Started during the middle of 1990s, China’s manufacturing industry developed rapidly that billions of exports were floating out, and China was given the title of “the world’s factory”(BBC). By the end of 2010, China with a GDP of $5.8 trillion, surpassed Japan’s GDP of $5.48 trillion, became the world’s second largest economy system (BBC). China also exceeded Japan became America’s largest foreign securities holder. Since then, China has been seen as the US’s

Thomas L. Friedman portrays, in “Globalization: The Challenge to America”, the American attitude, “Oh well, we’ll fix that problem when we get to it. After all, we’re just competing against ourselves.” As time progressed, this attitude only perpetuated into becoming more and more complacent, making America unable to take initiative and change outdated ways of thinking. Shirley Jackson expresses that “If left unchecked, this [quiet crisis] could challenge our preeminence and capacity to innovate.” America’s “quiet crisis” is the lack of STEM graduates such as engineers and other scientists needed to satisfy today’s work force. More problems America faces in the international competition are the ambition, numbers, and education gap that only seems to be getting bigger. Over the years of overcompensation, Americans have become significantly lazier, especially in comparison to those of a developing country. America is also not producing enough engineers to have the people to fill American jobs that could be outsourced to a more, qualified foreigner. America, after World War II, was established as a big power, through innovation and control. Now, America’s reputation has diminished as it appears that America is interdependent on these developing countries like India or China, who develops 70% of merchandise sold by Wal-Mart. Although, these developing countries are the ones producing and manufacturing the products designed and created by American businesses and corporations, these countries are trying to make the switch from being “made in” but also “designed

For the world to grow and become a place not ruled by the overly wealthy and run by only those who can win a war, all of the nations around the world have to become independant and have the ability to produce items to ship to other nations. Ehrenreich talks about how an American reporter lost his job because he was “pretending to report from sites around the world while he was actually holed up in his Brooklyn apartment” She asks why this American lost his job for doing exactly what entire companies are doing. Zakaria talks about power shifts and how we are going “through a third power shift” which means that the shift of power is dissipating from America to the rest of the world. America used to be the top of many lists for holding records such as tallest building, richest man, and leading financial center; however, many of the records are now held by another county. This is a very good representation of the shift of power, and although companies are outsourcing jobs, they are not getting rid of them completely. An American can still get the job but it might not be in America, which again proves the power shift to include the rest of the world and make the global economy better, and not have just an American economy. The world of today is a place where a person can go from New York to Beijing in a little over 12 hours and because of this it can be said that a person has the ability to move with a job if it is a job they truly

There are faults within Zakaria’s argument. Throughout the book, assumptions are made on the likelihood of the prosperous future of the U.S. and emerging powers. These predictions are based on assumptions, therefore lack solid evidence. Zakaria builds his argument based on the assumption that America “will remain a vital, vibrant economy at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology and industry” (Zakaria 182). Although there are some statistics that can support this assumption, the future remains unpredictable. Furthermore, Zakaria weakens his credibility by including personal opinions in the book. Particularly the claims made towards India give insight to his bias towards India over China. Zakaria has undermined the economic

Together China and India attributed to prosperity and there are mutual economic benefits. Both countries have formed stronger economic bonds. They have openly cooperated with one another in multi-lateral trade negotiations. As emerging economies continue to grow, there may be a further decline in the share of world output and world exports accounted for by the

Kvint (2008) indicates that some statistics of reports on emerging market are contradictory, and this inconsistent situation even can be seen from IMF’s reports. For instance, some emerging countries like China and India are classified as emerging markets and are included in the category of developing countries. On the other hand, many of the sub-Saharan countries as emerging markets are definitely still undeveloped. Kvint (2008) suggests that the main and most important characteristic of all emerging market countries is that they are at some stage during the processes of economic maturation and development of free markets. An attractive environment for foreign investors and global trading has been created based on this characteristic. He suggests the main characteristics in his study:

