Globalization And Its Discontents By Joseph E. Stiglitz Essay

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.

Argentina is a well known case study of the failure or negative outcome of some IMF's standard policies. In fact, Argentina carefully applied policies dictated by IMF, but, until it stuck up with those policies, it couldn't step out from its crisis, and it ran into even deeper economic and social problems. This failure of the IMF has often been cited as the demonstration of unsuitability of the standard IMF approach (the usual so-called Washington Consensus) for solving economic crisis in developing countries (Serra & Stiglitz, 2008, p. 44). Also, this failure led to hostile feelings versus IMF among the population of Argentina (Kanenguiser, 2000) and fueled generalised suspects over IMF decision-making process being politicized and serving

Globalization, a contested concept among leading theorists in its definition, chronology, and measurement of effects, is almost certainly of a multidimensional nature if such theorists’ perspectives are all taken equally into consideration. The broad phenomenon of globalization can therefore be scrutinised more closely by separation and analysis of individual dimensions, such as its political, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions. This approach, while allowing for a more focused examination of the causes and effects of globalization within a single dimension, serves to highlight the interconnectedness of each dimension. The following essay will expose the complex interconnection between the political, economic and cultural

For individuals in very poor and economically unstable countries, globalization tends to do more harm than good. Through the economic, political and cultural examples stated above, globalization has not aided these countries climb out of poverty, develop an influential government or have a strong cultural identity, in fact, it has done the exact opposite. L’Huillier quotes Charles Darwin, “if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by out institution, great is our sin” (2017 381). The business model that globalization suggests is an unattainable utopia for those in developing countries. These traits of poverty and war have always existed yet, many of today’s countries are the way they are because of the models that are favored and paraded under globalization

During the last decade of the twentieth century, the word ‘globalization’ has become an increasingly prominent feature of political, social, and economic discussion in academic and policymaking circles, as well as in the media. The processes and outcomes of globalization drew attention and debates that had one thing in common. The research shows that nearly everyone agrees that globalization is a trend that is changing the face of the world, and as a result the world society lives in a more ‘globalized’ world. Nearly two and a half decades passed since 1990s, and studies have been conducted to examine the causes and consequences of globalization. Moreover, nearly every person experiences some type of globalization and can testify firsthand the effects it has on their life, society, and the state. The analysis of the effects that globalization dynamics have on the world society indicates that globalization has a significant positive impact via spreading opportunities and wealth across nations, stimulating innovation and productivity, enhancing the economic development of poorer countries, and helping to improve living standards.

participants in this conference created three organizations to help regulate the international economy. The first is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was established with the idea of regulating monetary policy. One of the benchmarks of the IMF is the stabilization of exchange rates and the loaning of money to help stabilize countries with balance of payments deficits. The second organization established was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) whose main focus was on a liberal trading order.

In today’s landscape, globalization is surely a highly-loaded term and one that cannot be denied. However, it cannot be accurately evaluated without taking into consideration the point of view of those who have be most heavily impacted, or “globalized” by its spread. Things do not appear as black and white as certain agents of globalization, such as governments or corporations may want to believe and even portray it as such. In both literature and reality, it can be seen that there are more than one side to every issue, and the concept cannot be considered ethically without spending time in consideration of those most significantly affected. Our initial vision of globalization is one that has been sugar coated

The concept of globalization is a complex and peculiar one, failing to be definable by a single, precise definition. Centrally, globalization involves information and goods being exchanged amongst different countries. These interactions and interchanges among countries globally over time is due to an increase in communication and transport networks. Globalization is often divided into three main areas being economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization. All three are vital areas to one’s life and globalization is said to have a large impact on each. Although globalization is controversial in the aspect that it cannot be declared just how much of an influence the notion has in the world. Political scientists such as Muhammad Ijaz Latif, Anton Pelinka and Martin Wolf all discuss this issue in their respective pieces as well as differing aspects of globalization such as the role the European Union plays in relation to globalization, the different perspectives of globalization and the challenges of the nation-state in regards to globalization.

