• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Whether we call it "globalization" or "inter-nationalization", very few people, organizations or states stand to benefit' To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Whether we call it "globalization" or "inter-nationalization", very few people, organizations or states stand to benefit' To what extent do you agree with this statement? Globalization is without doubt it is a "buzz" word of the time - it is a word that seems to be constantly mentioned in the news on the television or radio. But what does living in a "globalized" world really mean? As a starting point this essay will attempt to interpret its meaning by applying four main theories and using these theories to discuss the impact of globalization on individuals, organisations and states. It will go on to explore three different perspectives on global change and how each perspective might view its effects including identifying possible weaknesses in their arguments. This will enable a decision to be made as to what extent the question "whether we call it "globalization" or "inter-nationalization", very few people, organisations or states stand to benefit can be agreed with. Globalization can be characterized by four distinctive features. First it involves a stretching of social, political and economic activities across nation-state boundaries. What is happening on what might be geographically the other side of the world, affects the other and specific local developments can have considerable global consequences. Examples of this would be global climate change, environmental issues such as pollution into the atmosphere and oceans, poverty etc. ...read more.

Middle

There is no doubt that many developing countries have increased their share of world trade as a result of globalization although this may be at the detriment of the poorer countries. There are three positions which all have a different perspective on the term globalization; these are the globalist, inter-nationalist and transformationalist and all three have strengths and weaknesses to their arguments. Globalists on the whole see Globalisation as something that is real and is happening - that changes are happening socially and economically and that it is an inevitable, irreversible development that should not be resisted. But globalists themselves fall into two categories - optimistic/positive globalists and pessimistic globalists. Optimistic/positive Globalists view it as a process that is beneficial. They would probably disagree with the statement that very few people, organizations or states stand to benefit because they welcome the changes that it brings such as improvement on the quality of life, raising living standards and the bringing together of societies and cultures - promoting a better understanding of each other. They acknowledge that globalisation is not all good news, that with it issues such as global environmental pollution, for example, but want citizens to take responsibility for their actions, to look for ways of minimising the damage through their own actions and through the use of new technologies. ...read more.

Conclusion

A strength of the transformationalist is that they see sovereignty as having to be shared among other private and public agencies. They would probably sit on the fence as to whether people, organizations or states stand to benefit from globalization. Some people do benefit, some don't. Some organisations benefit, some don't, and so on. It might depend on who you are, what you are, where you live etc. A weakness of the transformationalist would be that they are somewhat blinded by the scale of global inequalities that are developing as a result of rationalisation as they tend to have more of a "regional" focus. The word "globalization" seems to have come from no where to be almost everywhere. Globalisation is political, technological, cultural and economic, it affects everyone and its effects can be seen everywhere. There are winners and losers but with reference to the original question in the introductory paragraph personally it would have to be a disagreement with this statement. Globalization is not something that should be shirked but the challenges it presents need to be controlled because it is now part of the way we live and it's not going to go away. Metaphorically speaking it may mean a shrinking world but it is creating something that has never existed before and it is without doubt changing our world, for better or worse, no matter where or whom we happen to be. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level UK, European & Global Economics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level UK, European & Global Economics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Is Increased globalization a good thing?

    5 star(s)

    Technologies have made it possible to make immediate contact with each other, irrespective of their location on earth and regardless of the state borders that might lie between them. Another benefit of globalization is the creation of the 'global culture'.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Is a process of globalisation unifying the world around common interests or is it ...

    3 star(s)

    which unite millions across the globe around common goals. For example, Greenpeace has united parts of the globe around environmental concerns. This exemplifies that the globe is not just unified around cultural interests, but also political ones. In fact globalisation has three dimensions: cultural, political and economic. Looking at the advantages globalisation has to offer in these other realms,

  1. 'Anarchy is what states make of it' (A Wendt) Do you agree?

    The behavior of the state in this self seeking egotistical manner is understood to be merely a reflection of the people that comprise the state.1 It is only human nature to want to win and to dominate, and it is this human nature that apparently explains why international politics is necessarily power politics.

  2. The positive and negative effects of Globalization

    This does not necessarily lead to beneficial development of areas where these companies choose to 'set up'. The United Nations state the level of benefit that globalization brings depends upon the strength and effectiveness of the government and the stability of domestic institutions.

  1. Is globalization a new phenomenon in world politics?

    and depressions throughout the world between the 1920's and 50's, many factors of globalization had gone into reverse with many tariffs being once again implemented. However, once the Second World War had finished, globalization went into overdrive with the same factors as before but this time new factors were emerging.

  2. "Legal control of multinational corporations: problems and prospects".

    For example, what would happen if a national law compelled discrimination on grounds of gender or religion, or prohibited trade unions? To what extent should a corporation be legally obliged to break a countries domestic law to avoid penalty from international law, and would they have just cause in escaping penalty if they refused to break the national law?

  1. To what extent was Pitt responsible for the national revival after 1783?

    easier terms than before, and that duties on other types of goods such as silk and wine would be lowered. The treaty certainly enabled Britain to gain the benefit of lower prices of French products imported into Britain. As a result of the treaty it meant that international relations increased,

  2. Corruption and Globalisation - Both of them have been so pervasive in recent years. ...

    In desperation and by necessity these individuals take bribes to augment their incomes. To maintain power - some leaders of autocratic governments resort to taking bribes in order to continue their rule and maintain their ostentatious lifestyle. The bribes, provides funds to pay off a few political allies and some

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work