The Globalization Paradox By Dani Rodrik

With global temperatures increasing simultaneously with increased liberation of cross-border trade, one cannot help but question whether the two are interrelated. Phillipe LeGrain, author of ‘Open World: The Truth about Globalization’, states that the world consumes roughly 70 percent more energy than three decades ago with consumption steadily increasing. Critics of globalization assert that government reduction of trade barriers are the main culprit behind global warming, at first glance this may seem entirely plausible but it is important to delve into the details to see the real reasons, especially considering the fact that trade barriers are continuously decreasing.

Steven Weber believes that “evils of globalization are even more dangerous than ever before.” In his article he describes what has gone wrong, gives reasons for the instability, and provides solutions.

When it comes to globalization, everyone may have a different vision of it’s outcome. For Marcelo Gleiser, the author of “Globalization: Two visions of the Future of Humanity”, a completely globalized world may result in a dystopia. In contrast, Jeffrey Wasserstrom, the author of “A Mickey Mouse Approach to Globalization” and Tanveer Ali, the creator of “The Subway Falafel Sandwich and the Americanization of Ethnic Food” may think of globalization as other cultures sharing each other’s components to interact on a new level and spurring a more “open-minded” (Ali 27) individual.

Globalization is interpreted in many complex ways due to how confusing it can be for people to understand. Thomas Friedman wrote the article, “Globalization: The Super Story,” to explain how the three balances are the foundation of globalization. In Laurence Rothenberg’s article, “Globalization 101: The Three Tensions of Globalization,” Rothenberg explains what the three tensions are and how they have affected the world. By analyzing Friedman’s and Rothenberg’s articles and how globalization affects culture identity, effects will be brought to a better understanding.

James Howard Kunstler is an environmental author residing in the state of New York. He contributed a piece to The Guardian Weekly, in 2005, entitled, “Globalization’s Time Is Up”, which acknowledges that our social infrastructure hangs by a thread, and that thread is cheap energy and global peace. Globalization, Kunstler notes, and its irresponsible consumption of linear resources, will drive humanity to war, in the race for the worlds remaining oil. His argument is a strong but there is an enthymeme left unaddressed. Business ethics, linearity and planned obsolescence are problematic attitudes within the essay’s arguments but Kunstler never emphasizes on them beyond colorful words and finger pointing “cheerleaders”. The author also fails to supply solutions to the issues he raises, which leaves readers numb and helpless. Nonetheless, he touches base on things that most of us refuse to admit in order to keep our comfort zone intact. It is neglected facts like these that have led us into an age of ignorance and that is strange considering we live in a time where information is more accessible than ever before, thanks to the internet.

Individual Identity: Every year my family tries to take a trip back to China in order to see family. On trip back played a big role in shaping my identity. In the summer of 2012 I had the daunting task of travelling alone China. This consisted of mastering the Chinese phrases needed to guide me along the way and some way of figuring out how to transfer flights. Surprisingly the hardest part was not finding my way it was merely being alone I found that I got very lonely in the long 14 hour trip and I needed to find a way to occupy myself in order to avoid loneliness. The things I learned from being lonely help form my identity. I found that the more I tried to push away the loneliness the more it just came

In Chapter Three of the Globalization Paradox, the author Dani Rodrick deconstructs the argument for free trade and suggests that free trade and prosperity don’t always go hand in hand. The argument, first put forward by Henry Martyn when he linked international trade to technological progress and concretized by David Ricardo when he produced his famous theory of comparative advantage, has many limitations. One assumption it makes is that laborers who lose their jobs in one industry will get employed by another. However, in the real world, the labor force is hardly that flexible and most of the workers who are let go remain unemployed for long periods of time. The argument for free trade also fails to calculate the true cost of producing a good, as many of the external costs generated (like environmental degradation) aren’t included in the calculation.

Provided the themes talked about in this course, “Greed, Globalization and the Gift,” various anthropologists offer informative explanations to how the economic and reciprocal system evolved throughout many decades. Anthropologists claim that through it’s earliest historical findings of societies (i.e. AD-21st Century), reciprocity played an important role when it came to human relations between one another, our moral remits and belief that goes along with it. Economic anthropologist such as David Graeber would coin reciprocity as various levels of morality, values and fairness, mutuality and balance within today’s society (Graeber 2011:91). In the economic aspect of reciprocity, social beliefs such as religion and culture influence the formulated

In 1999, the city of Seattle was swarmed with violent protesters in order to disrupt the World Trade Organization conference. The protesters were a mix of many groups, but all of the groups shared on ideal, anti-globalization. The protesters viciously destroyed buildings, streets, and caused a huge disruption in the city’s atmosphere. Although there are many globalization protesters, there are individuals who support globalization.

To what extent is our understanding of economic globalisation challenged or expanded by analysing the lived experience of global processes.

Is globalism vs. nationalism the ideological struggle of the 21st century? In the article “We Are Not the World”, Greg Ip provides the reader with compelling arguments that globalism is an ideology, and that the reaction against globalism, the belief that globalization is normal and good, surprised leaders on both sides of the left and the right. This is in part because these leaders do not believe that globalism is an ideology. However, Greg Ip argues that globalization is an ideology and provides the reader with an in-depth recounting of the beginnings of globalization. He also shows how these leaders have not been able to see the ill effects of globalization, and that the people against globalization have both social and economic

In today’s society the amount of technological and all around global advancements that have been made within a mere decade are astonishing, let alone what has yet to be constituted. Although not only the United States, but the entire world has globalized, it’s been proven that first world countries have an advantage in being able to heighten themselves quickly, opposed to third world countries that trail behind. Former U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, stated, “What is called globalization is really just another name for the dominant role of the United States” (Prompt), proving that globalization sets a fine line between the perks of those fortunate enough in a capitalistic nation and those who are not.

Neoliberalists consider the state as the most important actor in world politics and they admit that anarchy has an effect on state’s decision making but international organization makes each state to be cooperating. Also, as increasing common interests in the state, the international organization becomes necessary. Therefore, the WTO is created by “states to serve their self-interest” (Dunne, Kurki, and Smith 98) and the necessity of “increasing interdependence in a variety of global issue” (Dunne, Kurki, and Smith 91). In addition, for neoliberalists, the WTO provides the solution to overcome barriers for international cooperation.

‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what)’, portrays the speed in which globalism has increased through many different factors; economically, military, environmentally and socially. This is an idealist analytic approach, not set in stone. This leads on to

In regard to the issue of globalization, realist had a negative view about it. According to realism, globalization will only increase interdependence among states, causing insecurity (Kay, 2004). It also suggests that it will raise suspicion because the distribution of power is unequal, and it “favors the dominant international actors” (Kay, 13). The major challenge for realist is the role of power and the gains and loss of a state due to globalization. On one hand, a state can utilize globalization to advance their own interest and gain and exert power; on the other hand, interdependence can cause vulnerability which can lead to conflict (Kay, 2004). In a realist world globalization is basically a strategy in the competition for power between several major countries.