Globalization Is Not a Substitute for Development

From all of this is plain to see that globalization can have positive and negative effects upon a society, but a country that refuses to open its doors to the world face economic stagnation and poverty for its people. Those

Globalization’s impact on sustainable prosperity is examined in the source. It does this by asking a question. Also examined is the impact on all people and this would include both developing nations as well as developed nations. The source is also somewhat leading the reader to question the extent of the impact, which implies that there is a positive impact on sustainable prosperity. Also the fact that it states, “for all people” implies that all people benefit. While globalization may contribute to sustainability to a limited extent or in certain circumstances, on the whole, globalization degrades rather than builds sustainable prosperity. This will be explored through looking at globalization’s systems and forces, specifically consumerism, the media and transnational corporations.

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.

Development and underdevelopment are linked and “condition each other mutually” resulting in a divided world that consists of industrial “central” countries and underdeveloped “peripheral” countries (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978, p.544), with the periphery often being constrained by its role in the global capitalist system (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978, p.544).

Trade liberalization inspires economic growth, and ensures sustainable prosperity for everyone. The reduction and removing of tariffs has made materialistic goods like food and clothes more available and affordable to countries that are developing and have low GDP per person. For example, the average Kenyan

While this may be detrimental to a smaller country, it is a casual sacrifice for the developed nation encouraging said liberalization. Due to their economic size and power, their cost of closure-the cost incurred on a nation by the termination of a trade partnership, measurable through direct income loss and adjustment costs of reallocating factors of production-is much smaller than that of the developing nation (Krasner, 21). Ideally, the smaller market is opened to a point of maximum advantageous trade, at whatever internal cost, and held there. The chances of the resultant instability overwhelming the capabilities of the nation are low, but if it does occur, the cost of closure for the larger nation is small. Thus, the instability is a worthwhile risk if it increases relative power. As a result, today large powers ubiquitously push economic liberalization upon smaller nations across the world in the name of the globalization

Trade liberalization that enables countries to trade freely with few or no restrictions. When national economies are privatized and liberalized, they are in a better position to trade with each other. Reduction in transport costs, aversion of tax and non tax hindrances, promotion of vertical integration and expansion of product life cycles would all play a major role towards successful business.

Within the last 60 years, Third World development has been a global priority, at the top of virtually every Western agenda. And with the rise of the global population and poverty levels continuing to rise along with it, it is very easy to see why human development is becoming such a topic of focus and discussion among members of the academia. But one question that everyone wants the answer too is, how does Third World development fit into Globalization? Despite apparent compatibility, when closely examined it is clear to see that Globalization actually contradicts Third World development due to the conflict of agendas. Both Globalization and Development hold views concerning market reform, social structure and regulation, which are

Globalization is slowly causing the world to expand its trade borders to help link together countries around the world in order to avoid isolating themselves economically. Nations are starting to rely on foreign trading because "the more trading that takes place, the more wealth is created, and global trade across international frontiers has created more wealth than ever before in human history, and [has] helped lift more people out of mere subsistence than ever before." (Pirie, Globalization). The extra wealth generated by globalization has brought an increase in employment in the service sector, which provides for many of the new jobs needed. Globalization helps countries of all economic ranges to be able to succeed in the global economy by allowing them the opportunity to use foreign resources in order to succeed. Poorer countries are able to succeed by providing labor that is cheap, causing foreign countries to invest in the country, which in turn allows them to earn enough to stay out of poverty. It benefits wealthier countries as well because the money saved from importing cheaper foreign goods allows consumers to maintain a higher standard of living. Globalization also forces firms to become more efficient in order to compete with other foreign firms to succeed. However, not everyone believes that globalization is a good thing. A group called the International Forum on Globalization believes that globalism "[benefits] transnational corporations over workers; foreign investors over local businesses; and wealthy countries over developing nations."(Hoppough and Meredith, 398-399). But if this were true then the local businesses and local people in the developing nations would have no reason to ever attempt to trade outside of their borders. The reason that globalism is able to even work is because the local

After the end of the World War II the world faced the challenges of economic and social recovery. The majority of developing countries based their economies on Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI), the state-oriented approach to a trade and economic policy. ISI supports the replacement of import with domestic production in order to reduce foreign dependency. This protectionist policy dominated in developing countries, especially in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, during the first 30 years after the World War II. By 1980s, when the main gains of ISI were exhausted and it demonstrated its inefficiency, the countries of East Asia adopted a new development strategy. Consequently, this new export-oriented and market-friendly strategy, so-called East Asian model, has determined the successful economic and trade policy of East Asian countries during the next several decades. To understand the reasons of the shift from ISI to the East Asian model, it is needed to carefully examine and contrast these two approaches and their supporting theories.

In the book “The New Confessions of An Economic Hitman” by author John Perkins, he discusses in detail his experience as an economic hitman, and the role he played in underdeveloped and developing countries. He writes about his, various multinational corporations, political institutions, and the United States role in indebting countries to profit off them. Essentially, his book is about the United States way in expanding globalization and what can be done to stop the exploitation of other countries. John Perkins offers a new perspective on the study of international development and underdevelopment, and goes beyond numbers and graphs, to explain other factors that are a key contributor in the under development and development of some countries. In this essay, the strengths and weaknesses of this book will be discussed and compared to the perspectives of development covered in this course through the lectures and textbook. The opportunities that are presented around the world for this book to improve development outcomes, and threats around the world that may halt efforts to purse the changes that John Perkins wishes to see will also be discussed.

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 defined as a worldwide development, the process of spreading ideas. More recently, globalization has become more focused on economics, the spreading of capitalism and opening international trade. Globalization through the past 50 years has developed a bad reputation, one that does not benefit countries the way people thought it would. Joseph E. Stiglitz, in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, stresses that modern globalization is a good thing, but has not been done correctly in the past few decades. The ideas behind globalization have the potential to benefit the world, specifically developing countries. Stiglitz goes into detail about how the problem falls with the misguided attempts of the international economic institutions to solve developing countries’ economic problems. Something has gone very wrong with globalization, and the purpose of this book is to shed some light on where it went wrong. Stiglitz presents the problems with the international economic institutions’ damaging policies and their effects using ethnographic field work and historically comparative methods.

It is fair to say that the ones who benefit the most in economic globalization are developed countries whose social productive forces are highly developed ((El-Ojeili, C. & Hayden, P., 2006.). However, it is difficult for developing countries that are relatively