The Repercussions Of Globalization

The article, “The Other One-Third of The Globe” written by Ben Finney, brings up many interesting points that relate to the world today. Throughout the article, numerous ideas, relatable to present day, are discussed including ideas involving technology, skill, and Eurocentrism. It is not just these thoughts alone that is so interesting, but their absence and presence in the twenty-first century, as ideas grow and skills are lost.

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).

On the contrary, taking a more critical view on the effects of globalisation, the findings seem to differ. The fact is that globalisation is pretty much centralised on only a few countries run by a handful of governments. China and India, For example, have been the only two countries to realise any advancements in terms of development and poverty eradication through globalisation, whilst trade openness has led to a rise in income inequalities and generally very uneven gains in the South American regions. And one entire continent, Africa, has actually become more marginalised (Tsikata, 2001, p. 12). The governmental and economic institutions of the developing countries, especially the latter, put them at a disadvantage where weak political, economic and legal structures led to wide spread corruption, conflict and insecurity. Whereas, developed countries already had good infrastructures coupled with high levels of skilled labour, managerial competence and advanced technology making it almost impossible for developing countries to compete. For example, the Japanese government vs. Indonesian government car industry case at the WTO (Kompas, 19 July 1999 ed.).

This story focuses on 5 moments that shaped global agriculture and how these moments build up to form computers that are used by farmers today. Barndt (2002) moments are; The scientific moment and colonialism (16th & 17th). During this time, Descartes (b. 1596) & Bacon (b.1561) argued that “nature was separate from culture and spirit, which was separate from matter was to be concurred and subdued.” They suggested that it was okay to destroy nature because humans were gods to this planet and can do whatever they want. But Sharma & Springer (1989), Shiva (b.1952), challenged Descartes (b.1596) & Bacons (b.1561) theories claiming that this land that we occupy and are destroying is not ours and we are all visitors, therefore exploring it serves more of a crime than a good.

In theory, globalization should help contribute to the equality of the global economy. Yet this is not the case in reality. Globalization contributes to unsustainable prosperity for a very small percentage of the world’s population. For those in developing countries, it is especially unsustainable. The resources in these areas are consumed at an unstable rate and the environment given very little consideration. The workers are treated as if they are expendable. The smaller economies of these countries are vastly taken advantage of. For these reasons, globalization contributes to sustainable prosperity to a small extent.

Globalization over the past twenty has become an issue in many countries. This industrialization of second and third world countries by Western Civilization creates many opportunities for the inhabitants. Not only does it expand trading markets, but also promotes productivity and efficiency; thus improving the country and integrating it into the industrial world. This process not only benefits third world counties, but also industrialized nations by allowing them to export goods to the developing world and increase their profit margin.

When thinking of a developing nation, several advancements for the benefit of society come to mind, however the negative effects, which can often

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

For our Global Studies 1 spring final project we had to think of a thesis that used “Through my history and English courses, I have learned...” as a starting/expansion point. We were to write journals that responded to different open ended questions about the process of this project and about our experiences in this course. The main part of the project is the product which was a medium of our choice that exhibits a meaningful point of connection for you between history and English this year. My product for this project is a website. It is a multilayered bubble map/mind map that demonstrates, through each English book and history unit, that when you analyze a conflict, large or small, deep down, moral obligation plays a big part in the outcome and the cause. I explored the cause of each conflict and major event in each English book and history unit, and walked the viewer down a path that shows to the root cause, moral obligation.

Here, researchers looked at data in global income inequality over the past 200 years. By looking at the evidence, Oatley comes to the conclusion that globalization has indeed resulted in the increasing inequality gap with increasing wealth for the rich, which in turn has resulted in the increasing poverty for the poor. According to Oatley, globalization has also transformed social inequality from simply being a local problem (state based) to being an international one. This is to say that wealth is globally being accumulated by the wealthy from the poor. Here, the net effect of globalization appears to be bad. This is not only because of the fact that inequality is on the increase, but also because it has significant impacts on different nations in general. This is to say that globalization leaves various third world countries at the mercy of other wealthy nations. For instance, although the global south (developing and third world countries) are dependent on the developed nations, they are also the producers of raw material and even labor. However, raw materials are sold cheaply to the developed nations, where they are processed and refined and then re-sold at high profit margins. While the developing nations and other third world countries will indeed see some benefits here, it is

The global wealth distribution continues to be defined by a massive inequality of wealth between advanced capitalist countries and the least developed countries. The gap between the thirty richest and the thirty poorest countries, in per capital income has grown from 17:1 in 1980 to 27:1 in 2002 . Despite massive aid and trade liberalisation programmes, development strategies in poor countries have not resulted in sustainable economic development but have instead resulted in ‘massive underdevelopment and impoverishment, untold exploitation and oppressions’ . Despite the success of some newly industrialising countries, most notably China, many of the world’s poorest countries continue to be reliant on the export of raw materials and agricultural

Globalization has been accompanied by terrorism and economic inequality. Many critics of globalization argue that the western model for development has failed to anticipate and act on the previously mentioned issues. There have been positive and negative outcomes from globalization and trade agreements. Some of the negative outcomes have been environmental degradation and inequality. There has been unsustainable growth partly because environmental degradation has been coupled with economic growth. The measurements of GDP and growth of income

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ is one that has faced heated debates for decades now. A seemingly harmless concept, it raises a lot of questions as to what it really entails and how exactly it can be achieved. But with more than 1.3 billion people living in abject poverty (less than $1.25 a day), and with a reported 22,000 children dying every day as a result of poverty (UNICEF), the debate for Sustainable Development becomes interesting as it questions the extremity of economic growth policies, in the war against poverty. Many note economic growth and development as the only tool for poverty alleviation. Roemer and Gugerty, for example, report that GDP growth of 10% per year is associated with income growth of 10% for the poorest 40% of the population. However, others question the extent to which economic growth should be put above other socio-economic factors. Lele points out that the focus on economic growth has led to important ecological and social sustainability, taking the backseat. He argues that due to strong emphasis on economic growth, not enough attention is paid to social equity, and economic stability within the development discourse.

Lack of development in countries in the so-called `Third World' has many political and economical reasons. Historians explain the inadequacy of developing countries with the early imperialism and the resulting colonization of the South. Exploitation of mineral resources, deforestation, slavery, and the adaptation of foreign policies shaped the picture of today's suffering and struggling civilizations and natural rich continents. The omission of concessions and equal negotiations between dependency and supremacy give rise to the contrast of enormous resources and immense poverty in developing countries is. In the last years the outcry of justice and the emancipation of the Third World became louder throughout developing and industrialized

The developing nations were often seen as periphery whereas the developed nations are seen as the core. Mainly because the less developed countries were targeted for their resources. Resources, such as, agriculture, tourism, or a place to operate a strategic, military base. All this is just another way of saying that the developed nations were exploiting the developing nations through their people, products and resources both natural and manmade. All that this accomplished was to make the developing nations more wealthy and the developing nations were provided jobs but at the expense of people both local and rural and immigrants in search of jobs that led to over population, lack of housing and shortage of jobs. This of course leads to more problems that the developed nations have experienced and dealt with and have almost succeeded in solving completely but the developing nations have yet to find their own solutions to deal with