How The Global Market Has Changed The Lives Of People

A globalized society creates an increasingly complicated set of forces and factors that bring people, cultures, markets, and beliefs together. The improvement of technology, transportation, and communication means that in the last century businesses, governments, and people are being drawn into greater proximity with one another. As a result, the notion of civil society is slowly being challenged because state borders are no longer ‘containers of society’, meaning that the state is no longer a ‘fixed unit of sovereign space’ (Agnew, 59). One of the key phenomenon of globalization is the emergence of a global civil society. Global civil society refers to the ‘vast assembly of groups operating across borders and beyond the reach of

Theodore Levitt is often considered to be the first to recognize the trend towards globalization and states that: “companies must learn to operate as if the world were one large market – ignoring superficial regional and national differences…” In addition, he argues that the companies that do not adapt to the new global realities will become the victims of those that do.

A Splendid Exchange is an inside look at how trade has had an impact on human development. The book answers the questions of how trade developed, how it expanded, and how trade is an essential economic force. The author, William J. Bernstein, explains how trade almost always benefits the nations that engage in it, but only when averaged over the entire national economy. The push for to trade is been a part of our history, and new patterns of trade always produce advantages and disadvantages. Bernstein explains that from a historical standpoint, which has been going on for

Poverty, the state of being extremely poor, affects a large proportion of the global population who are unable to access adequate levels of food, shelter, healthcare and education. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that reducing poverty is considered to be a net positive without addressing the concept from a variety of theoretical lenses. The World Bank quantitatively defines those living in poverty as individuals with less than “$US1.90 PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) per person, per day”, by these metrics global poverty has decreased significantly, from approximately 44 percent of the global population in 1981 to an estimated 9.6 percent in 2015 (WB PovcalNet, 2016). Although this is an impressive improvement there are still many people living in poverty around the world. This essay will examine some of the methods used to combat poverty, as well as how it has changed over time. These methods include both free trade, fair trade and their alleged opposition to each other as well as comparing domestic and foreign aid.

Global poverty ends when the local economy is able to trade its way into an improved future. The most significant alleviations of poverty have been seen in those countries that have been able to create and trade goods. By building an industry and joining the global market, an impoverished country can generate revenue to in turn be reinvested into the local economy. The current policies in place limit the potential of poor countries to join this market and improve themselves. Reforming trade negotiation and the limitations placed on the market will allow these smaller countries to create their own sources of income.

Imagine yourself wondering what exactly fair trade means in sociology. One might think that fair trade includes trading good for a better price while others typically think fair trade is when fair prices are paid to producers in developing countries. In this paper I will discuss the summary of the “fair trade” movie, discuss why a sociologist would be interested in the given subject, and what my overall reactions include.

Free trade, the ever present driving force behind our national and world economy, is a trade policy embroiled in controversy. It is considered by most economists to be an almost perfect trade policy, barring a few negative effects. Free trade has been shown to increase production, output and income levels in an economy. However, there are many people that view free trade as destroyer of economies and a catalyst of poverty. Critics of free trade have pointed out that in the short-run, free trade causes a loss of jobs which in turn causes a rise in poverty levels. It is interesting to note that the argument for free trade and the argument against free trade are inverses of each other. Proponents of free trade see it as a tool to stimulate an economy while detractors see it as a policy which exacerbates poverty, causes dependency and reduces economic stability.

