Aside from economic benefits, it can be argued globalization has helped to bring the world together, by increasing recognition for the need for ‘transnational cooperation’ to tackle issues which transcend territorial borders, such as pollution, drug trafficking and terrorism. Therefore, global institutions, such as the United Nations, have been used as a platform for nations to work together to tackle such issues. Increased cooperation to tackle transnational issues makes it increasingly likely that nations will also use such platforms to communicate with each other in other areas of interest, rather than use force or other hostile methods. Successful examples of transnational cooperation include ‘The International Convention on the Elimination of Child Labour,’ which involved the cooperation of delegates from a number of countries to create international labour codes to protect child workers.
Advancements in global communications, particularly with regards to the internet, email, and video-calling have made it increasingly easy for like-minded people with common interests, from across the globe, to come together to spread ideas and information. Such advancements have facilitated the creation of a ‘transnational civil-society’, consisting of non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the International Chamber of Commerce, which work to promote their interests with little regard for territorial boundaries. For example, the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign in 2005, in which concerts where held across major world capitals to pressurize G8 leaders to eliminate debts of developing nations, was not only a symbol of a growing global society, but was an event facilitated by modern international communications infrastructure. The concerts were organized in London, staged across 8 nations, and were watched by 3 billion viewers worldwide.
However, critics of globalization point to growing inequalities between the ‘North and South’ and between classes within nations, to argue that globalization has been a distinctly uneven process, which has brought benefits to some more than others.
Critics point to there being ‘asymmetrical globalization.’ As is stated in ‘The Globalization of World Politics;’ “as a highly asymmetrical process globalization exhibits a distinctive geography of inclusion and exclusion.” Thus, the positive benefits of globalization reach rich industrialized nations far more than developing nations. Only the richest members of industrialized countries can truly benefit from international travel, transborder products and technology, whereas for much of the rest of the population, globalization is synonymous with a feeling of disempowerment, as workers face increased competition for jobs from abroad.
Inequalities between North and South are further exacerbated by a system of ‘distorted global politics,’ whereby the most powerful states in the international system, which have the most influence over decision making institutions, have the greatest control over the agenda of international politics. As is summarized in ‘The Globalization of World Politics;’ “International Institutions, including organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the G8 and the EU, will manage globalization but in the interests of their most powerful members ” Examples of ‘distorted politics’ include the rise in US Interest Rates in 1979, when the US Federal Reserve raised rates to stem inflation in the American economy. The growth of global capital markets during the 1970’s created large financial flows, which found their way to the governments of developing nations who were offered loans at low rates. However, the abrupt rise in US Interest Rates meant many governments found themselves in a position whereby they could not repay the loans. Upon the request of the United States, the IMF was called in to ensure that the developing countries would not default on these loans and developing nations were instructed to make ‘structural adjustments’ to their economies, including curbing government expenditure and reducing inflation. These principles went against Keynesian economic principles for the need to raise demand in economies via government intervention. Thus this example serves to highlight the notion that international institutions, which symbolize the new globalized world, primarily work to serve the interests of their most powerful members.
Further criticisms of globalization being a destructive force come from the Marxist strand of ‘world-system theory,’ promoted by thinkers such as Immanuel Wallerstein. This school asserts that there is an exploitative relationship between a ‘dominant core’ in industrialized countries, which own the means of production, and the ‘subservient periphery’ in less developed nations. This notion criticizes the assumption that global trade and production has had universal benefits, as it claims that capitalists in developed nations will exploit workers in periphery nations in order to maximize profits. Proponents point to the existence of ‘Sweat Shops’ in developing nations, whereby workers in foreign-owned factories are forced to work in harsh conditions, with little pay, in order to increase profits for firms in developed nations, as proof of their theory.
Thus critics argue that there is an irregular incidence with globalization, with benefits not being experienced everywhere to the same extent. They also dismiss claims that multination enterprises will choose to invest in developing nations, where wages are low and labour is plentiful, citing that evidence shows that most MNEs choose to invest in developed countries, where they can take advantage of higher-skilled workers, better infrastructure and gain from external economies of scale. For instance, the ‘United Nations Information Service’ cites that in 2002, the developed nations hosted “two thirds of world inward FDI stock ($4.6 trillion), mainly distributed in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.”
Therefore there are strong arguments which support the notion that globalization is a destructive force which mainly benefits capitalist elites in developed nations, to the detriment of workers in poorer nations.
In summary, the economic benefits from liberalization, such as increased consumer choice, lower prices and employment via FDI, must not be overlooked. Globalization is a process which has helped bring peoples from all corners of the globe closer together via advanced communications technology. The resultant interconnectedness of nations has also decreased the chances of conflict between nations as countries share more common interests and because the costs of breaking these ties have increased. However it must be noted that many times, because of the system of ‘distorted politics,’ benefits from globalization reach certain parts of the world more than others. This has resulted in calls for a project of ‘cosmopolitan democracy,’ to reform and regulate the system of global governance to ensure that the process of globalization works to promote the interests of the whole world, rather than the interests of the few. (1500 words)
Bibliography:
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford University Press 2008)
Porter, Keith, ‘Globalisation: What Is It?’ (2003) at (accessed 19.02.09)
Harford, Tim, ‘The Undercover Economist’ (Little Brown 2006)
World Investment Report, ‘Developed Countries Dominate World FDI Stock’ (2003) at (accessed 19.02.09)
Porter, Keith, ‘Globalisation: What Is It?’ at http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/trade/a/whatisgz.htm (2008)
Harford, Tim, ‘Beer, Chips and Globalisation’ in ‘The Undercover Economist’ (Little Brown) (2006) Page 226
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford, 2008) Page 22
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford, 2008) Page 257
World Investment Report, ‘Developed Countries Dominate World FDI Stock’ (2003) at (accessed 19.02.09)
