'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?

Authors Avatar

TMA 04                  Jennifer Verney

March/April  2006                Personal ID: R6402528

‘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. We are all losers in terms of global problems such as pollution - acid rain, toxic waste etc and it extremely daunting to think that we are totally limitless in our control of them.  For example, in April 1986 an accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the USSR.  This caused a cloud carrying radioactive particles to hit Britain.  Ten years on, as a result of the fall-out, 70,000 sheep in Cumbria remained contaminated (Cochrane, A. and Pain, K. (2004), p.18).  

Second, it is marked by the intensification of flows of trade.  Technological developments have accelerated over the past 20 years – the introduction of mobile phones, the internet, satellite television means that communication across the planet is virtually instantaneous. There are hundreds of satellites floating above the earth, each one carrying a huge amount of information.  Physical distance is no longer an issue – we are being brought much closer to news/issues/events from around the world – this could be seen as good or bad although for the ones that have it, access to much more information has to be a good thing.  Losers would undoubtedly be people without internet access and organisations with a less developed communication infrastructure.  The way people work is changing – working from home is now much more viable and this has to be a good thing for individuals and companies because it provides more flexibility all round.

Join now!

Third, it can be linked to increasing interpenetration or the bringing together distant cultures and societies face to face with each other at local level, good examples of this would be Microsoft, Coca Cola, McDonalds and Starbucks.  This could be seen as good or bad, many people don’t like the fact that these huge companies put smaller privately owned companies out of business and that everything is becoming so uniformed - local places with “character” are being lost. Global trade on the whole is increasing which may mean more jobs, better employment prospects for some but on the down sound ...

This is a preview of the whole essay