What is Fair Trade? According to Dolan (2007) “The fair-trade movement is founded on a ‘politics of reconnection’ (Hartwick 1998:433) between Northern consumers and their Southern brethren, enabling the latter to receive a fair return for their work and decent working and living conditions through equitable trade” (p. 245). In other words, it is a movement that connects consumers of developed countries to producers in developing countries through a system of exchange to help to promote better working conditions for the workers in developing countries. Fair Trade products usually cost more than regular products, but the producers of these products are provided with better working conditions. The major purpose of Fair Trade does not focus on the minimization of costs as otherwise could be observed in the practice of today’s market, but rather it focuses on saving lives and environment. In other words, the purpose of Fair Trade is to create social relationships between the parties of exchange that are not based on the drive of materiality, but are based on promotion of ‘social justice’ (e.g. better working conditions for the workers in developing countries). In this paper, I will outline four major benefits of Fair Trade consisted of self-formation of consumers, recreation of social and economic ties, opportunity for consumers to help out workers in developing countries and establishment of personal relationships between consumers and producers. Three major problems associated

3. Despite societies becoming interdependent, their interdependency is enveloped with a capitalist cover which always wants to gain more and more for self-intentions.Interdepency has been so encouraged even at international level where the whole world is viewed as being in a global village. However the developed countries have come up with a number of agreements such as the Washington Consensus, the World Trade Organisation, where trade between the western countries and the third world countries like Zambia has been encouraged but still in an exploitative ground. Zambia would supply primary produces such as copper to first world on very cheap world international market, which Zambians have no control over the pricing aspect meaning through interdendepency is there ,it has a face of selfishness…..

It opens new markets for domestic products and introduces new products in the domestic market. This is beneficial to both consumers and producers and in turn leads to an increase in national income. However, there are gains as well as losses. As developing countries have sizable populations that live in poverty and access to basic necessities is not a given, the impact of foreign trade on poverty becomes an important issue. Even if the national income increases, the impact on poverty cannot be overlooked. Theoretical as well as empirical evidence says that trade liberalization is poverty alleviating although it is not the strongest tool for poverty reduction, though it is the cheapest and most accessible (Winters et al 2004).

Trade is the act of buying and selling goods and services. This idea of trade became popular globally, starting the fair trade movement. According to FINE in 2001, fair trade is defined as a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency, and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers - especially in the South (Moore, Wilkinson, Redfern & Snedker). The fair trade movement originated in the late nineteenth century. It began as charitable organizations and political solidarity trading with poor communities in the 1940s until it expanded to become a movement in the 1960s-1970s. The movement was officially created when the leading traders and importers joined forces from multiple different countries. The movement was created to to import goods for trade. Fair trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade (Moore 73-74). The importance of the fair trade movement can be explained by the foundation of the movement, the goals of the movement, the obstacles of the movement, current organizations who follow the movement, and the overall movement itself.

Globalization is happening at the expense of social, environmental and employment developments, and is causing rising inequality for the majority of the earth. Localization, on the other hand, is a process that rearranges the trend of globalization by distinguishing the local and focusing more on the community. The policies bringing about localization are those which increase community cohesion, a reduction in poverty and inequality, and an improvement in livelihoods, social infrastructure and environmental protection, and a sense of security. On another level, there are troubling signs. That's because of a remarkable, but not surprising lack of equality in the benefits of globalization. While living standards have improved in many parts of the developing world, a new set of pressure is bearing down on the countries of the underdeveloped world.

The author describes the effects of globalization on income distribution in both rich and poor countries. International trade theory implies that increased trade and foreign investment should make income distribution more equal in poor countries, but the writer’s research has proven the opposite. Globalization portrays the diverse ideas of exchange of goods and services across nations’ borders. The primary objective of trade is to maximize the gains from trade for the parties engaged in the exchange of goods and services; it affects the livelihood of free countries, meaning that the lower the income the lower the life expectancy is. However, Milanovic argues that when looking at globalization’s effects we tend to neglect the poorer countries.

Opening up their economies to the global economy has been essential in enabling many developing countries to develop competitive advantages in the manufacture of certain products. In these countries, defined by the World Bank as the "new globalizers," the number of people in absolute poverty declined by over 120 million (14 percent) between 1993 and 1998.1

The fair trade concept, based on the idea of both economic activity and social development, is replete with ethical and sustainable echoes. Ransom (2002 p 20) asks, 'can the