Throughout, there is a keen sense that the IMF is completely guided by ideology which is focused on the free market and the markets’ ability to guide the economy properly at all times. It would seem that all those who work at the IMF are misguided and/or towing the party line in the form of the Washington Consensus. Moreover, of greater concern is perhaps that throughout this piece, it would seem that the World Bank could do no wrong. Stiglitz portrays himself and the World Bank as the white knight(s) who were championing the rights of those who could not fight for themselves against the US government, the US Treasury and even the Federal Reserve. He does so with little regard to any policies or actions that these organizations have done for positive reasons or with positive results. He displays unwavering support for governments to stimulate aggregate demand via social spending, so it is surprising that he is so punitive towards Western governments.

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.

Globalization is the proximate and multidimensional set of political, economic, social, and technological integration around the globe. The increasing interconnectedness among countries can be seen through the prism of globalization. Essentially, the lives of people living in distant cities like Bangalore and Silicon Valley are brought closer as a result of this phenomenon. Drivers of this adjacent include; the expansion of trade, technological exchange, labor movement and investments (Stearns 2017). The discourse of globalization encompasses several multidisciplinary themes. The paper, however, concentrates on the economic factors, “which, entails the closer economic integration of countries of the world through increased flow of goods, services, capital and even labor.” (Stiglitz 2007: 4). The paper focuses on economic globalization and elucidates whether the globalization has reduced poverty and inequality or had reproduced the reversed implications. Meanwhile, the paper reveals if the developing world has benefited from the set. This seems to be the central question that policymakers, development economists, and politicians have been grappling with for years. The paper is presented in three parts. Part one reflects on the historical context of the problem statement. The second part compiles literature and juxtaposes with cases to corroborate the globalization-poverty-inequality triangle. Finally, the conclusion represents the author’s viewpoint on the

“Globalization is not just one impact of the new technologies that are reshaping the economies of the third millennium” (Thurow 19-31). When speaking of globalization, most people will not have a complete understanding as of what it actually means or what aspects of the world it affects. Globalization promotes free trade and creates jobs. The capital markets attract investors, resort cheap labor, and leads to job losses in some areas of higher wage. While all of this is happening, the world economy is being effected: economically, culturally, socially, and politically.

In the article, "Globalization and Its Discontents: The Promise of Global Institutions", Joseph Stiglitz discusses the inequalities of the economic phenomenon. Stiglitz informed his reader the unfairness of globalization which ignited the "riots and protests against the policies of and actions by institutions of globalization" (Stilglitz 221). He states that the advantages of globalization on developing countries helped reduce "the sense of isolation", provide foreign aid, and integrate countries worldwide. However, the author primarily focuses on the disadvantages that globalization has brought onto these impoverished

Global stratification can be defined that globe countries and areas are not on an equal footing in the process of economic, political and cultural globalization (Andersen & Taylor, 2006). The economic globalization has exacerbated the imbalance of world economy and has widened the wealth gap. Globalization has brought unfair relationships between developing countries and developed countries. Gao (2000) noted that economic globalization has expanded the gap between South and North. And it has brought huge shocks to national economy of developing countries. The international economic organizations like the Word Bank, IMF and WTO are in the hand of developed countries (El-Ojeili, C. & Hayden, P., 2006.). All the principles, institutions and sequences for the world economic operation are made by them. (Sklair, 2002)What’s more, the economic, technical and management advantages that is owned by Western countries cannot be easily and fully surpassed by developing countries.

1.The international financial institutions (IFIs) are central pillars and the architects of the global economy. The world bank and IMF were founded and funded by the United states after the second world war to build shattered world economy after the war and great depression of the 1930s (socialist alternative,). The creation of the IFIs was to bring about a global economy after the “isolation economy” which some argue brought about the Second World War. The IFIs were to help the economy of the less developing countries (LDCs) to bring about growth and development, a phenomenon known as globalization.