The United States is one of the strongest standing superpowers that have existed in the past few decades. Many people believe that the United States is declining from being a continuous super power; however according to Zakaria the United States is not declining. This is because they remain to have one of the strongest standing army, they have risen culturally, and economically the United States has been emerging enormously. According to Zakaria the United States has dominated the politics, and the culture in the 20th century, nonetheless he believes countries such as China, India, European Union, Russia, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Turkey will rise in the 21st century. Zakaria states “-industrial, financial, educational, social cultural- the distribution power is shifting, moving away from American Dominance” (5). Thus he is proving his point about how the power is shifting to the other 124 countries. Furthermore, Sachs Jeffery mentions the “poverty trap” and the many possible ways to help the countries that really need it. One way to help these under developed countries is by providing for these republics. The developed nations need to assist the poor economic states just enough so their living standards may rise. The United States doesn’t have a lot to worry about the “rise of the rest”, therefore helping countries under the poverty trap should still be aided by the developing nations, because countries such as the sub-Saharan African nations are under

In Stewart Patrickʻs article discussing the complications of incorporating newly developing countries into the global economy, he argues that these emerging states are unwilling to conform to the parameters that the United States has asserted over the global economy. In addition, he contends that these emerging states presume that they are able to modify the international system to correspond with their own interests and needs (Patrick, 47). Throughout the article, Patrick references various actions and preferences that demonstrates this entitled attitude that he argues emerging states embody. One example he alludes to regarding economic relations is the opposing views between established states and emerging states on the new

Author Thomas L. Friedman analyses the technological advances that are creating a level economic playing field with previously disadvantaged countries rising in knowledge and wealth rivaling that of the United States and other world powers in the world. Telephone and computer technology, previously a stronghold only of developed countries, is now easily accessible and has been accessed and mastered by countries such as China and India, making these nations competitive. Friedman perceives the flattening effect as so insightful as to be compared in scope to the Industrial Revolution.

Answer: The world economy has shifted dramatically over the past 30 years. We have been moving away from a world in which national economies were relatively self- contained entities, isolated from each other by barriers to cross- border trade and investments; by distance, time zones, and language; and by national differences in government regulation, culture, and business systems.

The rise of globalization following WWII generated three important factors that define today’s world. McNeill and McNeill agree with Pollard, Rosenberg, and Tignor that multiple economic changes, such as the creation of financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the globalization of the world economy. Carter and Warren further this argument by claiming that globalization has caused shifts in the modern economy, namely the rise of Asian economic powers. However, all three historians agree that the rise of globalization goes hand in hand with the rise of inequality in today’s world. Gaps in power, wealth, and access to information have only widened due to the trend of globalization. The final key factor defining our world today are the ongoing processes affecting development countries. McNeill and McNeill argue similarly to Carter and Warren that the end of imperialism generated new nations who quickly realized the free market was a pathway to stability. However, Pollard et al. and McNeill and McNeill place importance on financial institutions like the IMF forcing developing nations to reform their economies to be subservient to the world’s economy. Together, these historians argue that the trend of globalization following WWII caused factors like the modern global economy, the rise in inequality, and the development of new, decolonized nations to be key determiners in the world today.

In the new global economy, the US may no longer easily dominate. As a result of the flat world, new parts of the world are beginning to successfully compete. Two of the more powerful ones are India and China. These emerging nations are now competing not just for low-wage manufacturing and information labor but, increasingly, for the highest-end research and design work as well. As Friedman mentions in his triple convergence, roughly 3 billion people from India, Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia are now joining this, "plug and play" world in which they can basically compete and collaborate equally. While these nations certainly pose a threat to historical U.S. and European prosperity and power, the proper response is not to fight it, but rather to embrace it, in order to thrive in the new world.

There are many significant change in the world economy occurred, marked by globalization each country has different speed of development under different political and cultural background. During this period, Such as the United States of America 's economic status from the rapid development to the decline, then move to the current stable trend. Brazil, Russia, India, China, which named ‘BRCIS’ those developing countries’ economic performances are very catch the attention in recent years. The decline and rise of these countries ' commercial economy are closely related to their political culture. Therefore, it attracted the attention of scholars and research circles.