Stiglitz (2002) accuses the western world of hypocrisy, which pushed developing countries to eliminate trade barriers, and keeping their trade barriers to reduce exports from these countries. This certainly shows exploitation of the weaker countries. However coming from an Indian background, it is clear to me the opening of factories by western firm’s gives local’s employment opportunities that would not be available to them. This in turn reduces the poverty within these countries. Statistics show poverty declined from 28% in 1978 to 9% in 2000 in China. Whereas Indian statistics shows poverty decreasing from 51% in 1978 to 26% in 2000 (Bhagwati 2004). Bhagwati also set a framework maintaining ‘trade increases growth, and growth reduces poverty.’ Stiglitz (2002) argues, globalisation has not produced the promised benefits but he does not question that globalisation has benefited the poor.
By globalisation benefiting the poor it certainly has its knock-on effects. Coastal shrimp farmers in India although, this was helping to reduce poverty, were harming the surrounding mangroves because of discharge of chemicals. Whilst countries with not enough environmental protection laws have seen fly tipping and pollution at a great scale (Bhagwati 2004). It is argued poverty will lead to environmental degradation whilst environmental degradation leads to poverty (Stiglitz 2002). A huge reliance on resources and the increase of technology although has helped economic expansion, it has certainly led to environmental deterioration. As the population increases, the increase of travel, usage of resources, demand for products worldwide has led to an increase of the release of greenhouse gasses, along with climate change (Speth 2003). Maybe movies like 2012 and The Day after Tomorrow are ever relevant, with globalisation being a major cause of the downfall in our future, although the movie reference is certainly not relevant. Although it can be argued that an openness to trade and investment can provide developing countries with the incentive to adopt and give access to technologies which can put them on their way in being green (Speth 2003).
With technology being at the forefront of globalisation, it has created new job opportunities, increased trade and investment as well as communication channels. The advancement in technology has aided all areas of life including education and the health systems. New technology “has the potential to help people around the world overcome geographic or income barriers which currently degraded the quality of their lives. By dramatically increasing access information, the advances can enhance knowledge; break down barriers to participation”(Levin Institute 2000) However Scholte (2005) mentions “At present only about 15% of humanity accesses the Internet” with more households in the developed world having advanced technology, which shows there is a disproportionate distribution of technology in the world.
Understandably with the increase of technology, communication channels and the availability of media the world is becoming ever more integrated. On one hand globalisation can be a profoundly enriching process, opening minds to new ideas and experiences, and decreasing ignorance to other countries around the world (Levin institute 2000). However many argue against this saying cultures are being lost or ‘swallowed-up’. For many cultures the new diversity that globalization brings is unsettling and disempowering. People fear that countries are losing their traditional values and cultural identities. Society has become more submerged due to increase of travel and many argue the media. The fast growing popularity of American media cinema, music and TV has brought about change in attitudes, perceptions and change in the use of language, many argue the world is becoming, to an extent, “Americanised” (Bhagwati 2004).
However Rothkopf (1997) argues "Globalization promotes integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it." In a sense globalization will make people more open-minded and people will be able to view the world from a far broader perspective.
The very nature of globalisation is very unpredictable and therefore inherently unstable. Whether it can be sustained is a difficult question to answer. Although it has provided many benefits to the world it has certainly been detrimental to other areas of the world. In order to sustain globalisation and bridge that gap between the rich and poor, regulation needs to be in place, whether in employment, environmental or even trade policies. This may help control exploitation of workers and resources, and could benefit those in less developed countries.
My opinion, Globalisation is an inevitable process, and it would be foolish for us to resist. It doesn’t have to be seen in a negative light. Globalisation should be recognised for its ability to bring the world together and create greater integration, and help the world become economically and socially stable.
Word count: 1000 words
References
Bhagwati, J (2004). In Defense of Globalization, New York: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, R (2006). International Business, New Jersey: Prentice hall
Levin Institute. (2000). Technology Issue brief. Available: [Accessed 19 November 2009]
Rothkopf, D. (1997). In praise of cultural imperialism. Available: [Accessed 19 Novemeber 2009]
Scholte, JA (2000). Globalization: a critical introduction: Palgrave Macmillan.
Septh, J (2003). Worlds Apart: Globalization And The Environment: Island Press.
Stigliz, J (2002). Globalization and its discontents, London: Penguin Group
